|
[ 37 ctd. ]
[Joseph Smith III Testimony]
47 Joseph Smith of lawful age being produced, sworn, and examined on the part of the plaintiff, testified as
follows, in chief: --
I live at Lamoni, Decatur county. Iowa; lived there since the fall of 1881. Prior to that time I lived at Piano, Kendall county, Illinois. I
lived at Plano, Illinois, from 1866, to 1881. I lived at Nauvoo, Illinois, from 1839, to 1866. I lived in Missouri a while and in Ohio a
while; but I was very young at that time. I am the son of Joseph Smith, who was the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints. I was born November 6, 1832, at Kirtland, Ohio.
I am the President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and its Presiding Elder, and am also engaged as the
Editor of their church publication called the Saints' Herald. I have been the Presiding Elder of that church since April 6, 1860.
The way the Reorganization of the Church of Latter Day Saints was effected, and the parties that effected the reorganization are in
substance as follows: --
It began in the year 1851, as I understand it, by the meeting together of persons who were, or had been members of the church,
[ 38 ]
but who refused to recognize the western authorities, by their convening themselves together and conferring in regard to the
conditions as they then existed. After they had done this, they issued a call, or an appeal, to the scattered members of the church, and
they met in conference in the year 1852, and appointed some of their members as missionaries, and sent them out to look after the
scattered individuals.
I became acquainted personally with the movement sometime in 1856, by the visit to me of two of them. I united with them in the
spring of 1860, on April 6. I met with them in conference at Amboy, Lee county. Illinois. I had been baptized into the church by my
father in the fall of 1843, or the spring of 1844, the date I do not recollect, and have no record of the date. I was received into the
Reorganized Church, like others, on my original baptism, and became identified with the movement, and was chosen to preside over
its reorganization, and was ordained as a high priest, and chosen to preside over the body, and ordained by them.
William Marks. Zenas H. Gurley, Sr., and W. W. Blair, are the ones who officiated at the ordination. William Marks was a member of
the original church, I recollect him as being a member as long as I can remember any man outside of my own family. Zenas H.
Gurley was a member of the original church in my father's day, but I did not know him then, but I knew William Marks well. At the
time I knew William Marks in Nauvoo, he was a high priest and presided over the stake at Nauvoo, and over the High Council of the
stake. He was presiding officer over the stake and the High Council there at Nauvoo. That was the highest office in the local
organization. ,
I do not know personally what position Gurley held in the old church, further than by general reputation.
48 The meeting at Amboy, Illinois, at which I united with the church was the yearly conference of the
organization, the General Annual Conference.
I was chosen as the presiding officer of the church, by a motion being made to that effect, and put to the vote of the conference, by a
motion and vote of the people there assembled -- the vote on the motion properly made by some person, and properly seconded,
which was put to the meeting by the presiding officer. The vote was taken by a show of hands, and the vote was unanimous.
My recollection is now that Zenas Gurley, Sr., was the presiding officer at that time. William Marks was present, but I believe Zenas
Gurley, Sr. was the presiding officer of that conference.
The conference was composed of persons who had been members' of the old church principally, together with the number that had
been baptized by means of their preaching. There were persons there from other States than Illinois; there were members present
from Wisconsin, from Iowa, from Illinois, and there may have been members from other States.
[ 39 ]
There were present at that conference, that were members of the church, possibly one hundred and fifty (150) people; there may have
been more. The meeting was in a hall, and it is hard to say how many were present, but I think there were at least that many.
Besides Elders Marks and Gurley there were quite a number present, who were members of the old church, but I cannot state the
number definitely. Among the people that were present were Elders Isaac Sheen, Dwight Webster, Zenas Whitcomb, Israel L. Rogers,
and Hiram P. Brown. I do not know that I can now recall to mind the number, but at that time I doubtless remembered and knew who
were there that were members of the old church.
I can only make an estimate as to the number of elders, high priests, and other officers of the old original church who had united
themselves with the reorganization prior to 1860. I can only approximate the number, but there must be some thousands of them.
50
The major part of that body were members of the old church, and had united themselves with the reorganization either before or since
1860. I cannot say as to the period prior to 1860, but since that time there has been a great many of them united with the church as it
now exists.
My Uncle William Smith, and his three sisters, and the husband of the youngest of them, Arthur Milliken, William Aldrich, John
Gaylord, John C. Gaylord, Archibald Wilsey, Asa Manchester, and a great many others have united with the Reorganized Church,
who were members of the old church. How many in the aggregate I am unable to say. Those are the ones I remember at the present
time. They are not all, by any means; I might think of a great many more if I had time to think it over.
After my father's death, my mother remained at Nauvoo, until in the fall of 1846, September, I think. At the time of the disturbance
there, we then moved north to Whitesides county, where we remained until February, 1847; we then returned to Nauvoo, and
remained there.
My father's mother went to Knoxville, Illinois, and resided there a while with her daughter. She remained there and at Nauvoo and
Colchester, with my family and her youngest daughter, until she died, about 1855.
My Uncle William removed first to Knoxville, then near Amboy, and from there to Pennsylvania, and finally settled some twenty
(20) odd years ago in Clayton county, Iowa, where he is living at the present time.
My father's brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, both left families. The family of Hyrum and a part of Samuel's family went to Salt Lake
Valley. Part of Hyrum's family did not remove immediately, but his oldest daughter went in 1860 or 1862 to Salt Lake Valley.
The three (3) sisters of my father did not leave Illinois at all; they did not go west. They with their children remained in Illinois, and
51 Catherine is still living there, but the other two are dead. Two of
[ 40 ]
my father's brothers were living at the time he died, Samuel and William. Samuel died soon after my father, about two months later.
William is still living, or was up to a day or two ago. He is a member of the Reorganized Church, and all the family united with the
Reorganized Church, excepting my grandmother, and she died in 1855, before I became connected with it.
My mother went with me to the Amboy conference in 1860, she was received as a member at the same time I was. She was a member
of the original church. I mean, when I say the subject of the Reorganization of the church came to my knowledge in 1856, that before
that I had simply heard a rumor of-the gathering of the people, and the work of reorganization. I heard of it at that time, or before that
time; but at that time they brought a particular message to me, and asked me to come and join with the movement.
Samuel Gurley, son of Zenas Gurley, and Edmund C. Briggs came to see me. When I went to the Amboy conference in 1860, the first
thing done in which I was personally interested was, I made application to be received upon my original membership, and it was so
done upon motion and vote, and my mother was received the same way. Both were received as members, and our original
membership acknowledged at that time. After I became a member by vote of the conference, I was, by the vote of the body, ordained
to the Melchizedeck priesthood, or made a High Priest, and was then chosen to preside over the priesthood and the church. I was
chosen to preside by vote of the people. That vote was taken upon a motion properly put to the conference, and voted upon, and
declared carried. I think the vote was taken by uplifted hand, in the same method as the former vote.
I was ordained at that conference by President Marks, 52 Zenas Gurley, and W. W. Blair. They officiated at
the ordination. President Marks was at that time a High Priest. He was a High Priest in the original church, and at the time I was in Nauvoo,
he was President of the Stake, and also President of the High Council, at the time of my father's death I mean.
From the time of the disorganization of the old church, up to 1860, and 1861, there were two branches of that church that remained
intact; one in the northern part of Illinois and the southern part of Wisconsin, and one in Jeffersonville, m Wayne county, presided
over by Thomas P. Greene. Mr. Greene, with most of his members, were received into the Reorganized Church. Their branch was
organized about 1842.
I was about twelve years old when my father died, would have been twelve on the sixth day of November, and he was killed on the
27th day of June, 1844.
About my selection by my father to be his successor in office, I remember of being called in his office, or into a room adjoining his
office, and receiving the laying on of hands, and a prophetic blessing or setting apart, whatever it may be called. I remember that, and
[ 41 ]
also remember that just before his departure for Carthage, with a number of others, I was called into a room in the Mansion House,
and there again received the laying on of hands, and the blessing. I was also present at a meeting in the grove near the temple, and I
remember my father laying his hands on my head, and saying to the people that this was his successor, or was to be his successor. I
remember some of the parties that were on the stand, a few of them I remember, but I do not remember all of them. William Marks,
George J. Adams, and I think Willard Richards were on the stand at the time.
I am acquainted with the faith and doctrines of the original church, as they are laid down in the public records, and the books of the
church. I am also acquainted with the doctrine and faith of the Reorganized Church. I am also acquainted with the doctrine that was
preached when I was a boy, and was taught in the Sunday school.
So far as I can comprehend, the disruption and disorganization. of the church occurred from the apparent usurpation of authority on
the part of President Young, and some of his compeers, and the practice or private teaching of the doctrine, if it can be called a
doctrine, of the plurality of wives; to which practice and teaching a great many refused to accede, my mother and President Marks
being among the number, and others that I remember. It was culminating or rather brewing for some time, but culminated as I
understood it in the winter of 1846, when a great many members of the church refused to follow these teachings and withdrew.
53
The political troubles that occurred there at that time, I do not remember very much about, as I was too young to retain any very
distinct recollection regarding them, and I may say that about all I know is what I heard about that matter. They were driven out from
the city, and scattered around, and a great many of them were scattered all throughout Iowa, and this western country, and a great
many more went east and settled down in different places. The principal cause of this disruption and scattering of the church was due
to the introduction of doctrines, that were not in accordance with the published doctrine or faith of the church that the people had
been taught or baptized into. Volume 3 of the Times and Seasons, which is marked exhibit L, contains an epitome of faith of the
original church. It is found commencing with these words, "We believe," on page 709 of exhibit L, down to the words "after these
things," on page 710. It is as follows: --
"We believe in God the eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
"We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
[ 42 ]
"We believe that these ordinances are, 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2d, Repentance; 3d, Baptism by immersion for the
remission of sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
''We believe that a man must be called of God by 'prophecy,' and by 'laying on of hands' by those who are in authority to preach the
Gospel, and administer in the ordinances thereof.
''We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church; viz., apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.
"We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelations, visions, healings, interpretation of tongues, etc.
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important
things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
"We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the ten tribes. That Zion will be built upon this continent. That
Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaic glory.
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege,
let them worship how, where, or what they may.
54 "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining
the law.
"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the
admonition of Paul, 'we believe all things, we hope all things;' we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things.
If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of erood report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."
My father's name is signed to the epitome of faith about which I have been testifying. The pamphlet marked exhibit M is an
authorized publication of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and it contains the epitome of faith of the
Reorganized Church. The epitome of faith is found on pages 16 and 17 and reads as follows, omitting the references to the Bible and
other church publications shown therein: --
"EPITOME OF FAITH.
''We believe in God the eternal Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
''We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
"We believe that through the atonement of Christ all men may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
''We believe that these ordinances are, --
[ 43 ]
"1. Faith in God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ. "2. Repentance.
"3. Baptism, by immersion, for the remission of sins.
''4. Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
"5. We believe in the resurrection of the body; that the dead in Christ will rise first, and the rest of the dead will not live again until the
thousand years are expired.
"6. We believe in the doctrine of Eternal Judgment, which provides that men shall be judged, rewarded, or punished, according to the
degree of good or evil they shall have done.
''We believe that a man must be called of God and ordained by the laying on of hands of those who are in authority, to entitle him to
preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
"We believe in the same kind of organization that existed in the primitive church; viz., apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers,
evangelists, etc.
"We believe that in the Bible is contained the word of God so far as it is translated correctly. We believe that the canon of Scripture is
not full, but that God by his Spirit will continue to reveal his word to man until the end of time.
"We believe in the powers and gifts of the everlasting gospel; viz., the gift of faith, discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, healing,
visions, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues, wisdom, charity, brotherly love. etc.
''We believe that marriage is ordained of God, and that the law of God provides for but one companion in wedlock, for either man or
woman, except in cases where the contract of marriage is broken by death or transgression.
"We believe that the doctrines of a plurality and a community of wives are heresies and are opposed to the law of God. The Book of
Mormon says: 'Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord; for there shall not any man among you have
save it be one wife, and concubines he shall have none, for I, the Lord God delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are
an abomination before me saith the Lord of Hosts.'
"We believe that in all matters of controversy upon the duty of man towards God, and in reference to preparation and fitness for the
world to come, the word of God should be decisive and the end of dispute, and that when God directs, man should obey.
"We believe that the religion of Jesus Christ as taught in the New Testament Scriptures, will, if its precepts are accepted and obeyed,
make men and women better in the domestic circle; better citizens of town, county, and State; and consequently better fitted for the
change which cometh at death.
"We believe that men should worship God in spirit and in truth, and that such worship does not require a violation of the
constitutional law of the land.
''We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according
[ 44 ]
to the dictates of our conscience, allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, and what they may.'' -- Epitome of
Faith and Doctrine.
The two epitomes of faith are mainly alike. There are some 56 differences in the language that is used, and in
regard to the question of marriage, this matter being stated more fully in our reorganized epitome of faith, and in the enlargement of the texts
cited; but the principles are the same in both. I do not remember that there is any specific principle, in the epitome of faith of the original church,
that is not contained in the epitome of faith of the Reorganized Church, except as I stated before on the question of marriage, the
principle is the same, but it is enlarged in the epitome of faith, and specifically mentions the plurality of wives, which is not in the
epitome of faith in the original church. There is nothing stated at all in the original epitome of faith on that matter I believe.
The book handed me, marked exhibit E, is the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. It was published in 183."), and contains lectures on
faith and doctrine, and the commandments of God to the church, and the rules and regulations adopted by the church in 183"). The
doctrine of the original church with reference to marriage was monogamy; one man and one wife, one man and one woman only to be
united in wedlock. The doctrine of the original church as to marriage is found on page 251, section 101, of exhibit E. The subject of
the title is "Marriage." Section 10 prescribes the forms that shall attend the marriage ceremony, etc.; the duties of parents towards
their children, and of children to parents, etc.
There are other parts of this book that refer to the same subject. In paragraph 7, of section 13, of exhibit E, there is a commandment
to the church, and which is recognized by the church in reference to marriage. That is on pages 121 and 122, and on page 192,
57 paragraph 3. section 65 of exhibit E. there is a declaration in reference to marriage, or the connection
between husband and wife. The publication of the Doctrine and Covenants of the years 1845, 1852, 1854, and 1869, contain the same
statement with reference to marriage as the statement on that subject in exhibit E, the 1835 edition of the same book, it is the same in
every publication of the Doctrine and Covenants that is used in every faction of the church, that I know anything about, down to 1869. They
do not contain any other form or doctrine of marriage, than what is set out in exhibit E, that I now hold in my hand. There is no other form
of marriage indorsed or recognized than what is set out in exhibit E, and that reads as follows: --
"MARRIAGE.
"1. According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore, we believe that all
marriages in this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting or feast, prepared for that
purpose; and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding
[ 45 ]
high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married
by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their
determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
"2. Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thankgsiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing
together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the
Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: 'You both mutually agree to be each other's
companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is. keeping yourselves wholly for each
other, and from all others, during your lives,' and when they shall have answered, 'Yes,' he shall pronounce them 'husband and wife,'
in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him. May God add his
blessings, and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.
''The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch.
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church should be held sacred, and fulfilled. Inasmuch as
this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right
to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All
children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their
parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe 58 that all persons who exercise control
over their fellow beings and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin."
Paragraph 7, section 13, on pages 121 and 122 of exhibit E, is as follows: --
"And again I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. Thou shalt not steal; and he that stealeth and will not repent, shall be
cast out. Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent, shall be cast out. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall
cleave unto her and none else; and he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit,
and if he repent not, he shall be cast out. Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery and repenteth not, shall be
cast out; but he that has committed adultery, and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou
[ 46 ]
shalt forgive; but if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out. Thou shalt not speak evil of thy neighbor, nor do
him any harm. Thou knowest my laws concerning these things are given in my Scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be
cast out."
The book now handed me marked exhibit D is the Palmyra edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. It is the first edition
of the Book of Mormon that was published. The original church indorsed that book as a book of doctrine. The Reorganized Church
indorses and recognizes that book as one of its standard authorities on the question of doctrine, and has had it printed several times. I
do not really know that I could point out all the passages or references that there is in exhibit D on the question of marriage, but I
could give some of them. On pages 126 and 127 exhibit D there is an express declaration in regard to the question of having more
wives than one. It is declared that they are to be confined to one wife. That is found in the second chapter of Jacob, and is as follows:
"But the word of God burthens me because of your grosser crimes. For., behold, thus saith the Lord; this people begin to wax in
iniquity; they understand not the Scriptures; for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things
which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines,
which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine
arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer
that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord; for there shall
not any man among you have, save it be one wife: and concubines, he shall have none; for, I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity
of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of hosts."
59 That is about all that is necessary to quote, but there is more here in this same chapter that bears on the
same subject, but I think I have read enough to show that the practice of polygamy is expressly prohibited. Now on page 128 in the Book of
Ether, so called, there is also a reference to the same matter, and also on page 128. The reference on page 128 is as follows: "Behold, the
Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness, and the cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous
than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers, that they should have, save it were
one wife, and concubines they should have none; and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. And now this
commandment they observed to keep; wherefore, because of this observance in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not
destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a
[ 47 ]
blessed people. Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands, and their husbands and their wives love
their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers."
The facts are that every member of the church was under obligation to observe the marriage rules given in the Book of Mormon, in
the Book of Commandments and Covenants, and also as taught in the Bible, and always to obey the law of the land in regard to it.
With reference to the members of the church being under obligation to observe the marriage rules given in the books of the church,
the fifth paragraph, section 13 of exhibit E reads as follows: "And again, the elders, priests, and teachers of this church shall teach the
principles of my gospel which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the gospel; and they shall
observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit; and
the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith, and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach. And all this ye shall
observe to do as I have commanded concerning your teaching, until the fullness of my Scriptures are given," etc.
60 On page 123,
paragraph 16 of the same section is found the following with reference to the obligation of the members of the church to observe the
laws of the church: "Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my Scriptures for a law,
to be my law, to govern my church; and he that doeth according to these things, shall be saved, and he that doeth them not shall be
damned, if he continues."
And on this same subject, section 4, paragraph 8, exhibit E, reads as follows: "And your minds in times past have been darkened
because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received, which vanity and unbelief hath brought the
whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all; and they shall remain under
this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon, and the former commandments
which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written, that they may bring forth fruit meet for
their Father's kingdom, otherwise there remaineth a scourge and a judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion; for shall the
children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily I say unto you, Nay."
Answering the questions with reference to the priesthood, and how they are to be ordained, and by what authority, section 2 of the
second part, paragraph 17, of exhibit E reads as follows: "Every president of the high priesthood, or presiding elder, bishop, high
counselor, and high priest, is to be ordained by the direction of a high council, or general conference.
And on this same subject paragraph 11, section 3 of exhibit E reads as follows: "Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding
[ 48 ]
offices, growing out of, or appointed of, or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods. Of the
Melchizedek priesthood, three presiding high priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the
confidence, faith and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the presidency of the church. The twelve traveling counselors are called
to be the twelve apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ, in all the world; thus differing from other officers in the church
in the duties of their calling. And they form a quorum equal in authority and power to the three presidents, previously mentioned.
The seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles, and in all the world -- thus differing
from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling; and they form a quorum equal in authority to that of the twelve especial
witnesses, or apostles, just named. And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the
same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or
validity one with the other."
And on the same subject, section 5 paragraph 6 this same exhibit E reads as follows: "The president of the church, who is also the
president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged, in his administration, by the voice of the church; and it is
61
according to the dignity of his office, that he should preside over the council of the church; and it is his privilege to be assisted by
two other presidents, appointed after the same manner that he himself was appointed; and in case of the absence of one or both of
those who are appointed to assist him, he has power to preside over the council without an assistant; and in case that he himself is
absent, the other presidents have power to preside in his stead, both or either of them."
Paragraph 2 section 14 of exhibit E on the same subject reads as follows: "But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be
appointed unto this gift, except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his
stead; and this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or
commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto
you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations
which you have received, and shall receive through him whom I have appointed." The paragraphs and sections that I have referred to
in exhibit E are the same in the publication of the same book, published by the Reorganized Church, as they were in the 1835 edition.
The reading matter is the same, but the sections have been differently arranged -- most of them have. The sections are placed in
different order, but there is no change in text. The sections and
[ 49 ]
paragraphs also are given, so that one can find any reference in one book by comparing it with the other.
The book handed me marked exhibit N is the Church Record belonging to the Reorganized Church, and containing the minutes of"
some of the first conferences held, and also the record of the different branches of the church. The record of membership, etc.,
conference minutes, etc. That is the official record of the church so far as it has been held.
This record exhibit N, with reference to the belief of the Reorganized Church on certain questions, reads as follows: --
62
Resolution 5: ''Resolved that we believe that the Church of Christ organized on the 6th day of April A. D. 1830, exists as on that day,
wherever six or more saints are organized according to the pattern in the book of Doctrine and Covenants."
Resolution 6: "Resolved that the whole law of the Church of Jesus Christ is contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants," etc.
Resolutions: "Resolved that this conference believes it the duty of the elders of this church who have been legally ordained, to cry
repentance and remission of sins to this generation through obedience to the gospel as revealed in the record of the Jews, Book of
Mormon, and Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and to not faint in the discharge of duty."
Those are the resolutions passed at the General Conference about 63 which I have been interrogated, and
the book referred to therein as the record of the Jews is the Bible, the Old and the New Testaments.
I was present at the General Conference held in September, 1878. I do not know that I can remember specifically what was done. I do
not know that I can remember anything in reference to this record. I know there was something done in reference to the records of the
church, and the standard books, but my recollection is that it was in the way of reaffirming something that had been done prior to that
time; but I would not like to say from memory what was done. I was present and knew at the time the action taken, what was being
done, but just the things that were done I could not tell from recollection.
After having refreshed my recollection by referring to exhibit M offered and introduced in this case, I am compelled to state now
what was done. I presided at that meeting, and put the resolution when it was presented. The resolution was presented for recognizing
the standard books of the church, the Scriptures, Book of Mormon, and Book of Doctrine and Covenants. The books referred to, in
the action of that General Conference in 1878 were the same in text as the Book of Mormon, which is marked exhibit D in this case;
and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants which is marked exhibit E, and exhibit J being the 1880 edition of the book of Doctrine and
Covenants.
The paper now handed me and marked exhibit B is the Articles of
[ 50 ]
Incorporation of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of date June 6, 1891, and I was one of the
Incorporarators; my name is signed to these articles.
These are the Articles of Incorporation of the church from whose records I have been citing passages during the taking of my
64
deposition. The church government expressed in these Articles of Incorporation, is the church government of the church of which I
am the president. The articles of church government set out in the Articles of Incorporation above referred to are the same as the
articles of church government set out in the standard works of the church under exhibits D, J, and E.
And the order of church government as set out in the Articles of Incorporation of the Reorganized Church, dated June 6, 1891, is the
same order of church government as that set out in King James' translation of the Bible, which was introduced in this case, marked
exhibit C.
I do not know of any difference between the two, if there is any, it has escaped my attention.
I am familiar with the practice and usages of the church with reference to the acceptance of revelations by the church. On that subject
the usages and practice is, both in the original church of 1830 to 1844, and also in the Reorganized Church, that whatever purports to
be revelation is referred to the church for action to be taken on it by the church before it can be binding upon the body.
It must be examined by the leading quorums of the church, and be accepted by them before it can be presented to the body. If
accepted by these quorums, then it is presented to the body for its action, and upon their acceptance becomes binding upon the
church.
65 By the term quorum, I mean certain organizations of the ministry, such for instance as the First
Presidency, or the Quorum of Twelve. The first president of the church and his council form the first quorum, which consists of three members
when full. The next quorum is that of the Twelve, and is known as the twelve apostles, and when full contains twelve persons. The next quorum is
known as the Seventy, and it' may consist of seven quorums of seventy each, when full.
Now the matter of revelation is submitted to each of these quorums separately, to be examined by them separately, and when they
have decided, it is either accepted or rejected. They can of course examine the matter separately or conjointly, and after they have
passed on it, it is presented to the body and acted upon by the body of the church. If accepted by the body, it then becomes a law of
the church and binding upon the members.
Exhibit O now handed me is the Times and Seasons, published by the church at Nauvoo, Illinois. This is the official publication of
the church, from page 423 of exhibit O, under date of Thursday, February 1, 1844, is the following, which I now read in answer to
the question asked me: --
[ 51 ]
"NOTICE.
"As we have lately been credibly informed that an elder of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown,
has been preaching 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; and he is further notified to appear at the Special
Conference on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.
"Joseph Smith,
"Hyrum Smith,
"Presidents of said Church."
I was a member of the original church at the time the notice I have just read to the reporter was issued, and the book from which I have read,
being the Times and Seasons, exhibit O was held out by the 66 original church, as a church paper, and
authorized by the church, up to 1844, and it has been recognized since then by the Reorganized Church as the official publication of the original
church. It was understood to be so by me until the death of Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith in 1844, and has been so regarded by the
Reorganized Church, and by everybody else that has ever had anything to do with the church. Now that is my understanding of it.
The book exhibit O has always been regarded as an original and authorized publication of the church up to the time of the death of
Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and has been so treated so far as I am aware. Between the elders of the Reorganized Church and those of
other factions or churches, between myself and other factions of the same church and other churches, in all public and private
discussions, it was always regarded as the current, official, and authorized publication of the church up to 1844.
67 The attitude of the original church from 1830 to 1844, (June 27,) towards the government of the United States
is shown from the authorized books of the church as follows: Exhibit E, page 137: --
"Let no man think that he is ruler, but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the counsel of his own will: or in other words, him
that counseleth, or sitteth upon the judgment seat. Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God, hath no
need to break the laws of the land: wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until He reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues
all enemies under his feet. Behold the laws which ye have received from my hand, are the laws of the church; and in this light shall ye
hold them forth. Behold, here is wisdom."
Paragraphs 21, 22, and 23, of section 13, the same book, with reference to the same subject, are as follows: --
Paragraph 21: "And again, every person who belongeth to this Church of Christ, shall observe to keep all the commandments and
covenants of the church. And it shall come to pass that if any person among you shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with
[ 52 ]
according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness; and it shall be proven according to the laws of the land."
Paragraph 22: "And if any man or woman shall commit adultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church or more, and
every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church, and not of the enemy, but if there are more than
two witnesses it is better; but he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses, and the elders shall lay the case before
the church, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the law of God. And if
it can be, it is necessary that the bishop is present also. And thus ye shall do in all cases which shall come before you. And if a man
or woman shall rob, he or she shall be delivered up to the law of the land. And if he or she shall steal, he or she shall be delivered up
unto the law of the land. And if he or she shall lie, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of the land. If he or she shall do any
manner of iniquity, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law, even that of God."
Paragraph 23, "And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she
confess, thou shalt be reconciled. And if he or she confess 68 not, thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the
church, not the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world. And if thy brother or sister
offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many. And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may
be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God. If anyone shall offend in secret, he or
she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended,
and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her. And thus shall ye conduct all things."
That is not all that exhibit E contains with reference to this subject. There is a declaration of the attitude of the church in regard to
government. It is section 102 of this book, exhibit E, pages 252, 253, and 254, as follows: --
"OF GOVERMENT AND LAWS IN GENERAL.
"1. We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man, and that he holds men accountable for their acts in
relation to them, either in making laws or administering them, for the good and safety of society.
"2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual
the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property and the protection of life.
"3. We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same, and that such
[ 53 ]
as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people, (if a Republic.) or the will
of the Sovereign.
"4. We believe that religion is instituted of God, and that men are amenable to Him and to Him only for the exercise of it, unless their
religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to
interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil
magistrate should restrain crime but never control conscience; should punish guilt but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
"5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their
inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments, and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus
protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are
best calculated to secure the public interest, at the same time however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
"6. We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such -- being placed for the protection of
the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and
harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests
as individuals and nations, between man and man, and divine laws, given of heaven, prescribing rules or spiritual concerns, for faith
and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.
"7. We believe that Rulers, States, and Governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the
free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right, in justice, to deprive citizens of this privilege, or
proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence is shown to the laws, and such religious opinions do not justify
sedition or conspiracy.
"8. We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offence; that murder, treason,
69
robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their
tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offence is committed; and for the public peace and
tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.
"9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another
proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
"10. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal
[ 54 ]
with their members for disorderly conduct according to the rules and regulations of such societies, provided that such dealing be for
fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life,
to take from them this world's goods, or put them in jeopardy either life or limb, neither to inflict any physical punishment upon
them, -- they can only excommunicate them from their society and withdraw from their fellowship.
"11. We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for the redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is
inflicted, or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are
justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of
all persons, in times of exigencies, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
"12. We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption
of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them, contrary to
the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their
situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men: such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to
the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude."
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I have testified in answer to the interrogatories with reference to 70 the number of publications filed as exhibits
in this case, and among others have stated that the Book of Mormon is an authority in the church to which I belong. That is a fact, and I have
so stated it; and I have also stated that it was authority in the church before I left Nauvoo, Illinois.
The Reorganized Church uses the same edition of the Book of Mormon that the Nauvoo church did; the Palmyra edition published in
1830, and the Liverpool edition, one published by Mr. Huntley, -- I do not remember the date of the edition, -- and also one
published by ourselves. We regard these editions as authority. The one published by ourselves was in 1863 or 1864, and the edition
was issued either in Chicago or Cincinnati. We understand the subject matter in these editions to be the same.
My knowledge is that they are not identical in words; that is, they are not all identical as far as words go. There was an edition gotten
up in Nauvoo, at one time, and that edition is not exactly the same in words as the Palmyra edition, but the substance and teaching is
the same. We regard all the editions alike. We use this one, meaning the book in my hand, because it is versified and is more easily
handled on that account; but we have all of them, and they are of
[ 55 ]
equal authority with us, for there has been no specific change in any of them; that is, in any of the Books of Mormon, published by
anyone that I know anything about.
I have also testified that the book called the Book of Doctrine and Covenants is an authority in the Reorganized Church, and that the
same book was an authority in the original church prior to 1844. There are different editions of that book; all the edition that I have
seen that was used in the church prior to 1844, is the edition of 1835. The 1835 edition was published at Kirtland, Ohio; then there
was an edition of 1845, and 1846, published at Nauvoo, Illinois. 71 There were editions published in 1852,
and in 1854 in Europe. One was published by Albert Carrington in 1869. All these editions, 1835, 1845, 1846, 1852, 1854, and 1869, are
the same in substance so far as I have had an opportunity to examine them. Some of them I have examined thoroughly, and some I have
not examined so thoroughly; but to the best of my judgment they are practically the same.
There are what purports to be revelations in some of the later editions of the book of Doctrine and Covenants that are not in some of
the prior editions; but in so far as they have been published contemporaneously or purport to give the teachings of the church as it
existed in the time prior to the death of my father and Hyrum Smith, and which were authorized by the church to which we belong, or
by the body of the church, and were published in book form, they are identically the same.
Yes sir, I say that some of the later editions of the Doctrine and Covenants have subject matter in them that former editions do not
have, and in that regard they are not identically the same. I do not know that I can tell what editions of this book contain matter not in
the first edition published in 1835, and the editions published subsequent thereto in 1845 and 1846. I think, however, there was a
revelation said to be given sometime in 1834 that is not in the later editions. And in the edition published by us we have added
what has been given us in the way of direction and commandment, or what has been recognized by the church since 1844.
There is not much of the book composed of that matter, a few pages, possibly twenty-four pages in all. These new revelations are in
the book which has been presented in this case, and marked Exhibit J, and are regarded as authoritative by the Reorganized Church.
The edition marked Exhibit J was published in 1882. In 1878, 72 there was an authoritative declaration made
by the church authorizing the Board of Publication to insert these later revelations in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and ordering the
publication. The church was reorganized in 1852, and from 1852 to 1878 used the 1835, 1845, and 1846, editions of the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants. 'They contained all of the revelations that had been authoritatively received by the church up to that time.
The revelations given after the publication
[ 56 ]
of 1845, regarded as authoritative by the Reorganized Church, were given in 1861, 1863, 1865, 1873, 1882, and 1887.
At first these were not comprised in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and were not published until they were accepted and
authorized by the church. All that had been received up to 1878 were ordered printed in the book.
Now these revelations given from 1861 to 1882, after they were accepted by the church, became a rule to the church, and are
authoritative and binding upon the church, as much so as any given prior to June 27, 1844. They were accepted as authority by the
church, at least some of them prior to the time of their publication, and were accepted at the time of the revelation, or about that time.
In the Book of Doctrine and Covenants that is now the rule of action 73 in the Reorganized Church and
binding upon the church, there are certain rules and doctrines that are not found in the original book of Doctrine and Covenants published in
1835, 1845, and 1846, which references have been made in my examination, nor are they found in any book published before 1835 and 1836,
that I know anything about. The part to be found in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants now used and held as authority in the Reorganized
Church that is not found in the editions of 1835, 1845, and 1846, is simply revelations given in 1861, and thereafter; they have been
adopted by the church, but all other matters contained in these books are substantially the same.
The methods which were used in their adoption by the Reorganized Church required that they should be presented to the quorums,
and acted upon by them; they are then presented to the body, and accepted by the body in conference. The body in conference is the
membership assembled in conference. It is the official membership recognized as ex officio conference members and delegates
appointed by the different branches and districts of the churches forming the conferences,
The official membership of the conference is composed of the president of the church, the twelve, the high priests, the seventy, and
the elders; these are ex officio members of the conference; they attend and vote each for himself. They may be ex officio delegates or
not, or they may be lay delegates, or I should say lay members, and cast the vote of their district. Delegates are selected by the
branches and by the members of the districts at the district conferences. Branches are church organizations, or congregations they
may be called, I suppose. The districts are officially designated territories, composed of two or more branches contiguous to each
other. Branches are presided over by officers chosen by the branch in case there is an organization, districts by the person appointed
by the conference temporally; but usually one who may be selected by the members of the district and called the district president.
Each isolated branch is entitled to one representative, if there is only a few members in it; if the number of members is over twenty-five,
[ 57 ]
it is entitled to two members in conference. Districts are represented in conference by delegates chosen at their district 74
conferences. Branches and districts are the only organizations below the conference. The churches exist in the branches and districts,
where they are organized; but branches may exist without a district organization.
The next higher government in the order of the church above the district, is the General Conference. It represents the whole body of
the church everywhere. It means the church wherever it may exist, without reference to the location, or what country it may be in.
The General Conference represents the Church everywhere it exists, whether at home or abroad.
The quorum to do business in the conference, is the membership present, ex officio's, and delegates. There has never been any
designated number required to form a quorum. Proceedings of Annual Conferences are kept by secretaries; that is, they are kept
through a permanent secretary of the church being present, with his assistants, and keeping a record of the proceedings of the
conference. If he is not present the proceedings are kept by a person selected temporarily to perform that duty, and reported to the
secretary. The proceedings of the conferences are usually published to the church through the medium of the official publication or
organ of the church, but the written record itself is kept by the Secretary and Recorder of the church in his office.
I believe the proceedings of the conferences are uniformly published. At least they have been regularly published since my
connection with the church in 1860. I do not know that the minutes of the conference held by the Reorganized Church were published
prior to 1860, for the reason that the Reorganized Church had no official 75 organ prior to 1860. I cannot
say anything about the minutes of the conferences of the church from 1832 to 1844, only as I see them represented in the published
records or journals of the day.
I have never seen the records of the conferences held from 1832, to 1845, only as I have seen them published in the journals of the
day, the Times and Seasons and the Millennial Star. The Millennial Star was published at Liverpool, England. I
said that I had never seen any of the original official publications of the conference minutes of the church from 1830 down to 1845, unless
it has been in the current journals of the time. I have never seen the written originals. I do not know whether the proceedings of the conferences I
have seen in the publications before referred to are authentic or not, but I have no doubt but that they are authentic. I do not know it
from my own knowledge.
I do not know what became of these records of the church prior to 1844. We have in our possession one of the minute books of the
church, the record of the First Quorum of Elders. There was a record kept by a Mr. Norton, who died up in Michigan, and who sent it to us.
[ 58 ]
I cannot say whether there is any sect or faction of the church which claims to have these records from 1830 to 1845-6; I do not
know anything about that.
I believe there is a sect that claims to be the true church and claims to practice the doctrine and faith, governed by the same rules as
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from 1830 to 76 1844. That sect or church has existed all
the time from 1845 to the present time. I do not know whether that church has these records before referred to or not. I have never seen
them, know nothing about them.
The minutes of the last General Conference of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints is authoritative as published. Minutes of a
conference are usually ordered to be published, and this last spring they were ordered published in pamphlet form as supplement to
the Saints' Herald, and were so published. There are no other official publications of the Reorganized Church aside from the
proceedings of the General Conferences, unless it be the current journal of the church. There are no others unless the Saints' Herald
was authorized to be published. It was selected by the Board of Publication maintained by the church, and from time to time the
official proceedings of the church are published in it, by vote of the conference; I mean the General Conference of the church. That
prior to 1844 was held twice a year, and such are now held once each successive year. This publication was authorized at every
conference from 1859. I think that it was first published by Isaac Sheen, at Cincinnati, Ohio. It is now published under the charge and
control of a Board of Publication, appointed by the church at each annual meeting; that is they either retain the old Board of
Publication or select, as the case may be, a new Board; this Board retains a certain number of 77 persons
to edit and manage it, then in addition there is a mechanical department that sets the type, and men that make the copy and
read the proofs, and persons who mail it after it is printed. Only the Board of Publication is selected by the conference, and they
appoint all the other employees. The paper has two editors appointed by the Board of Publication.
That part of the paper or publication which bears the official signature is authentic; that is, the authorities who represent themselves.
For instance, the Bishopric when it sends out anything over its signature, that would be authentic as coming from them; and if the
Twelve would do the same thing, it would be authentic as coming from them; or if the elders would do it, it would be coming from
them; and the writers of communications are responsible for their own communications.
Everything that appears in that way in the church publication is authentic as coming from the source it purports to come from, but it
is not binding upon the church until it has been accepted by the church.
[ 59 ]
I have not offered anything in the church publication as testimony in this case. The Herald has not been offered as testimony in this
case, to my knowledge.
I know the paper called the Times and Seasons, that was the journal published in Nauvoo, from 1839, to 1844; I think it was
published in pamphlet form and issued to subscribers. I do not know that I can describe it specifically. It partook of the character of
a church publication at the time it was published, and it was undoubtedly an official organ of the church. The church organized in
1830, and existed at that time. It was never an official organ of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, was not
used by them, but was accepted by them from 1839 to 1844, that is, for what it purports to be.
I have had frequent opportunities of observing these volumes of the Times and Seasons identified in this case, and part of them are
from my library; they are not complete, part of them are missing. The first three volumes are complete, I do not know that there is
anything missing from them. The last three I have not examined and do not know whether they are complete or not; if there is
77 anything incomplete, it is leaves that have dropped out by wear and time, or which have been accidentally
torn out. All the volumes of the Times and Seasons placed as exhibits in this case are of date between 1840 and 1844, I think these
are the dates, but the whole number ran to 1846. I have not identified any of the volumes after 1844, I have in my possession the volumes
after 1844, but not here. All that were brought here, Mr. Kelley has.
So far as the old church is concerned, we regard all of them as official until the death of Joseph Smith, in 1844, June 27; after that
they were published by other parties, and we do not regard them as of any weight with us after that date.
They were published after June 27, 1844, by those who continued there at Nauvoo, under the parties who took charge of the church
after the death of Joseph Smith; they were Brigham Young and others.
The publication of the Times and Seasons was begun under Joseph Smith's presidency of the church, and continued until he was
killed, and the publication was continued some years afterwards by the parties who claim to succeed him. I do not know that his
presidency had anything to do with the publication of the newspaper, but part of the time he was editor of the paper. I mean to say
that he was editor only part of the time while he was living; when he was not editor, Ebenezer Robinson and Don Carlos Smith run
the paper, and John Taylor a part of the time. They were not all on the paper at 79 one time. John Taylor
conducted the paper after the death of Joseph Smith; he was editor at the time Joseph Smith was killed, and I think remained editor until
the suspension of the paper. It was suspended some time in 1846. I believe John Taylor was editor of the paper before my father's death,
a part of the time. He is the
[ 60 ]
same John Taylor who after my father's death went to Salt Lake; he went with the church to Salt Lake at the time that Brigham Young
went, as I understand it; that is what I am informed is the fact, but do not know that it is a fact, for I was not with them at the time.
My information is that he went to Salt Lake with them at the time Brigham Young went and was president of the church in Utah, after
the death of Brigham Young; I mean president of the Utah church after Brigham Young.
The Times and Seasons at the beginning of its career, was an individual concern published by Ebenezer Robinson, and Carlos Smith
in partnership. It is not a fact that the paper was never published by the church; the paper was purchased by the church and published
by it, that is after Robinson and Smith ceased publishing it; it was purchased by the church and published in the interest of the
church. I do not remember the date it was purchased. After it was purchased from Robinson and Smith it was considered as an
authority in the church, and was so considered as an authority up to the time of the death of Joseph Smith, June 27, 1844; and I
presume that by those who published it, it was considered an authority after June 27, 1844, but was never so regarded by the
Reorganized Church; the members of the church who were members of 80 the church before my father's
death, and who did not take affiliation with the incoming authority, or the authority under Brigham Young.
There was a history of Joseph Smith written for the public, and published. The publication was begun in the Times and Seasons, and
I am not sure but what it was in the paper published here, Independence, Missouri. I am not certain about the date, it must have been
about 1833. It began to be published again in the Times and Seasons, very nearly at the start of that paper; I do not recollect the date.
The publication was continued after the death of my father. It purported to be the life of Joseph Smith, as written by himself; that part
of it which appeared after his death June 27, 1844, is not accepted by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as
correct.
Exhibit M, now handed me, is an authorized publication; it was published by the Board of Publication of the Reorganized Church.
Exhibit M has never been passed on by the General Conference; not as a pamphlet it has not. The document marked Exhibit M, was
printed this winter, probably in the month of December, 1891. It was published by the Board of Publication, and so shows on its
face; 81 I mean the Board of Publication of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
at Lamoni, Decatur county, Iowa. All these facts are stated on the first page.
It is a fact that what the Board of Publication does as the agent of the church is the work of the church, until it is questioned and
proved otherwise. By being printed by that Board, it is not authority the same as if it had been indorsed by the church in its
conferences,
[ 61 ]
for the reason that it is yet subject to the church in conference, there to be approved or disapproved upon its merits by that body.
Exhibit M was printed and published after the institution of this suit. It was not published with a view of being used in the taking of
these depositions. No sir, it was not. It was published as a pamphlet for our men in the field, for the information of the men in the
field, giving as it does a statement of the position of the church in succession.
Now that it might be used in this suit was of course presumed, but at that time I knew, nothing of the taking of these depositions; it
was not compiled for use in this suit. That was not the object of its compilation. The Board of Publication is composed of Bishop E.
L. Kelley, David Dancer, W. W. Blair, James H. Peters, and Robert Winning. I assisted in compiling exhibit M, and helped to read the
proofs.
It is not a fact that anything that is printed and published by the Board of Publication is an authentic publication of the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We print a good many things that are the authentic declarations of other-men, and we
82 publish them as such, for what they are, or purport to be; but it does not follow from that, that they are
the declarations of the church, or binding upon the church. We just publish these things for what they purport to be, and nothing else. The
matter that is found in exhibit M quoted, we obtained from the published and authorized works of the church, and other published documents.
Not all of exhibit M is original matter; some' portions of it are original. The parts that are used by the writers to connect it together are original
with the writers. The writers were W. W. Blair, E. L. Kelley, and Joseph Smith. At the time we were compiling this pamphlet, the
expectation was that it might be used in this examination. It is not a fact that at the time of the compilation of this pamphlet we were
fixing up testimony for this case. No sir, that is not true. I think I have answered the question; if I have not, I do not think it is
possible for me to answer it. To answer the question again I will say, It is not a fact that at the time we were compiling this pamphlet,
we were fixing up testimony to use at the trial of this case, or at this examination; nor is it true that we were fixing up a mass of facts
to be used as testimpny in this case.
I said yesterday that in order for revelations to become authentic and binding upon the church as authoritative, they must first pass
through the quorums of the church, and be accepted by the body of the church. These quotations on pages 16 and 17 of exhibit M
have been adopted by the church; they have not been passed through and examined by these quorums of the church; I did not so
state; nor did I state that things of that kind were required to pass through that ordeal. A declaration of doctrine and faith must
necessarily 83 pass through such an ordeal, but they are presented to the church
[ 62 ]
and accepted by the church before they are received as authoritative. They were presented to the Reorganized Church for adoption (I
do not know the exact date from memory) at Plano, Kendall county, Illinois, and since the year 1860, when I became connected with
the church. It was prior to 1878.
I did not say pages 16 and 17, introduced here from exhibit M, were presented to the church in the regular way, and indorsed in such
a way as to render them binding upon the church. No sir, I did not say that; but I did say that the subject matter upon the sixteenth
and seventeenth pages of exhibit M was presented, and indorsed by the church, but not the pages themselves; the pages themselves
were only compiled this winter, or rather this pamphlet was only compiled this winter.
I mean by the subject matter on these pages the Epitome of Faith there presented, and I mean that every statement in this Epitome of
Faith has been presented to and passed upon by the church, and approved by the church; but I am unable to state the date that it was
done, without examining the record. I helped compile that Epitome of Faith myself, and was present when it was presented and was with
84
the body when it was adopted as the Epitome of Faith. We did not include in this Epitome of Faith what is on page 17 of exhibit
M under the head of "church record." We did not for the reason that it is not a part of the Epitome. I believe what is stated there,
however, is authoritative; and it is taken from the church records presented in this case yesterday. The minutes of the conference, and
it is authentic, for what is taken from the church records is authentic, and the whole of it is taken from the church records.
The resolution shown on the minutes of the conference is as follows: ''Resolved that the whole law of the Church of Jesus Christ is
contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants." It was considered at the time it was adopted by
the conference, true, that was in June, 1852.
It is not a fact that this is as true at the present time as it was then, simply because there have been additions to the church rules since
that time. Yes sir, I state as a positive fact that there have been additions to the rules of the church since 1852; additions authorized
by the church at its General Conferences, and by its various quorums.
I did not say, and have not said, that all revelations to be authentic and of binding force upon the church must be presented to the
quorums, and be approved by them; I said that before a revelation, or what purports to be a revelation, could be accepted as binding
upon the church, it must be submitted to that ordeal. It cannot become a law and be binding as law until it is submitted to the
quorums and indorsed by them, and approved by the body; but it may be accepted by the members and acted upon subject to inquiry
and examination. The acceptance of revelations by the quorums and the church makes it binding upon the church, but it may be a
revelation
[ 63 ]
without such acceptance and indorsement, but before it can be binding upon the church as a church, it must be acted upon and
accepted. That was the doctrine of the church prior to the death of Joseph Smith, in 1844.
I could not say there were any revelations given and published by my father, that he submitted to the quorums, from personal
85
knowledge. I do not know whether, the revelation spoken of by Mr. Whitehead in his testimony, by which I was selected by my
father as his successor was submitted to the quorums; I do not know that it was, and I do not know that it was not. I do not claim that
it was, and so far as I am concerned, I do not make the statement that there was any such a revelation given. So far as I am concerned
I did not, and have not made any such a statement. My statement is, that I do not know anything whatever about it. I do not know
whether the revelation was given or not. I cannot say that if such a revelation had been given and had not been submitted to the
quorums, that it would or would not be valid. I could have been properly ordained under the laws of the Reorganized Church to the
office I now hold, without a revelation to that effect from my father. Yes sir, you understand me correctly; I claim that I could
properly be ordained and qualified and put in the possession of the office which I now hold, without a revelation to that effect to my
father. I make that claim.
If my father received such a revelation, I cannot say whether I was ordained under it or not. I would not like to say that, for I have
already said I did not know there was such a revelation. I understand that the ordination was legally done according to the rules of the
church, and that was all that was necessary. Yes sir, I stated that I was ordained at Amboy.
I cannot say that my ordination was made without reference to the alleged revelation to my father. My ordination was made upon the
authority of the understanding of the law, as they had it, and from the fact that they regarded it as a fact that there had been such a
revelation, but personally I know nothing whatever about it.
Personally I do not know whether there was or was not such a revelation. I know that there was such an appointment of myself as my
father's successor in office, but I do not know whether it was by virtue of a revelation or not. As a rule, before a president or high
priest can be ordained there must be some kind of a manifestation in
86 regard to it individually, before he can be ordained to any office
in the Melchisedek priesthood. There is no law of the church that such a revelation or manifestation before it can be enforced must be
accepted by the quorum. It requires an acceptance by the body; I should say, acted upon and accepted by the body before which it
comes, either a branch, district conference, or General Conference. It is owing to the nature of the revelation. For instance; a man may
be called and ordained in the body or branch. In a congregational organization he may rise and speak what he considers is the voice
of the Spirit, and be ordained by reason of this manifestation,
[ 64 ]
without the matter being submitted to the different quorums; but if it is a matter to be presented to the body, and to become a rule of
action for the general body it must be presented in that way; but in rising in a local congregation it must be acted on immediately by
the voice of the people there assembled.
I do not know that I can just turn to the law of the church to that effect. There are precedents in the Book of Mormon for it. You are
asking for a special law of the church to that effect; I have stated that I do not know where I can find it. or whether I can find it. It is
in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants that has been identified here. That is, the principle is undoubtedly there. Yes, sir, the principle
is in the authorized publications of the church prior to 1852, but I do not know that I can give you the exact location of it. What you
read to me in your question, to wit: "There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from God to any man can be tested,"
down to the words, "Brother Joseph said, 'let no revelation go to the people until it has been tested,' " that in itself is not a law of the
church; it is a statement of one Orson Hyde with reference to what was the rule of the church; I say that is not the law of the church,
as it is contained there. That is a statement of Orson Hyde, as to what was the rule, and he belonged to the Utah Church. I believe the
statement to be a correct one.
87 The Millennial Star was a publication published in England. I do not know whether it is being
published now or not.
Yes, sir, it is stated in our Epitome of Faith that, "We believe in the same kind of organization that existed in the primitive church,"
apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc., and is a statement of the belief of the Reorganized Church.
The book marked exhibit N came from Lamoni, Iowa. It was brought to Lamoni. from Plano, Kendall county. Illinois, by the
Secretary of the Church. Henry A. Stebbins is and was at the time the secretary. That book, exhibit N. purports to contain the records
of the church from June, 1852, down to sometime in the seventies; I do not know exactly what the year is. It contains the records of
the conferences held between these dates, I think; I know it does some of them, but do not know positively that it contains all of
them. I cannot say that it contains records of other meetings besides conference meetings. Henry A. Stebbins was not in charge of it
all the time; Isaac Sheen had charge of it before Mr. Stebbins. No other person was in charge of it during that time to my knowledge. I
said Henry Stebbins brought it from Plano, but really I do not know7, for I did not see him bring it:' but he was Secretary of the
Church, and had charge of the books. I have seen the book in his possession at Lamoni, and at Plano, and this is the same book that I
saw in his possession at those places. When the book is at Lamoni, it is in the custody of the Secretary of the Church, and in his
office -- the office of Henry A. Stebbins; he is the Secretary of the Reorganized Church. 88 I brought the
book here myself at the request of Bishop Kelley; the
[ 65 ]
package of books was made up at his request, and I brought it with
I recognize the resolution you read, "Resolved that we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ, organized on the 6th day of April,
1830, exists as on that day, wherever six or more Saints are organized according to the pattern in the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants," as having been introduced in testimony yesterday from this book. The name of the church referred to in this resolution
is the Church of Jesus Christ. Of course I am not sure of that, because I was not there at the time; I know only by the general
appellation that was given it.
It has been called the "Church of Christ." the "Church of Jesus Christ," and the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
From my own knowledge I cannot tell what was the real and technical name of the church from its organization in 1830 down to
1844. The historical appellation accepted by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is. The Church of Jesus
Christ, and the words "of Latter Day Saints" is added, descriptive.
I do not know of my own knowledge that the word Jesus was in the name of the church in 1830; all I know about it I get from my
readme: of the books of the church, and the records.
I have in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, first edition, exhibit E. I could not read the title page for the reason that there
is none. It has been lost, apparently. I would like to read it for you if I could. The headlines on page five of exhibit E, which you ask
me to read, are, --
"THEOLOGY. LECTURE FIRST ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS. OF FAITH."
The words "of Jesus Christ" are not there; they do not appear in 89 that headline. I am safe in saying I am
reasonably acquainted with the book marked exhibit E; I have read it. I cannot say from memory whether I ever saw in the book exhibit E
the words "Church of Jesus Christ."
The fifth resolution in this book, exhibit N, is in the record of the conference of June 12, 1852. I cannot say that because in section 2
of exhibit E the church is denominated the "Church of Christ," that it is not properly named in said section. I will say this. Colonel;
that if it be the same body, it is immaterial as to what specific name be given it by writers writing about it or by documents in
reference to it. It may be called the "Church of Christ," the "Church of Jesus Christ," the "Church of Christ Jesus," or the "Church of
the Latter Day Saints," or the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," or what the denominated title of the church was at the
time; and whatever the title of the church has been since that time is immaterial.
I do not know what the title of the church was before I became connected with it, only from the information I gather about it by
[ 66 ]
reading and otherwise; but what the title of the church has been since my connection with it, I am prepared to testify about.
I cannot see that if at the time of the presidency of the church by 90 my father, it had been called the
Methodist Church, and the church I now belong to, was called or designated as it is, that it would make any difference, if as a matter of
fact the principles were the same; the name has very little to do with it, if the doctrine, rules, and practices are the same.
I am not prepared to say what might have been the distinctive title of it before my connection with it. except as I get it from history. I
cannot say what the particular, specific name of the church was from 1830 to 1834. I can testify in a manner of course, but I am not
prepared to testify from my own knowledge, for I do not know anything about it from personal knowledge or experience, but only as
I get it from history. I have read the history to some extent. The history as I read it says that it was called the "Church of Latter Day
Saints," the "Church of Christ," and it is referred to as the "Church of Jesus Christ," in the histories I have read referring to the matter
of name. I do not know that it was given specifically in all these cases as the name, but the title of the church appears in all these
forms. I am not sure that such was the case prior to 1834; I know it only as I get it from history. I have no personal knowledge of it. I
am sure the history so states; that is my remembrance of having so read it. That is the only means of knowledge I have. Of course I
was there at the time, but it was only as a child, and I do not recollect how that was; but that is my recollection of my reading upon
the subject. As a child I could not remember, or be expected to remember what the distinctive title or name of the church was at that
time, from actual, personal knowledge and observation.
I have read the Book of Mormon; there is a statement in it indicating that there was a dispute over the name of the church, what it
should be. I think the question was not settled. I did not so under. stand it to be stated in the Book of Mormon to have been settled. I
recognize what you read from the Book of Mormon, exhibit D, page 507, as authoritative teaching of the book so far as it is read. The
part of exhibit B read by counsel to witness is as follows: "And they which were baptized were called the Church of Christ." 'And it
came to pass that as the disciples of Jesus were journeying, and were preaching the things which they had both heard and seen, and
were baptizing in the name of Jesus, it came to pass that the disciples were gathered together, and were united in mighty prayer
91 and fasting. And Jesus again showed himself unto them, for they were praying unto the Father in his
name; and Jesus came and stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them. What will ye that I shall give unto you? And they saith unto
him, Lord we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning
this matter. And the
[ 67 ]
Lord said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Why is it that the people should murmur and dispute about this thing? Have they
not read the Scriptures which say, Ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name, for by this name ye shall be called
at the last day; and whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day; therefore
whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in
my name that he will bless the church for my sake; and how be it my church save it be called in my name?"
But the same author of the history read, the same individual said, "My name is Jesus Christ," specifically; the same individual whose
language you have read said, "My name is Jesus Christ," and in the Bible it is so recognized that that is his name. That is the name in
which his disciples are to do everything they do, the name of Jesus Christ. And if you read the whole book through you will find that
those quotations are only partial, for it is called the "Church of Christ," precisely the same way that it is called in this resolution.
I do not know of any church referred to in the Book of Mormon, that is called the Church of Latter Day Saints. I do not believe there
is any church referred to in the Book of Mormon called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Reorganized Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I do not know of any by these names in the Book of Mormon.
91 I think the Church of Latter Day Saints and the Church of Christ is mentioned in the first edition of the Book
of Covenants; I am not certain about the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." I understand the name, "Church of Christ," is the
name in which defendant is sued.
There is a book not put in testimony, or on exhibit; it is called the Book of Commandments. I do not know that that book holds any
place in the laws of the church. The Reorganized Church does not indorse or hold the Book of Commandments as a book of authority
in the church -- not as a fragmentary book. Things that are in the book, as published in the Book of Covenants subsequently, from
1835, we recognize; but the matter that is in the Book of Commandments, so far as that matter is authorized, we recognize. We
recognize the matter in the Book of Commandments, that has been passed upon and accepted by the church, as authoritative.
Whatever in the Book of Commandments there is that has been acted upon by the church, we accept. We do not accept all the matter
in the Book of Commandments as published. We do not recognize it as a complete book accepted by the church. The Book of
Commandments was a fragmentary work, the publication of which was interrupted here in this very city, and the leaves scattered; and
subsequently to that, a committee was appointed whose work it was to compile that book, but as the work was uncompleted and
never accepted or passed upon
[ 68 ]
by the church, we never regarded it as an authentic publication. The Reorganized Church never did.
93 We recognize the Book of Doctrine and Covenants as authorized by the church in 1835, as the declared law of
the church to govern it. I cannot tell you whether there was a revelation given through my father in 1838 giving the name of the church as the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I do not know whether there was such a revelation or not. I do not remember of publishing an editorial
in the Herald, in which I stated that to be a fact. I would recognize the paper if I saw it. I recognize 94
the paper handed me, it is a copy of the Herald published at Lamoni, Iowa. I recognize the article on the first page as the leading article.
Questions and Answers. I recognize it as an article written by one of the editors. The editors are Joseph Smith and W. W. Blair. Joseph Smith,
that is myself. I indorse that article as an editorial utterance of the editor who wrote it, simply indorse it as the utterance of the editor who wrote it.
The statements and citations given there are stated to be from current and written history, but as to their correctness and truthfulness, I could not
say. We considered the authority from which we quoted as being indicative of what the understanding at that time was, and as evidence
concerning the name of the church.
We get authority for the addition to the name of the church, from the fact understood by us that it was a reorganization of the
elements into a new organization of the elements of the church that had been scattered abroad. We get it from the logic of events,
things that transpired, and the membership. They were gathered together in that way from different sections. We recognize in the
Reorganized Church the rule of logic of events, when we are compelled to do so. No, sir, we do not recognize the logic of events of
every character whatever, for the guidance of the Reorganized Church; there are facts of various descriptions and character, and they
may be for us or against us.
The name that is given is a question to be determined hereafter, 95 whether it is for us or against us. That is a
question I presume that will have to be determined hereafter, it appears to be the issue in this case.
We adopted the word reorganized as a kind of distinctive title from that of the church in the Utah Valley at Salt Lake, or Deseret. We
did not get it by revelation, nor out of the Book of Mormon, nor the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, nor out of the Times and
Seasons, nor the Millennial Star; we did not get it out of any of these, Colonel. We got it from the apparent necessities of the time,
and our disposition in regard to it. I cannot give you the date when the church was first designated as the Reorganized Church; the name
was formally and definitely adopted at our conference. I do not know that any title had been agreed upon in 1860, at the time I
became connected with it.
[ 69 ]
From 1860 down to the present time I have been the president of the church, the position I hold is that of Presiding Elder. 96 Yes,
sir, additional revelations were put in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants about the year 1879. I do not remember the number of
pages that were added. It is not a fact that the additions were made to the Book of Covenants making the change of name very
appropriate. It is not a fact that a change in name of a religious body would necessarily be appropriate by the addition of rules and
regulations to govern the body, I did not say it in that way. It would be the same body after the additions to the rules were made. The
additional laws to govern a body would make no difference.
96
Yes, sir, I maintain that if a church organization had a dozen or any other number of rules or regulations made for the government of
the church, and afterwards there were added one hundred other and supplementary rules and regulations, that the body of the church
would be the same; that is, it would be the same unless there was a radical change made in its organic structure, or faith and doctrine;
but it would be the same body if the rules and regulations added were in harmony with its organic laws, and particularly would this be
the case if the same body of people substantially remained with it and came under the government of these rules and regulations. So
that it is the same church even if it has additional or added rules for its government in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, so long
as they are not in conflict with its organic laws and fundamental 97 principles. We do not propose to
reorganize a dead body, in the case of the reorganization of the church the body was alive all the time from 1844, although for a time its
vitality was very low.
Those individuals who had been members of the original church met together, as they had the undoubted right to do and renewed
their faith by entering into a representative organization, few at first, but gradually gathered others who had also been members of the
original church during the lifetime of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. That was the way it was done, and out of the scattered remnants of
the original church who remained steadfast in the faith the work of reorganization was begun and carried through to its successful
consummation.
At the time of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith there was a change of administration, which a great many of the adherents of the
church, could not and did not accept, and these parties scattered throughout a great many different counties in Iowa, Wisconsin, and
98 Illinois, and having confidence and faith in the church to which they had belonged, and having been
consistent members of it, they essayed an organization upon the principles existing prior to the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
They met by the authority that all individuals had to meet who were constitutional members of the church before its fall. No single
individual member had the right to assemble the church, but he had a right to commence the movement however. A dozen individuals
[ 70 ]
would have the right to assemble in a church of their own free will and accord, and there was no restriction in that, except of course
they must have been members of the old original church. I am not aware of the fact, that I have made any such a statement or claim,
that the church had been dissolved, I have not and did not make any such statement. The church had not dissolved, for they were its
members, and had the undoubted right to claim the privilege of exercising the rights of membership. They were undoubtedly
members, and were in reality of the church.
Some of them had been attending church in certain places, but not attending conferences, for the reason that none had been held by
those who believed with them; but conferences had been held by other parties who afterwards came into the church.
Conferences were held by the old church in the usual way, I think they were both semiannual and annually held. That was according
to custom, not according to law, for the law simply says they should meet from time to time. The times of meeting were fixed by the
church itself, and fixed according to custom and convenience, I presume. There was an interval between the dates of the semiannual
conferences. These people who met in 1852, met in accordance with the custom. The custom of meeting together for conference and
for preaching and for song service, and for prayer service, that is how they happened to come together, they would be in their local
assemblages of course.
99 I cannot tell you who notified them to come together at Newark, Wisconsin. I cannot tell that anyone did,
that was before my connection with the church, and I have no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding that meeting.
I cannot say anything about that, for the reason that the conference was held in 1852, and I became connected with the church first in 1860.
Yes sir, I stated that I did not go with those who left Nauvoo, in 1846 or 1847, and went to other places, and also that quite a number
of others refused to go, and that my refusal to go was based upon additions to the doctrine and practices of the church, or rather I
should say practice of members claiming to belong to the church. I considered that I was doing right in refusing to go.
I could unite with the reorganization and be consistent because there was no rule or doctrine changed or added by the Reorganized
Church that differed in any material degree from what was in the original church, -- nothing that was in any respect in conflict with the
organic structure of the church as it existed in the days of my father.
There has been nothing added in the rules and regulations since I have been a member, that has been subversive of the rights of the
people or the organic structure of the church, while in those we 100 objected to we considered there were.
The authority that has governed me in this matter is my own individual opinion, of what the rules and organic structure of the
[ 71 ]
church, its doctrine, and faith, and principles as laid down in the recognized standards are. My estimate of these things, as a matter of
course, governs me in my choice of principles and doctrine.
I do not know what governed the individual opinion of the other parties who joined in this movement with me; I do not know what
their motives may have been. The persons who effected the reorganization, in 1852, affirmed that they were directed by revelation;
but whether they were or not is a matter for them to testify to, and not for me; that is their testimony, and not mine.
In respect to uniting with the Reorganized Church, I was led by revelation. If the affirmations of the - people who reorganized the
church in 1852 are correct, it was reorganized in pursuance of revelation; that is what they say, but of course I cannot testify as to
that. That is a matter that I am not a competent witness to prove.
I cannot tell you how you can ascertain whether they were deceived or not. I cannot tell you how you-can ascertain whether I was
deceived in uniting with the reorganization.
101
I do not fill the gap between the disruption at Nauvoo and the coming together again in 1852, by the assumption that the people
were authorized to come together in 1852 by revelation. My understanding of the matter is this: persons invested with a right of
membership in the original church did not lose that right because of the introduction into the church of new doctrines and teachings
which they held to be pernicious or incorrect doctrines, because of their conflict with the fundamental principles of the church into
which they had been baptized; and these parties remained in the country round about, one in one direction, and one in another, and
began again to collect together. They had done this prior to the conference of June 12, 1852, although this was the first regular
conference that had been held after the dispersion. They had met together in small bodies prior to this and had agreed among
themselves, and by a call to others, to meet together at Newark, Wisconsin, to take in consideration what they should do in regard to
their membership. Now that is the way I understand it; but what moved them to that course, personally I do not pretend to say. I do
not know the facts of that, only as I have been told and from the records of the conference.
I do not think there is any history authorized and accepted by the church. There was a statement made by one of the men who was
present at that meeting, I think the one who presided at that conference, and he gives a historical statement, which is accepted by the
102
Reorganized Church as a true statement. That is accepted by the individual members of the church as being substantially a true
statement of the conference and the matters that transpired there, but as to that I do not know personally. I do not think there has
been any historical statement of that conference accepted by the Reorganized Church as to what transpired there. I think Zenas H.
Gurley wrote an article which is entitled, perhaps, a history of the Reorganized
[ 72 ]
Church, and it was published perhaps in the Herald. I do not know that it was ever completed, but it was simply published as his
statement, and so stands in the columns of the Herald.
I am only casually familiar with the minutes of the conference, offered here and identified as an exhibit. I have read them in a general
way, and not with any intention of charging my mind with the contents to a sufficient degree to state confidently what they contain. I
was not a participant in any of the meetings or gatherings 103
of the Reorganized Church from 1852, to 1860, and therefore of my own
personal knowledge I do not know anything about them. I heard from time to time that there was an attempt being made at
reorganization; I do not remember anything positively until 1856, when two of the members visited me. The two persons who visited
me I think were elders; that is my understanding, but I do not state it as a positive fact.
I understood they had a president of the Reorganized Church, provisionally or temporarily, from 1852 to 1860. I do not know of my
own knowledge about that. There is a provision of the law that would authorize a provisional president in a promiscuous assemblage
-- the one holding the highest authority presides. That is a principle, however, that is acceded to by us in the Reorganized Church, that
in a promiscuous assemblage where there is not any organization, the one holding the highest authority present presides.
I stated the fact to be, that in 1860 I was elected or ordained to preside over the church as its president. As I understand it, I am to
preside over the organized assemblies held from time to time, and have a spiritual watchcare over the whole church, in connection
with my colleagues.
104 At present I am Associate Editor of the Herald, but it is not inherent to the office of President
of the Church.
The priestly functions connected with the office would be presiding over the authorities of the church, or over the priesthood of the
church. Yes sir, I am a high priest and the Presiding High Priest. The rule of law requires that there should be three when the quorum
is full, chosen from amongst the high priesthood, and the President of the Church is called President of the High Priests or High
Priesthood. These three form a presiding quorum called the First Presidency. There are but two, who are at present acting.
There was the same organization at Nauvoo, prior to 1844. Prior to 1844, June 27, my father and his counselors comprised the First
Presidency. The right of revelation did not inhere in the First Presidency, because the right of revelation inheres to every member of
the church who is possessed of the gift, but the gift to receive revelation for the church and its guidance inheres in the Presidency of
the church, and whatever purports to be revelation is still tested, as has been the custom; that is, whatever purports to be revelation
for the doctrine or government of the church, or affecting either in any material issue, before it becomes authority, must be presented
[ 73 ]
to and acted upon by the presiding quorums of the church, -- the Presidency, the Twelve, and the Seventy especially.
I think we have the record showing that this was done with revelations given through my father. It is not in the law, it is in the records
of the General Assembly held on the 17th of August. 1835, on page 255, of Exhibit E, and the same history is found in the current
literature of the time. That statement is accepted as the minutes of an assembly held on that day, and only that. It is accepted for what
it purports to be, and nothing more. I do not know that 105 there is any doctrine in it, it is a simple statement
of events as they transpired. The same record, or substantially the same, was published at the time in the Evening and Morning Star,
or the Messenger and Advocate. I do not know just which it was, but it was one of these publications. I cannot tell you whether the
facts recited in the minutes of that assembly were true or not. I took it from history for what it purports to be, for a record of a thing that
occurred. I was not there at the time; at that time I was not yet three years old, so I do not know anything about it, of my own knowledge.
The proceedings and action taken at that meeting, August 17, 1835, are a precedent to the Reorganized Church of the present day.
They are a precedent, that is all. All the revelations, with perhaps one or two exceptions, that are recognized as binding upon the
church, the Reorganized Church, are found in this Book of Doctrine and Covenants published by the Reorganized Church in 1882.
There are some later that we have not as yet printed in the book. I mean there are one or two that we have not printed in the book as
yet; that is, they are not as yet printed and bound in the book that you have there.
I think likely there are some matters regarded as authority in the Reorganized Church, not found published in the Book of Covenants.
In the spring of 1891 there were instructions received and acted upon by the church that are not incorporated in that book; but they
are received, accepted, and acted upon by the church, but are not in the book.
I do not know whether the revelation of February, 1834, was accepted and adopted by the quorums before Joseph Smith was killed. I
could not tell you whether that revelation is in the first Book of Covenants; I hardly think it is. I would not say positively, but I am
pretty sure it is not.
106 The revelation given June 28, 1834, on Fishing River, Missouri, has been received by the Reorganized
Church for what it purports to be. It is recognized as a rule of action by the church of which I am now the president. We recognize it
in so far as it purports to be a rule of action. I do not know whether that was in the first edition of the Book of Covenants or not. I
could not say that it was ever received by the General Assembly or by the quorums before the death of Joseph Smith.
[ 74 ]
Section 105, of exhibit J, entitled "The word of the Lord given unto Thomas B. Marsh," at Kirtland. I hardly think that is in the first
Book of Covenants, because the first Book of Covenants was published in 1835; this was given in 1837. I do not see how it could
have been printed in the first edition.
That is regarded as authority by the Reorganized Church for what it purports to be; it is accepted for what it purports to be. I do not
know that it was ever adopted by the assembly and accepted by the quorum before the death of Joseph Smith.
The revelation of July, 1838, exhibit J, section 106, is a rule of action; so far as it purports to be it is. It is accepted and acted upon
for what it purports to be. And the same is true with regard to the revelation of January 19, 1841, on page 301 of exhibit J.
107 The letter of Joseph Smith dated Nauvoo. September 1, 1842, found on page 320 of exhibit J, the
Reorganized Church accepts simply as a letter, what it purports to be. We understand it to be a letter of instruction at the time written by
Joseph Smith to the members of the church. We have regarded it as indicative of what our action should be. We regard it as his opinion. But
we examine these things for ourselves, but give due weight to his opinion as expressed in that communication.
The letter dated September 6, 1842, is of the same nature; it is a matter of instruction, and may or may not be considered authoritative
as the question may be considered.
Section 113 of exhibit J is simply considered by the Reorganized Church as a narration of circumstances attending the killing of
Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, and as being written by parties competent to write it. That is all so far as the relation of the facts
is concerned; it is true so far as I know; they are in connection with the event, and we believe it to be a true historical narrative of the
transaction, and nothing more.
Page 336, exhibit J, after the word supplement, is what purports to be the action of the conference of the Reorganized Church, I
believe it is regarded as authoritative. It was intended to be so regarded, and I believe it is.
The subsequent pages of exhibit J from page 336. contain deliverances from the President of the church. These were delivered to the
church by me as the President of the Reorganized Church. 108 These have been accepted by the church to
which I belong.
I do not understand that there has been any addition to the 112 doctrine of the church, all that has been done
is in reference to methods of procedure, and elucidation of what has already been written. That is all that this which you call additions consists of.
The doctrine of the church to which I belong and its teaching and practices are the same as the doctrine and teaching of the original
church from 1830 to 1844. I do not understand that there was any 113 doctrine of the church prior to 1844 or
1860, cautioning the church
[ 75 ]
against the ordination of men of the negro race to office in the church. I do not understand that there is now.
There was authority in the old church for a district organization, I think. I do not know that I could specifically point it out. It is a
matter growing out of the organization, and the word district is used in distinguishing conferences or organized branches, the one
from the other. It is possible that the term is used with that understanding. In the organic law the declaration is made that the elders
shall meet in conference once in three months, or from time to time to do the business, whatever it may be, at the time, and in the
manner that the conference shall appoint. It is also the duty of the branches to send a list of their membership who last joined, or who
114
were disfellowshipped. Branches consist of congregations of the church. Elders, priests, teachers, and deacons, whatever officers
there are, except in some districts where they have adopted a system of representation by delegates, or delegate representation. The
law to which I refer says the several elders shall hold conferences. It says also that the branches shall send some officer or teacher,
or by the hand of some priest their reports.
I do not think that the revelation on conduct and cleanliness is an added law of the church. It is a matter of instruction, an elucidation
in the way of instruction. It is merely a matter of instruction, and it is in harmony with the revelation found in the first Book of
Covenants, published in 1835.
The revelation contained in the first Book of Covenants does not prohibit the use of tobacco entirely. It is called a Word of Wisdom
and instruction and not by way of constraint; you can use tobacco for some purposes. It does not permit the use of a small amount
for a man to chew or smoke, that is my recollection of the way it reads. Yes, sir, this law to which I refer has something to say about
the ornamentation of the person. It says let your ornamentation be the work of your own hands, but does not limit the amount,
leaving that to the individual's taste. I think the word used is ornamentation, but it may be embellishment.
115
Revelations as I understand it, are received in different ways, sometimes by impression, sometimes by the person becoming
conscious of it, and sometimes by audible voice heard by the individual by whom the revelation is received, and sometimes by a
direct messenger, and sometimes by what we understand to be the intervention of the Spirit. No, sir, it does not rest on a man's own
judgment as to whether or not the revelation is received by impression, or by 116 audible voice from without.
I do not so understand it. If anybody says anything to me I understand that they say it, and if I hear what they, say clearly and comprehend it,
it is not a matter of my own judgment as to whether I hear it or not. I am forced to accept it and judgment as to whether or not I heard the
thing is not called into question, for it is a matter that is not involved in doubt at all. Whether I accept it depends on circumstances under
which the communication
[ 76 ]
is received, such as whether there is a reason for it, or occasion for it, or whether it comports with that already received upon that
subject, if anything has been said upon that subject. A man may be mistaken even though he be the President of the Church, as to the
genuineness or authenticity of revelations claimed to have been received. Revelations received are not binding upon the church, nor
do they become law or rules of action for the church until they have been formally adopted by the body; when they are accepted by
the church, then they become binding upon it. Yes, sir, it is a law of the Reorganized Church that new revelations may be given and
accepted by the church, and thereby become law to the church. Yes, sir, that is done under our declaration of faith. We believe that
God has revealed himself in times past, that he does reveal himself, and will continue to reveal himself to men upon this earth
whenever such revelations are needed according to his divine judgment. We believe this because we know it to be so, and we
therefore look for further revelations in the future at such times and places and through such instrumentalities as he sees fit to make
the medium of his communication to this earth.
Of course the church that existed from 1830 up to the time of the disruption in 1844 had none of these subsequent revelations, nor
those given to the Reorganized Church. I cannot tell you whether the church from 1830 to 1844 as a fact had the same rules and laws
of doctrine as are to be found and set forth in the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. If the laws or revelations
117
contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants published in 1835 were received and accepted by the body before 1835, then they
had them, then they had the ones that are contained in that edition; but the church could not be governed by the law prior to the time
of the passage of the law. It would be like attempting to govern a territorial community under a State law. I understand that the law is
not enforced until after it is enacted. We may receive a revelation and act upon it, and the matter afterwards be submitted to the body
authorized to pass upon the revelation, and it be sanctioned. That has been done in the church. .
I would not be willing to state upon my oath, or even make a statement without being on oath, that the church prior to 1844 received
and acted upon revelations that were not given until after that time. No, sir, I would not make that statement under oath, or upon my
own judgment; it would not be true.
Yes, sir, I understand the controversy in this case is to obtain control and possession of the ''temple lot" in the city of Independence,
Missouri. I am the chief officer in the church which claims to bring the action. As to what right the church that was reorganized in
1852 has in and to the property in controversy, my answer is, that 118 so far as my knowledge goes,
the Reorganized Church has paid money out on account of that temple lot, and to-day is occupying a
[ 77 ]
part of that temple lot; I do not know how large a portion, but it is by metes and bounds. I believe that is a fact, that they are
occupying a portion of that temple lot. I do not state that as a positive fact, I state it as my best knowledge and belief. I do not know
that I mean a part of the particular ground or land that is in dispute in this case; I mean a portion of what is known as the "temple lot."
I do not know that the church has ever paid anything in that way, except it has paid a portion of the taxes.
I do not know of any revelation that will authorize the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to take property from
other people who have paid their money for it, and not give them anything in return. I am one of the incorporators of the Reorganized
Church. I believe the most of the incorporators reside at Lamoni, Iowa. If they do not all reside there, by an examination of the
names I could probably give the names and their places of residence. Robert Winning, whose name is attached to the Articles of
Incorporation, resides at St. Joseph, Missouri; J. B. VanMeter lives at Tuskeega, Iowa; he is one of the incorporators. Edwin A.
Blakeslee at Galien, Michigan. All the rest of the incorporators 119 live at Lamoni. These parties whose
names appear upon the Articles of Incorporation, incorporated of their own accord by direction of a General Conference, or by permission
or instruction of a General Conference of the church. I think it was by permission or by direction of the Spring Conference of 1891.
The parties whose names appear to the Articles of Incorporation were not authorized by name to incorporate; it was not necessary to
do so. The majority of them were residents and living at Lamoni, and were members of the church or branch there; and they were
present at the meeting at the time this incorporation took place, and signed the Articles of Incorporation. I mean the meeting held at
Lamoni, of the local organization for the purpose of incorporating. They proceeded to adopt the Articles of Incoporation at that
meeting, and signed them at that meeting; and I believe that every member that was there present signed them. That was the regular
meeting of the branch. , By regular meeting of the branch, I mean a meeting that is held at regular intervals -- a fixed meeting, a
meeting that is held for the transaction of the regular routine business of the branch, The meeting was called Saturday evening; it was
a stated meeting, and notice had been given of what would take place. It was a meeting of the local branch at Lamoni. There was no
resolution passed at that meeting authorizing these persons to effect this incorporation; that was done by the conference at Kirtland;
but the Articles of Incorporation were presented to the meeting 120 and were adopted by the meeting,
approved and signed upon such adoption. Yes sir, the people did that; those present. I think every member present signed these. The people
whose names appear here signed to the Articles of Incorporation were present.
[ 78 ]
After the articles were accepted and signed, they were filed in the office of the Recorder of the county.
This paper here I recognize as the original Articles of Incorporation. That is the original and my name is signed to it. I think most of
the names were signed in my presence, but some of them may not have been signed there, those of course I did not see. There were
some parties who signed these articles who were not members of the local church at Lamoni. Robert Winning, Mr. Kelley, and Mr.
Blakeslee.
Yes sir, there is now a presiding High Priest over the high priesthood recognized by the Reorganized Church; that person is myself. I
was ordained to that office in April, I860; I was ordained at that time at Amboy, Illinois, at the conference held at that time. I was
ordained twice at that conference; the first ordination was as a high priest, the second as President of the High Priesthood; that is the
order in which the ordinations took place.
The published minutes of that conference are correct in that respect; I think so. I think they are. but I cannot be positive on that
121
point however, I think they are correct. The pamphlet handed me I recognize as a copy of the Herald, published in May, 1860. I
do not recognize the publication of the minutes of that conference contained in the paper handed me as an official publication. No sir,
that is a copy of the publication as it appeared in the Amboy Times, a local paper. I cannot tell you as to their correctness; they are
the minutes as published by Isaac Sheen; he was editor at the time, but whether these minutes are correct in this report or not, is
something I could not say positively.
The minutes of that conference as shown in the record, exhibit N, with reference to my ordination, appear on pages 59 and 60, and
read as follows: ''Joseph Smith, son of Joseph Smith the prophet, seer, and revelator, and lineal heir to said office and station
according to the law and order of the holy priesthood, was then introduced to the conference, and he delivered an address,
explanatory of his views, principles, doctrines, and faith. On motion of Isaac Sheen it was resolved that Brother Joseph Smith be
chosen prophet, seer, and revelator of this Church of Jesus Christ, and the successor of his father.*' That is the first reference, the
reference on page 60 is, "By unanimous vote, Brother Joseph Smith was ordained President of the High Priesthood of the church by
Brothers Z. H. Gurley and William Marks.'' The two ordinations as high priest, and President of the High Priesthood, took place at the
same time; I was ordained first as high priest and then as President of the High Priesthood. Yes sir, the minutes show an ordination as
Presiding High Priest, or President of the Priesthood.
122 I hardly think it would be proper to ordain a President of the High Priesthood, without there being first an
ordination to the office of a high priest; but in this case I know that I was ordained a high priest. There is no manner of doubt of that, and
afterwards was ordained
[ 79 ]
to the Presidency. I know that as well as I know anything that ever happened within my experience. My ordinations took place, one
before the other. I do not think any proceedings of any kind intervened between the ordinations; I think not. My impression is that
there was a motion made and a vote taken on that motion to ordain me a high priest at that conference.
Exhibit J, paragraph 11, page 291, which reads, "Of necessity, there are presidents, or presiding officers, growing out of, or appointed
of, or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods. Of the Melchizedek priesthood, three
presiding high priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith and prayer of
the church, form a quorum of the presidency of the church," -- I recognize that as a rule of government of the church.
I recognize this also as a law. On page 294, exhibit J: "Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed, of the high priesthood, to
preside over the priesthood; and he shall be called president of the high priesthood of the church, or, in other words, the presiding
high priest over the high priesthood of the church. From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the
church, by the laying on of hands.''
123
Yes, sir, I am the successor of my father in this office. I so understand it; it is so understood by the church to which I belong,
that I am by his choice. I am in a position to exercise the gifts of president if required and directed so to do. When directed to do so,
or required to do so, I stand in a position to receive. The church to which I belong looks upon the whole Book of Mormon as a
revelation, including the part which you have read. The part which you have read is just what it purports to be, a narration of what
was said by these two people at that time, the king and Ammon.
126
No, sir, I did not state that I was ordained by my father; I did not make that statement. I was not ordained by my father as his
successor; according to my understanding of the word ordain, I was not. I was blessed by him and designated, well in a sense
chosen, and the word ordain could not be applied in any other sense than by the act of pointing out or indicating only, and he
indicated or designated me as his successor.
I do not know what significance you might attach to the word call, but I understood it at the time, and understand it now to have been
a blessing conferred upon me, and by the act conferring certain privileges upon me, or to designate me to do certain work, depending
as I understood it then, and understand it now, upon good behavior, and upon any subsequent call I might receive.
I claim to be his successor by lineal right, and by his blessing, and lastly by the right of selection and appointment. It is not
necessarily a birthright to be the President of the Church. It comes by virtue of fitness and qualification, I may say, good behavior
and the choice of the people, recognizing a call or a right.
[ 80 ]
Lineal rights do not necessarily assume these qualifications. In my case I cannot say that it assumed these qualifications; that is a
matter I apprehend to be proven. I do not know whether the doctrine of lineal right was a doctrine of the church prior to the death of
my 127 father. I do not know other than what may be found in the books, and they are open to the inspection
of all, there is a traditional teaching in the books to that effect. In the church to which I belong it is not a lineal right, excepting so far as it is
found in the books. The right of the firstborn is found in the Book of Mormon, and also in the Bible. That is the traditional right of the firstborn
to whatever may attach to the parent. That right is expressed or understood in such a way that whatever rights I hold or am gifted with
by reason of the position I hold, would descend to my eldest son, with certain qualifications, all other things being equal. The same
attaches to the firstborn of every family. Now the claim of the Reorganized Church to the succession of the original is a claim of the
individuals who were members of the church at the time of my father's death, and who hold their membership, and their rights to be
regarded as members of the body in the Reorganized Church. I do not regard my lineal successorship as one of the claims, not
necessarily. The existence of the Reorganized Church does not depend on my lineal successorship as I understand it.
I have never seen the records of the church that were kept from 1830 down to 1844, and I do not know anything about them, with the
single exception I told you about -- the minutes of one of the quorums of elders.
I have never seen any report of the accounts of Bishop Partridge. I do not remember that I ever saw a publication of it.
There was an office in the old church designated as the office of Patriarch; that occurred along towards the latter times of the church
at Nauvoo. There is no such office in the Reorganized Church. There is a provision in the organic law of the church for the office, but
we have no patriarch ordained. The right to that "office" is the same as the other, subject to the qualification -- that all other things
128 being equal and the test of personal fitness. I made a statement or suggestion a while ago, that it does
not simply inure to one, but it attaches to all eldest sons. All who are officers of the church, everybody, every family, whatever right belongs
to or pertains to the sire descends to the son, all other things being equal. It is not a right that must be enforced, for it may never be exercised,
or it may be held in abeyance. That is a traditional rule of the Reorganized Church. It is not laid down in the teaching of the church,
nothing more than what appears in the Bible, and Book of Mormon, and the Book of Covenants. I do not know whether that rule was
practiced in the church prior to the death of my father.
Yes sir, the Reorganized Church has a Book of Rules that pertains distinctly to that church. I do not know whether it is here or not.
There was a book of rules of the old church. I have in my library
[ 81 ]
Jefferson's Manual; that was used as the parliamentary practice by the people of the old church. It was in my father's library and came
to me in that way. Our Book of Rules is not Jefferson's Manual; it is a book that was compiled by the authority of a committee of the
conference, and appointed by the conference for the purpose of compiling a book to govern in debates, public meetings, etc.; and
when the book was compiled it was accepted by the church.
We have no school, denominated the School of the Prophets in the Reorganized Church. I understood there was at Kirtland, but I
cannot say whether there was one at Nauvoo or not. I cannot testify to these things, for they are matters of history, and that is where I
get my information, simply. My knowledge in regard to the customs of the old church is derived principally from reading and what
occurred during my boyhood. We have a body called the apostles, but there are not twelve in number at present. The Reorganized
Church has never had the full number of twelve; 1 believe the old church had, that is my understanding. I think it had a full number
at the time of the death of my father. The Twelve are the traveling ministers whose duty it is to travel and preach, and take charge of the
129 ministerial work; that was their duty in the old church, prior to the death of my father, as I understand it.
I might say that they were the leading quorum in the church, and their work was of necessity.of great importance to the church and its
welfare. So far as the work of preaching was concerned they constituted the leading quorum in the original church and also do in the
Reorganized Church.
I believe the majority of the Twelve at the time of my father's death afterwards went with Brigham Young to Salt Lake City. I think
nine of them went.
Possibly it may have been at the conference of 1852, of the Reorganized Church, (the history states,) that there was a number of
apostles appointed of the reorganization. Seven were chosen from among the people, or the elders or ministers present, and they were
chosen and set apart to act in the apostolic office.
Notwithstanding the fact' that the son succeeds to the right of the father, we had a right to select a new Quorum of the Twelve, simply
because the conditions had changed and were not equal. The right of the son to succeed to the office or function of the father, does
not depend upon his lineal descent alone; it has a codependence, and that is the fitness and moral qualification of the son to succeed
the father. In this case other things besides the question of lineal descent were not equal.
The ones that went west to Salt Lake Valley were preaching and openly proclaiming and practicing a doctrine contrary to the
fundamental principles of the church, and all its teachings, and they who reorganized the church in 1852 repudiated that doctrine and
it is not likely that in the reorganization they would ordain the sons of men who were preaching a false and pernicious doctrine.
[ 82 ]
They assumed to do that by the inherent right of manhood and humanity, to assert their opinions, and defend their principles and
rights. That was the right, sir. and the people who met together in 1852 and reorganized the church asserted that right by
reestablishing the church in its purity. Yes, sir, they had the ecclesiastical 130 right the same as they
always had. Their hope of salvation depended on the proper and pure exercise of these functions, and they were responsible to God and not to
man for the way in which they exercised the gift that God had given them. Yes, sir, that law is found in our standard books. It is to be found in
the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, and in the Book of Covenants. I can point it out to you. Some of it is as follows: "He that loveth me keepeth
my commandments, and the same is my disciple," and also the statement of our Savior to John, "If you continue in my doctrine, then are
ye my disciples indeed;" and he also says, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Now these people who went
to Utah were addicted, before they went, to the practice of polygamy, and continued the practice after they went there to a great extent
still, and that is something that is forbidden in the books that are authority in the church. That is not simply my opinion, no sir; I
know it. So far as John Taylor's opinion and judgment is concerned it may be as sound and legal as mine concerning his own
deportment, but when John Taylor or any other man presumes to preach and practice a doctrine contrary to the teachings of the
books of the church, or the books that the church has authorized and recognized as authority, it is the right of everybody, either
individually or collectively to say whether or not they shall follow his example or associate with him, or anyone else who preaches
these doctrines that are forbidden and condemned by the church in its authorized books of doctrine and practice.
Yes sir, every individual who retained his self-respect and integrity according to his judgment had the right to pass on that and
repudiate it if he felt so inclined; and this is just what the Reorganized Church did do collectively, what the individual had the right
131 to do by himself. There has been no arbiter between myself and the church at Utah, nothing but the books, --
the commandments and the law as we found it. No sir, the question between the Reorganized Church and the Utah Church has never been
ecclesiastically adjudicated; there is no competent ecclesiastical tribunal before which the question of heresy and orthodoxy can be tried this
side of the judgment seat of Christ; but there are standards among men, especially among the Latter Day Saints, which are equivalent to them
at least. We have the standards and the guides that are laid down as rules of action in the lives of men, and when men go contrary to
that, we have the right and every man has the right to refuse to follow the false teachers and leaders, and to denounce their action and
teachings. Yes sir, if one man has the right to fix his standard of action, another has the same right.
[ 83 ]
It may be a fact that more of the people who adhered to the church during the time of my father went off with the Salt Lake faction,
than afterwards came into the Reorganized Church, but I think more remained behind than went to the valley, I mean Salt Lake
Valley.
I can give you some data if you choose to accept it. At the time of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith there was something like one
hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) or two hundred thousand (200,000) members of the church in America, Europe, and the
islands of the sea; and there was at Nauvoo and the State adjacent something like twenty-five thousand (25,000); that was the number
there then. And in 1850 there was something like fifty thousand (50, 000) in Utah Territory, and the census of 1880 gives us
something like one hundred and forty-three thousand (143,000) as belonging to the entire Utah Church that apostatized. Under this
showing there is a question whether or not there were not more who did not go west, but remained behind, and became scattered to
the four quarters of the globe. All who remained and did not go to Utah have not united with us. There were a great many who went
off with different 132 factions, and others who have not united with any faction of the church, but who
have dropped out of it altogether. There are other factions of the church that claim succession, just like the one does here, at Independence,
Missouri.
The Utah Church is usually recognized as or by the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I do not know when
that name was first adopted. That is the name of the church that existed at Nauvoo, before the death of my father. The difference
between the name of the Reorganized Church and the name of the Church in Utah, is the prefix reorganized. My knowledge of the
name of the church has been ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 133 Day Saints," and I only know that
from history as I read it, that the body was called at one time "The Church of Latter Day Saints."
138 Yes sir, I hold the same office in the Reorganized Church, that my father held in the original church. I am
an apostle; I was ordained an apostle; I mean by that I was ordained a high priest which made me an apostle, but I am not standing in the
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. All high priests are apostles when they are engaged in apostolic work.
I believe I know what is meant by the rejection of the church, as 140 that term is used. We understand it to
mean the introduction of doctrines and practices subversive of the faith of the church, and that in such case the church in its organized
quorum capacity that introduces such doctrines and practices is rejected of God. Yes sir, you can put it that way, rejected by God, if you
desire, and also rejected by those who remained pure and steadfast in the principles as they held them and believed them, and under which
they were baptized; that is the way we understand it. Colonel.
We draw the line for the acknowledgment of authority at the time
[ 84 ]
of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. June 27, 1844. All baptisms performed in the church prior to that time we consider valid
and good, but baptisms performed subsequent to that time we consider them to be subject to inquiry as to their character.
141
I recognize the paper which you hand me; it is a copy of the Saints' Herald published at Plano, Illinois, date, October 1, 1879; I think
I was editor at the time. I recognize the article on the first page entitled, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma." The article is a statement
made by my mother; her name at the time was Emma Bidamon; she was the wife of my father, and his only wife as I understand, yes,
sir. The article purports to be questions asked her, and her answers to them. The time of the interview was 1879; it was published
October 1, 1879, according to the date of this paper. Mrs. Bidamon died during the month of April, 1879; the minutes of the
interview were written at the time the questions were asked and the answers given. I was present at the time of the interview, her
husband was also present all the time. Her husband was Lewis C. Bidamon, of Nauvoo, Illinois, at the time. I took minutes at the time
the interview was had, the minutes as published October 1, 1879, were the same as the minutes which were taken at Nauvoo in
February. They were not changed in any particular; substantially the interview is published just as it occurred. I will not state as to the
consecutiveness of the questions and answers. I cannot say why the minutes were not published before her death, any more than that
we were pressed for room at the time, and she was taken sick not a very great while after that, and I attended on her all through her
sickness, and helped to bury her.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
142
There have been a great many churches since 1844 that have claimed to be the successor of the original church founded in 1830.
Their name is almost legion. There was the organization that went west under the presidency of Brigham Young, and there was
another under the leadership of James J. Strang, at Voree, Wisconsin, and Beaver Island, in Lake Michigan; there was an organization
under Alpheus Cutler, at Fisher's Grove, Iowa, and there was one at Preparation, Iowa, under Charles B. Thompson; and there was
one under the leadership of Gladden Bishop at Little Sioux, Iowa; and there was another one attempted by one James Colin Brewster
at various times since 1844; there was one by William Bickerton called the "Bickertonites." and there was one by Granville Hedrick,
and one by William Smith; one by Joseph Morris called the "Morrisites;" one by a man called William Davis, called the "Davisites,"
or Canaanites, a portion of which are at Walla Walla at the present time; and one by David Whitmer, and that is I believe what is called
"The Church of Christ." I do not remember any others just now, but there may 143 be others for all I know
to the contrary. Yes, sir, there was a faction under the leadership of Sidney Rigdon, that settled in the Cumberland
[ 85 ]
Valley, in Pennsylvania. There were a great many of these factions into which the church broke up at the time of the disruption; there
were lots of aspirants to Moses' seat. Sidney Rigdon was a member of the old original church, he was at the time of my father's death
a counselor or one of the First Presidency. There was also a faction under the leadership of one of the original Twelve, Lyman Wight,
that located in Texas, he was one of the Twelve at the time of my father's death. There were one or two more factions that I remember
now, one led by Zadock Brooks, and one by W. A. Miner, and I think another called the ''Church of Zion" that was led by Dr. W.
McClellan and others. I do not know that I have named all of them, but that is all I can think of just now.
All of these different factions and leaders I have named as I understand it, did take more or less in numbers from the original church.
I know some of the members that went with each of these leaders. Rigdon, Lyman Wight, Alpheus Cutler, Bishop, Brewster,
Bickerton, David Whitmer, William Smith, Charles B. Thompson, and some others. I knew them when they were members of the
original church, and after they were united with these other parties. Nearly all, I may say, of these factions that I have named have
come into the Reorganized Church. There has been large accessions to the Reorganized Church from these various factions or
organizations. 144 Notably, this is a fact from the church in Salt Lake Valley, the Salt Lake Church. There
have been large accessions to the Reorganized Church from the organization in Utah, and from that inter-mountain country; those who went
there under the leadership of Brigham Young; and the "Strangite" faction under Mr. Strang, and a number of those that were with Mr. Smith,
Alpheus Cutler, Lyman Wight, Charles B. Thompson, Gladden Bishop and others. I may say that nearly all of them have since united with the
Reorganized Church. William Smith, himself is with the Reorganization, and the majority of those who were with Alpheus Cutler at
Fisher's Grove, Iowa.
Mr. Sloan, he was the Recorder of the Church at Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1844. He afterwards became a member of the Reorganized
Church. He died near Salmon Falls, California, not many years ago. I knew him when I was a boy at Nauvoo.
The Reorganized Church gets its authority for submitting to the quorums and body for their indorsement, revelations, after they have
been received, from the Bible -- the teaching of the Bible, the 'Book of Mormon, and the revelations to the church in an early day,
which required that the common consent of the people should be obtained, I may say shall be obtained; for I take it that it is
mandatory.
We have an illustration in the giving of the law from Sinai, and its submission to the people by Moses, and its acceptance by them,
and the consequences attending its acceptance or rejection according to the word of God.
[ 86 ]
This is not a new mode that has been introduced into the church since the reorganization. The reorganization has endeavored to
follow the teaching and precepts of the old church from its inception.
Now there is one item of the law that requires or states, that the three leading quorums of the church have what may be called
145 concurrent jurisdiction, and the decision by either one of them is equivalent to a decision by either of
the others, thus exercising or maintaining a neutralizing power in cases of conflict, so that the rights of the people may be kept free from
imposition by false doctrine or theory by anybody; and also in the rules of the Doctrine and Covenants, which require that matters of that
importance shall be submitted to the body for their action, for approval or disapproval, at the conferences held from time to time when they meet.
As part of the direct examination of this witness, plaintiff now offers in evidence paragraph four, section forty-three, of Exhibit E,
being the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, as follows: --
"And now if your joy will be great with one soul, that you have brought unto me into the kingdom of my Father, how great will be
your joy, if you should bring many souls unto me? Behold you have my gospel before you, and my rock, and my salvation: ask the
Father in my name in faith believing that you shall receive, and you shall have the Holy Ghost which manifesteth all things, which is
expedient unto the children of men. And if you have not faith, hope, and charity, you can do nothing. Contend against no church,
save it be the church of the devil. Take upon you the name of Christ, and I speak the truth in soberness, and as many as repent, and
are baptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and endure to the end, the same shall be saved. Behold Jesus Christ is the name
which is given of the Father, and there is none other name given whereby man can be saved: wherefore all men must take upon them
the name which is given of the Father, for in that name shall they be called at the last day: wherefore if they know not the name by
which they are called, they cannot have place in the kingdom of my Father."
I was asked on cross-examination to read from the Book of Covenants with reference to the name of the church. I read, I think it was,
the title page of Exhibit E and afterwards the heading, or headlines.
146
The book now handed me, marked Exhibit H, is the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, published at Nauvoo, in 1846; it is the
fourth American edition and was printed by John Taylor. The book marked Exhibit H contains the doctrine and usages of the original
church and also that of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so far as it was printed at that time. So far as it
was published in collated form in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, it is all there. The title page of Exhibit H is as follows: "The
Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
[ 87 ]
Day Saints, carefully selected from the revelations of God, by Joseph Smith President of said church. Fourth American edition,
Nauvoo, Illinois. Printed by John Taylor, 1846."
The book marked Exhibit I, which is now handed me, is the 1852 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, published at
Liverpool, by Samuel W. Richards. This book, Exhibit I, contains the doctrine and rules of the original church and of the Reorganized
Church so far as they were collated and published up to that date. They are Exhibit I in compiled form. The title page of Exhibit I is
as follows: "The book of Doctrine and Covenants, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; selected from the revelations of
God by Joseph Smith, President. Third European Edition stereotyped. Liverpool: Published by S. W. Richards, 15, Wilton Street.
London: Sold at the Latter Day Saints' Book Depot, 35, Jewin Street; and by all booksellers. 1852."
I received the book marked Exhibit H as a present from my Uncle Samuel H. B. Smith, on January 17, 1888. He belongs to the Utah
Church, the Brighamite Church so called. The title or name of that church is ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," of
which Brigham Young, John Taylor, and the present President Woodruff, have been presidents since its removal there under the
leadership of Brigham Young. Samuel H. B. Smith is an elder in that church, but what specific office he holds in the church, I cannot
say.
I received Exhibit I from John Lawson, a member of the old church, who after the disruption went to Utah with the party under
Brigham Young, but he subsequently united with the Reorganized Church. I gave him one of our later editions for it on account of the
date of its publication.
Yes sir, there are rules for the trial of the President of the 147 Church, both in the old church and in the
Reorganized Church. He is amenable to the High Council of the church. The High Council is the highest tribunal in the church. I am not sure,
but I think the High Council is composed of twenty four (24) high priests. It is fifteen or twenty-four. If he is a member of the First Presidency
there has to be a conjoining of the other high priests in order to make up the deficiency. The law to which I refer is section one hundred and
four (104), paragraph thirty-seven (37), of Exhibit J, and the same law is found in Exhibit I and H on page (81), paragraph thirty-seven (37),
section three (3), of Exhibit I, and on page 109, section 3, paragraph 7, Exhibit H. In Exhibit E, section 3, paragraph 37,
page 87, the law referred to is as follows: "And inasmuch as a president of the high priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in
remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve councilors of the high priesthood; and their
decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of
God; that all things may be done in order and in
[ 88 ]
solemnity, before him, according to truth and righteousness." Section 14, paragraph 2, page 126, of exhibit E, introduced by plaintiff,
reads as follows: "But verily, verily I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it
be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead: and this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive
not the teaching of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments: and this I give unto you, that you may not be
deceived; that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and
be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received, and shall receive through him whom I
have appointed."
I know only from history, when the faction or organization that 148 claims succession to the original church,
headed by J. J. Strang, came into existence; the dates are difficult for me to remember; I remember men and faces all right, but it is difficult
for me to remember dates. I know the time as I know any other historical fact I read. The faction came into existence very soon after my father's
death, possibly in 1844 or 1846; there was a faction known as the "Strangites;" they began organizing at Voree, Wisconsin, and afterwards
they went on Beaver Island in Lake Michigan. I cannot give their number, only from hearsay and general observation. I have personal
knowledge of one or two branches or churches that are paying allegiance to the faith as taught by Mr. Strang. There are one or two
branches in Kansas but I am not sure of the name of the place; there are a number of followers of Mr. Strang in Michigan; they are
not organized into branches; some about Coldwater; I do not know how many there are in that organization; they are divided and
subdivided in opinion and location. I do not think there are more than forty or fifty in that branch at Muscotah.
The most of the Cutlerites united with us, but a few of them went into Minnesota, and located at Clitherall. The followers that now
remain of the Cutler faction are in Minnesota. The organization 149 headed by Gladden Bishop is dissolved;
some of the members remained at Little Sioux, Iowa, and some of them united with us, and one of the principal men of that faction, J. A. Forgeus,
united with us before he died. I do not know how many there was at any one time; I knew Gladden Bishop and J. A. Forgeus and his family well.
The faction headed by Zadock Brooks went to pieces about Kirtland. Some of them united with us and others left there and went to
Texas. I cannot say whether the Brooks faction went to pieces before 1860.
I do not know what became of the faction led by James Colin Brewster; one or two of the members of that faction have united with
us, but I do not know them personally; they live in New Mexico. The Brewster faction does not exist now; it has not been in
existence for many years.
[ 89 ]
The faction led by W. A. Miner, I do not know much about, and never did. I met him, however, in Southern Wisconsin or Northern
Illinois,, about 1867, and it had no existence then.
The William Bickerton faction split up into different divisions; a part of them remained ic Pennsylvania, a part of them went into
Kansas; I think there is a portion of them in both places yet, but I do not know how many. The part that is in Kansas still holds to
Mr. Bickerton, though he himself has been dismembered from the body.
The faction led by William Smith went to pieces like the rest of 150 them, at Covington and Binghampton,
Illinois. A great many of the Smith faction united with us; some of them are still-living at different places. That faction does not retain an
organization. William Smith, the leader of that faction, united with us, as well as some of the members of the faction he headed. That is my
Uncle William B. Smith; he belongs to the Reorganized Church, together with a great many of the members of the organization which he led.
The faction headed by Joseph Morris was broken up, Joseph Morris was killed at Weber, Utah. Numbers of the faction, that he led
have united with us. There are Elder Forscutt, and Samuel Ackerley, and a number of others.
The faction led by Sidney Rigdon went to pieces up about Pittsburg, in the Cumberland Valley; the faction does not retain an
organization I believe.
The faction led by Lyman Wight, or a part of it, located in Texas; but it finally went to pieces, so to speak. It became scattered, and a
great many of them came into Iowa, and united with us. Lyman Wight's sons are with us, or a part of them, and one of them lives in
Missouri, and is a member of our organization, along with his family. Lyman Wight's widow united with us and also his
grandchildren.
The William McClellan faction was located, I believe, at Kirtland, 151 Ohio. They published a paper there
at all events. The last I knew of McClellan he lived here, at Independence, Missouri.
There was a faction led by Granville Hedrick, located at first, as I understood it, at Bloomington, Illinois. Mr. Hedrick published a
paper there a portion of the time; I believe it was in 1864. I never got acquainted with the organization, though I knew a number of the
party. I met Mr. Hedrick several times, and others who were members of the organization of which he was a leader.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION.
I have not attempted to give the specific dates at which these different organizations were formed. I do not know the dates and did not
pretend to give them, but I stated it was between the death of Joseph Smith; that is, subsequent to his death, in 1844, and down to
1852; I think some of them were before 1852. I would not be positive that some of them were not after 1852. Yes sir, I presume it is
a fact that the Reorganized Church was about as weak or weaker than
[ 90 ]
some of the other organizations; I do not know that to be a fact, I state I presume it was; I do not know that it was a fact. I say again
that I presume that is a fact as far as numbers are concerned. It was comparatively weak until 1860, but it was gathering strength all
the time, however. At the time I became connected with it, I expect 152 there were probably three hundred (300)
in the membership; I think that was about the number that were identified with it then; that was in 1860. There may have been more; I
cannot say. There were some thousands belonging to it in 1870, we had built some church buildings; there were possibly five
thousand (5,000) in 1870; there may have been more than that number, and there may not have been that many. If I had the statistics
I could tell you just how many there were. Yes sir, I have stated that after the organization of what is now called the Reorganized
Church, that quite a number of the adherents of other bodies came into the Reorganized Church. That is true of my own knowledge.
I say that the members of some of them came in, and a large proportion of them came in. These persons who came into the
Reorganized Church, 153 who were members of these different factions, who were baptized prior to my
father's death, were received on their original baptism upon their request to be so received, and if they required rebaptism, they were
rebaptized; but it was not required of them; if they desired they were received on their original baptism as members of the church.
Yes sir, I have stated that William B. Smith was one of the Twelve 155 in my father's day, he was ordained by
the church that existed under my father's presidency, that was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I did not say that he went off
with one of these factions; 156 I said that he had organized or helped organize a faction, claiming to represent
the church. When he was received into the Reorganized Church his former ordination as an apostle was not recognized. He was received as a
high priest. We received him as a high priest in the right of the body to direct in regard to its officers, and in a sense we recognized his former
ordination. I do not know that William B. Smith was ever ordained an apostle; that is a matter of history I believe; I do not know what the history
says.
According to the laws of the Reorganized Church, a man is ordained to the office of an apostle upon its appearing to the satisfaction
158 of the body that he is called to the office; then he is nominated and received by vote of the body, then
ordained. We understand the call must be by revelation in some form. I could not tell you whether William B. Smith was so called. Yes,
sir, that is my understanding of the law of the church, that a member must be called by revelation. That is the rule that is laid down in all the
standard books both of the old original church and the Reorganized Church. If William B. Smith was so called by revelation to the
office of an apostle in the old church, it would depend upon the conditions and
[ 91 ]
circumstances surrounding and attaching to the case whether the Reorganized Church would receive him in such office.
165
The position assumed by the Reorganized Church in 1852 is that it stands in the position or in relation to those who were
members of the original church in 1844 and prior to that time that the Catholic Church does to its membership, though they may be
scattered, and belong to other churches, yet the mother church never renounced its claim upon her children; we claimed they were in
error, and we made an effort to redeem them, or I should say, an effort for their reclamation. We held that they were members of the
old church and for that reason it was our duty and privilege to make this effort to reclaim them. I never heard anything other than that
a Josephite was a monogamist.
Duly subscribed and sworn to, testimony having been read over by witness....
|
