Chapter IV: Section 42: 18, 19.--And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou (1)

shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in
this world, nor in the world to come.

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall
die.

Verse 79.--And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you
shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to
the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and
it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.

THE LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

In pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow man. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death. This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the "Mormon" legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "blood atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

PLURAL MARRIAGE

Since the action taken by the United States government, and also by the Church, in regard to plural marriage, I shall not discuss its virtues nor answer arguments in opposition to that principle as a principle of our faith. As you, however, are reported to have said that "Brigham Young introduced" that doctrine "in Salt Lake City," I would be pleased if you would explain, as a matter of history, why Sidney Rigdon, before "President Young introduced" the doctrine, declared that the principle of plural marriage was introduced, to his knowledge, by Joseph Smith the Prophet, and that he, Sidney Rigdon, rejected that doctrine and "warned Joseph Smith and his family" that it would bring ruin upon them. You will find this in the _Messenger and Advocate_, published in June, 1846, volume 2, page 475, number 6. Will you kindly explain why this same Sidney Rigdon practiced polygamy, which he so fervently condemns? Will you kindly explain why Lyman Wight, James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith, and others, none of whom had much love for President Young and did not follow him, also taught and practiced polygamy _before plural marriage was "introduced by President Young_." If you doubt this, I will gladly furnish you with the proof. Indeed, you may find a great deal of it in the third volume of your church history.

THE "SAINTS' HERALD" AS A WITNESS

If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the following paragraph in the _Saints Herald_, your official organ, volume 1, page 9. It would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which is entitled "polygamy." The quotation is:

"_The death of the prophet is one fact that has been realized, although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning 'polygamy,') before his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily_."

In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following?

"_He (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject ('polygamy') to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that." Kindly read the context_.

_There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain this it may suffice_.

In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement as the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. _There is, however, value in the above statements from your "Herald," for they bear witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural marriage, and the revelation concerning the same_.[2]

THE UTAH VISIT

In connection with this, let me call your attention to your visit to Salt Lake City some three years ago. At that time you met President Lorenzo Snow, a man whose veracity cannot justly be questioned; you heard him bear his testimony to the effect that he was taught that principle by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet declared to Lorenzo Snow that he had married his sister, Eliza R. Snow. You met and conversed with Lucy Walker Smith, and she told you that she was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the first day of May, 1843, in Nauvoo, Elder William Clayton performing the ceremony. You met Catherine Phillips Smith, who told you she was married in August, 1843, in Nauvoo, to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, his brother Joseph the Prophet officiating in that ceremony. You will remember that the first wives of both these men were living at the time. I hardly think these testimonies have passed from your memory in so brief a time. I am personally acquainted with these women, and know that they are truthful and honest--honorable women, whose testimonies should be believed.

In the face of all this evidence, do you think it fair and consistent for you and your fellow believers to constantly lay at the door of President Young the responsibility for the "introduction of plural marriage" and the "authorship" of the above mentioned revelation?

My letter is already long, but I desire to briefly mention another item or two.

PRESIDENT SMITH'S DENIAL

In the interview you are made to say that while on your visit to Salt Lake City, you spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith; that you and he "differed on polygamy," and that you "told him it was vile and wicked, always had been, and always would be." I took occasion to ask my father if you and he had discussed polygamy at that time and if you had uttered that above expression or any other of like nature. He replied that he had no discussion with you on that subject; that you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy, either favorable or otherwise; that your visit was a social one, and friendly, and was not occupied by the discussion of any differences which may have existed.

_It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville, but on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in trust for the "dead president's son?" Do you not know that such a statement--contrary to the written word--was antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, as recorded in the "Times and Seasons," as well as since that Time_?

PRESIDENT YOUNG THE PROPHET'S FRIEND

_Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young as being "under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?" Am I to infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false_.[3]

With reference to my father's first wife, you say she died "broken hearted and insane." If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it is also scandalously false. I have good reason to believe that she died neither broken hearted nor insane. If it were true, I would still think that you, as a professed minister of the Gospel, might employ your time to better advantage than as an aspersor or a scandal-monger.

Respectfully,
Joseph F. Smith, Jr.

Footnotes

1. This sentence in italics was omitted in Mr. Evans' publication of the _entire matter_ in the _Zion's Ensign_, August 17th, 1905.

2. The quotations from the _Saints' Herald_ which are in Italics were purposely omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the _Zion's Ensign_ of August 7, 1905. The reason for the suppression of this evidence is easy to discern. The authorities of the "Reorganization" have tried to destroy the evidence, that it could not be circulated among their church members, therefore very few copies of this particular _Herald_ can today be found.

3. These paragraphs in italics were also omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the _Zion's Ensign_ August 17, 1905.

MR. EVANS' LETTER

_Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr.:_

Sir:--Your open letter published in the Toronto _Star_ for February 25, is before me. You say: "I desire to be fair, dispassionate and also candid." Those who read your letter will see plainly that you have mispresented the interview, my faith and the facts concerning my visit to Salt Lake, and that you are guilty of a labored effort to cover up the _true facts_ regarding "blood atonement," "polygamy," etc., and my faith in the Book of Mormon. So much for those desires.

My position with regard to the Book of Mormon, and the name "Mormon," is too well known for you to blind the people concerning it. The interview shows plainly in what sense "the term 'Mormon' is offensive to us." Read it again, sir: "Because it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I have specified." The abominations of _Brighamism_; namely, polygamy, blood atonement, Adam-God,[1] and other evils that have disgraced the name throughout civilization.

The true Church never has adopted the name "Mormon" as being the proper name of the church. The Latter-day Saints were sometimes called "Mormons" in derision, as you admit, because they believed in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and some church members may have been willing to be called "Mormon"; yet you "candidly (?) fairly, dispassionately" ask me, "Why do you not discard the Book of Mormon from whence the name is derived?" Now, sir, I profess to believe in the divine authenticity of the Holy Bible; as well call me a Bible, because I believe in the Bible,[2] as call me a Mormon because I believe in the Book of Mormon.

The church that I have the honor to represent is incorporated under the laws of the United States as "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

BLOOD ATONEMENT

There is not an honest thinking person on earth who is acquainted with the faith of the church regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ but that will say your attempt to misrepresent my faith in this regard is diametrically opposite to your stated desire to be "fair, dispassionate and candid." You know that a prominent article in the Epitome of the Faith and Doctrine of the _true church_ reads as follows: "We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all men may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." You know that the true church believes in the atoning blood of Christ as stated in the scriptures you cite in your letter, and yet you try to make out that because we do not believe in the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young and his successors in "Utah Mormonism," that we do not believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the atonement of Christ is far above the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brighamism. To prove this, I submit the statements as made by Brigham Young and other leading members of the Utah Church, as found in their sermons, printed by your church:

Brigham Young said, October 9, 1852: "What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut off their ears."--Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:213.

Brigham said again, March 27, 1853: "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. (Great commotion in the congregation and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices generally, 'Go it, go it.') If you say it is all right, raise your hands (all hands up). Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this and every good work."--Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:83.

Echoing what Brigham said, P. P. Pratt said, on March 27, 1853, "My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so. * * * I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully warned. * * * It is too late in the day for _us_ to stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth."--Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 84, 86.

Elder Orson Hyde said April 9, 1853: "Suppose the shepherd should discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he be likely to do? Why, we would suppose, if the wolf was within proper distance, that he would kill him at once * * * kill him on the spot. * * * It would have a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public."--Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:72, 73.

President Brigham Young preached, February 8, 1857, as follows "All mankind love themselves; and let these principles be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves even to an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness. He never intended any such thing.

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the last resurrection if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled upon the ground, as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother, Jesus Christ, raises them up, conquers death, hell and the grave.[3] I have known a great many men who have left this church, for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation; but if their blood had been spilt it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood upon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill it."--Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 220, or Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 397.

President J. M. Grant said, September 21, 1856: "I say there are men and women here that I would advise to go to the president immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case, and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood."--_Deseret News_, vol. 6, p. 235.

President Heber C. Kimball said; July 19, 1854: "It is believed in the world that our females are all common women. Well, in one sense they are common--that is, they are like all other women, I suppose, but they are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones out of our midst; we not only wipe them from our streets, but we wipe them out of existence. And if the world wants to practice uncleanness, and bring their prostitutes here, if they do not repent and forsake their sins, we will wipe the evil out. We will not have them in this valley unless they repent, for so help me God, while I live I will lend my hand to wipe such persons out, and I know this people will."--_Deseret News_, August 16, 1854, and _Millennial Star_, vol. 16, pages 738-9.

The above statements speak for themselves, and these were what I read to the reporter. You ask, "Do you _know_ of anyone whose blood was ever shed by the command of the church or members thereof to save his soul?" To _know_ by hearing such a command given, or seeing a murder committed, is one thing, to believe the evidence of many who have testified is another. No sir, I was never present when such a command was given, nor when murder was committed; but I have read that which leads me to believe that under Brighamism, Utah was for years a land of assassination and a field of blood. What of the Mountain Meadow massacre--the destruction of the Aiken party; the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the Danties? Alfred Henry Lewis, writing in _Collier's Weekly_ for March 26, 1904, states: "Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself at their head, and when a man rebelled, _he had him murdered_, if one fled the fold he was pursued and slain."

The world has recently read the testimony of persons under oath, in Washington, who testified concerning the endowment oaths, so I will forbear any further remarks on this subject.

POLYGAMY

Speaking of "plural marriage," you say, "I shall not discuss its _virtues_." Surely that is kind. Let civilization give ear, Mr. Smith calls that a virtue which wrecks the happiness of every woman who is enslaved by it, that doctrine which permits Brighamites to live in what they call marriage with three sisters at one time, with mother and daughter at the same time. Your father, Joseph F. Smith, married and is now living with _two sisters as wives_. I refer to Julina Lambson and Edna Lambson, both bearing children to him; yet you call that system a _virtue_.

I have no evidence that those men you refer to, as having practiced polygamy _before Young was guilty, as stated by you_. But the following evidence shows clearly that Brigham Young was under suspicion before Joseph's death, and that he has since admitted that he had a revelation on polygamy before the church knew anything of the doctrine:

In a speech of Brigham Young on June 21, 1874, (see _Deseret News_ of July 1, 1874), we read the following statement relative to the origin of this doctrine of polygamy:

While we were in England (in 1839 and 1840, I think) the Lord
manifested to me by vision and His Spirit, things that I did not
then understand. I never opened my mouth to anyone concerning them,
until I returned to Nauvoo; _Joseph had never mentioned this; there
had never been a thought of it in the church_ that I ever knew
anything about at that time;--but I had this for myself and kept it
for myself.--The Messenger, volume 1, page 29.

Well, no one need blame Joseph any more, Brigham is the self-confessed channel through which polygamy was given to his people.

I here submit the testimony of Brigham Young's legal wife, who left him after he was untrue to her. Testimony of Major Thomas Wanless, given to R. C. Evans, his nephew, in the presence of Mrs. Wanless, Mrs. Evans and her daughter, in St. Louis, Missouri, September 7, 1904:

I met Brigham Young's first and legal wife and her daughter in the
winter of 1860 and 1861, at Central City, Colorado; she told me
that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy; that he did not
teach, practice, or in any way endorse the doctrine of polygamy,
that he had nothing to do with the so-called revelation on
celestial marriage; that he had but one wife. My husband, Brigham
Young, Orson Pratt (she gave the name of another man whose name I
have forgotten) made up the revelation on celestial marriage.

Before they left Illinois some of them practiced polygamy. Brigham
Young went to Utah to reorganize the church and publicly introduced
polygamy, or to reorganize the Church on a polygamous basis.

She left Brigham Young, finally obtained a divorce from him, and
was then living with her daughter. Brigham sent the daughter money
according to an agreement. She told me they ought to have shot
Brigham Young in place of Joseph Smith.

This statement of Major Wanless that she was Brigham's first wife is a mistake. Brigham married Miriam Works, October 8, 1824; she died September 8, 1832. In February, 1834, he married May Ann Angel; she was his _legal wife_, and perhaps is the one referred to by the Major. It is quite pardonable in Major Wanless in getting Brigham's wives mixed up. We opine poor Brigham was at his wit's end to keep the family record correct himself.

Chambers' encyclopedia, volume 8, students' edition, confirms Mrs. Young's statement, in part. It says, speaking of the practice of polygamy: "Young, Pratt and Hyde are its true originators. Emma, wife and widow of the prophet, stoutly denied that her husband had any wife but herself. Young's revelation she declared to be a fraud."

From a host of other witnesses who testify that Brigham Young was the man that introduced polygamy in the Church, I submit the statement of another broken-hearted woman from the ranks of Brigham's Church. Fanny Stenhouse says: "Polygamy was unheard of among the (English) Saints in 1849." (pages 45, 47, 48) "Tell It All," by Fanny Stenhouse. "In June 1850, I heard the first whisper of polygamy. In January, 1853, I first saw the revelation on Polygamy; it was published in the _Millennial Star_," (page 132).

"Out of thirty thousand Saints in England in 1853, 1776 had been excommunicated for apostasy through polygamy, the president of the conference was cut off," (page 160). When speaking regarding polygamy she says: "They know that the only source of all their revelations is the man BRIGHAM YOUNG," (page 190).

"Brigham has outraged decency and driven asunder the most sacred ties, by his shameless introduction of polygamy," (page 273).

"There have been many apostates from the teachings of Joseph Smith in early days, but of all apostates, Bro. Brigham is the chief," (page 614).

It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse, and many others, that Joseph Smith said, "If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro. Brigham, he would lead it to hell," (page 268).

Why did Joseph Smith a short time prior to his death make the above and similar statements regarding the man Brigham Young? The reason is plain. He too had doubtless heard some rumors as to his conduct and secret teachings, and the evidence would seem to indicate that just before his death he made a move to bring the guilty to judgment. We will let William Marks, who was president of the Nauvoo Stake at the time of Joseph Smith's death testify:

"A few days after this occurrence, I met with Bro. Joseph, he said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the Church, and we retired by ourselves; I will give his words _verbatim_ for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it would eventually prove the overthrow of the Church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion to put it down. He said that he would go before the congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the Church unless they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it." (_Saints' Herald_, vol. 1, pp. 22, 23.)

President Marks, after Joseph Smith's death, made mention of the above conversation; it was soon rumored that he was about to apostatize, and that his statement was a tissue of lies." (See _Saints' Herald_, vol. 1, pp. 22, 23.)

Speaking of the revelation on polygamy, Marks said, "I never heard of it during Joseph's life. It was evidently gotten up by Brigham Young and some of the Twelve, after Joseph's death." (Briggs' Autobiography; _Herald_ 1901.)

Now I propose to produce evidence showing that Joseph Smith and the Church during his lifetime condemned polygamy in the strongest terms. First, I submit the testimony of thirty-one witnesses as published by the Church on October the 1st, 1842. We deem this sufficient to show you where Joseph and Hyrum Smith stood on this question of polygamy.

"We, the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families, do hereby certify and declare, that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. John C. Bennett's secret wife system is a creature of his own make, as we know of no such society in this place, nor never did."

This is signed by a number of the leading men of the Church, some of the Twelve Apostles, some of the First Presidency of the Utah Church, and a number of the leading men of the Church. A similar document is signed by Emma Smith the wife of Joseph Smith, and a number of the leading women of the Church, thirty-one witnesses in all.

Now I submit for your consideration a statement made by Joseph Smith and his Brother Hyrum just a few months prior to their assassination. They learned that a man up here in the state of Michigan was teaching polygamy, and this is what they said about it: "As we have lately been credibly informed that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a man by the name of Hyrum Brown, has been teaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and the Church in general that he has been cut off from the Church for his iniquity." Signed, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of the Church.

This was given in February, 1844. Joseph was killed four months after that. Here he declares that polygamy is a crime, and the man was excommunicated from the Church for preaching it. Now I want to give you the testimony of George Q. Cannon, whom I met in Salt Lake City, as one of the presidency of the Salt Lake Mormon Church: "A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives. * * * Joseph and Hyrum Smith were slain in the Carthage Jail, and hundreds of persons were persecuted to death previous to the Church having any knowledge of this doctrine."--_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 14, pages 165, 166.[4]

This being true, Joseph Smith was not guilty of the practice of polygamy; he was killed before the people knew anything about polygamy. This is the statement of George Q. Cannon. Let me strengthen this now by the son-in-law of Brigham Young, H. B. Clawson:

"Polygamy at that time (that is at the time of Joseph Smith's death) was not known among those of the Mormon faith. * * * The doctrine of polygamy was not promulgated until they got to Salt Lake; not, in fact, until some little time after they had arrived there." Salt Lake _Herald_, February 9, 1882.[5]

Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. They arrived in Salt Lake the 24th of July, 1847, and he says not until some little time after that was it introduced. The little time was the 29th of August, 1852, eight years and two months after the assassination of Joseph Smith.

We have Brigham Young himself on this. He being interviewed by Senator Trumbull in 1869, said: "It (polygamy) was adopted by us as a _necessity_ after we came here." Ah, there never was a greater truth told in all the world than that. Polygamy was not an original tenet of the Church, and Brigham Young says it was adopted as a _necessity_ after "we came here." The real facts are, Brigham Young, as I will show from their own evidence, and a few other Elders were living vile lives secretly, and to cover up the consequences of their bad conduct, as he truthfully says in this "as a necessity"; yea, as a necessity polygamy was introduced. But who will dare to blame Joseph Smith for their introducing polygamy eight years after his death?

I have been careful to take these clippings right from their own papers, so that they cannot say that we have changed the words or anything of that kind. Here is another statement; this is found from Elder Ephraim Jenson:

"Polygamy was not practiced by the Mormons prior to and at the time of the execution of Joseph Smith, who was executed at Nauvoo, Illinois. * * * Fourth, that only three per cent of the Mormon men practiced polygamy, a proof itself that it was not essential to the creed."--_The Yeoman's Shield._

Here is another one:

"Go back to the foundation of our Church, April 6, 1830, there was no
polygamy practiced or taught in Mormon literature until five years
after that band of persecuted Saints reached Utah." _New York Herald_,
January 8, 1900.[6]

This is by Elder Whitaker, who knew who _did_ introduce this polygamy. Now I might introduce dozens and dozens of witnesses to prove that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it. Well, who did it? Here is what the Apostle's wife says of it: "How then, asked the reader, did polygamy originate? It was born in the vile and lustful brain of Brigham Young, and was grafted on the faith to gratify his sensual bestiality."[7] (Mysteries of Mormonism, pp. 16, 17.)

One of the Mormon wives said that, and she ought to know whereof she affirms.

We have learned from the above statements that polygamy was not taught or practiced by Joseph Smith, but was introduced into an apostate branch of the church, after his death, as is admitted by Brigham Young and others of his followers.

Having read the works of the church for over a quarter of a century. I confidently affirm that there is not a single word, in a single sermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or church publication printed during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith wherever he, by word, has endorsed the doctrine of plurality of wives; not a single statement; and there is no Salt Lake Mormon breathing who can produce one and prove its authenticity.

But suppose you could prove that Joseph Smith secretly taught and practiced polygamy, that would not make it a Christian doctrine. If Joseph Smith secretly taught, practiced, or endorsed the doctrine of polygamy, he did it contrary to all the revelations given for the government of the church in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; contrary to all his sermons, speeches, and public teachings; and he was a criminal before the law of his country, a base hypocrite before the God whom he openly worshiped, a despicable traitor to the woman whom he claimed to love and cherish as his wife, and was untrue to all the sacred principles of fidelity and integrity which he evinced in all his public utterances and conduct.

In the face of all this, the wife and children of Joseph Smith, together with thousands of people who knew him in life, refuse to believe the contradictory statements of Brigham Young and others who are wallowing in the mire of polygamy.

MY VISIT TO UTAH

If your father denies that he and I discussed the doctrine of polygamy, all I have to say about it is, that what he states is untrue. Here are a few points that may help him to remember what was said and done: When talking with Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City two years ago, he brought up a number of witnesses and I examined them--that is, he repeated the testimony of some who had testified. He finally said, "I can produce a living woman who will testify that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and she knew it." I said, "Bring her along here and let us examine her." Well, I met "Aunt Lucy" Walker Kimball, to whom you refer, and we talked the matter over, and here is the one point to which I want to draw your attention, to show how these poor dupes of Brigham Young may be led. Coming to the testimony of Emma Smith, I said, "You were personally acquainted with Emma Smith?" "Yes." "What have you to say as to her integrity, as to her fidelity and honor?" The old woman looked me fair in the face and said, "Emma Smith was one of God's noble women--she was truth personified; and anything that Emma Smith may say you can bank on it until the day of your death." "Well," I said, "she testifies that her husband never had any wife but her; she testifies that she never heard of that revelation on polygamy until you folks had gone to Salt Lake; she testifies she never saw it, and she testifies that it is an unmitigated falsehood manufactured by Brigham Young; that he stated that she had the revelation and burned it. Now what have you to say to that?" I said. She looked me fair in the face and said, "You can afford to build on anything that Emma Smith has to say." "Thank you," said I.

It is true that she told me she was married to Joseph Smith May 1, 1843; but when I showed her that the so-called revelation permitting a plurality of wives was dated July 12, 1843, and referred to her former testimony as given in the _Historical Record_, and that given under oath in the Temple Lot suit, she was confounded. I felt sorry for the old lady as she sat silent and confounded.

It is true that I saw a very old lady in your father's parlor, as she came slowly in for prayers. Your father said, "This is Catherine Phillips Smith. She was married to my father, Hyrum Smith, and she has never married since. I am not sure that the old lady heard a word. It is certain that _she did not testify to me_, but it was your father who made the statement, and at once called us to prayer, thus preventing me from speaking to the old lady.

Lorenzo Snow did testify to me, as stated; but then and there, in the presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed _his testimony to be false, by his own evidence_, when given _under oath_, and _by his sister's statement signed in 1842_. At this, Snow, Cannon and Smith were all much annoyed. So much for your father's statement, which says "you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy."

YOUR FATHER'S FIRST WIFE

You seem to feel sore over the statement that your father's "first wife died broken hearted and insane"; and you add, "If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it is also slanderously false." I insinuate nothing; let the public judge the facts. Your father's first wife was his cousin; she refused to consent to additional wives, and when he persisted in marrying the Lambson sisters, she obtained a divorce in California. Julina and Edna Lambson were sisters and were married to Joseph F. Smith on the same day.[8]

Number of wives married to Joseph F. Smith since 1865: 6

Number of children born to him in 38 years: 42

Number of children born since plural marriage was prohibited in 1890: 13

Children of Julina Lambson Smith: 2

Children of Sarah Richards Smith: 2

Children of Edna Lambson Smith: 2

Children of Alice Kimball Smith: 3

Children of Mary Schwartz Smith: 4

Estimated income available for supporting five establishments: $75,000

Corporations, banks and factories of which Joseph F. Smith is a director: 20

The only Mormon Apostle who surpasses the record of President Smith is M. W. Merrill, with 8 wives, 45 children, and 156 grandchildren.--_Collier's_ for March 26, 1894 [1904].

* * * * *

While in Utah I was informed that your father's first wife died broken hearted and insane. God and civilization know that a woman who loved her husband from youth up has enough to break her heart and send her insane when her husband will marry two other women, both sisters, in one day.

Perhaps you will be assisted to view the matter as I do, should you read the following in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:6, 7. Here it is stated, in consequence of polygamy, "ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives." Does this make the prophet an asperser or a scandalmonger?

I have answered your letter as it appeared in the Toronto _Star_ as fully as space would permit.

Respectfully,
R. C. Evans.

Toronto, Ontario, March 1, 1905.[9]

Footnotes

1. The teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to the doctrine of the Godhead are clearly set forth in Elder B. H. Roberts' valuable work, "Mormon Doctrine of Deity." For the belief of the "Mormon" people regarding Adam and his place in the universe, attention is called especially to chapters one, five and six of that work; also to Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 78:15-18, sec. 107:53-57 and Daniel 7:9-14. In relation to this matter I quote the following from the remarks of President Anthon H. Lund delivered at the General Conference, October 6, 1902.

"Some there are who follow our Elders, and after they have preached the principles of salvation, these men get up and charge that the Elders do not believe in God, but that they believe in Adam as their God, and they will bring up a few passages from sermons delivered by this or that man in the Church to substantiate this charge. Now, we are not ashamed of the glorious doctrine of eternal progression, that man may attain the position of those to whom came the word of God, that is gods. When Jesus was preaching unto the Jews on one occasion they stoned Him, and He wanted to know if they stoned Him for the good works He had been doing. Oh, no, they say, 'for the good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.'"

He quoted the 33rd to 37th verses of the 10th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, and said:

"We believe that there are gods as the Savior quoted. He repeated what was written in the law, and he did not say that it was wrong, but used it as an argument against them (The Jews.) While, however, we believe as the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us there is but one God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth. We worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. In the revelation contained in section 116 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, 'the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the ancient of days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet.' In the 107th section the Lord speaks of Adam as Michael, the Prince, the Archangel, and says that he shall be a prince over the nations forever. We may with perfect propriety call him Prince, the Ancient of Days, or even God in the meaning of the words of Christ, which I have just quoted. When our missionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts from sermons we say to them anything that is a tenet of our religion must come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they need not do battle for anything outside of the works, that have been accepted by the Church as a body."

2. If popular custom had designated the true believers of the Bible as "Bibles" as a term of distinction from other worshippers, there is no reason why a true believer should be offended even at that appellation but rather honored. Mr. Evans, without doubt, is not ashamed of the name "Christian," yet this term, like that of "Mormon" was first applied to the followers of Christ in derision, "because it was associated in the public mind with the practices" of the early Saints, which practices in that day were looked on as "abominations."

3. This is a misquotation, it should be: "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up--conquers death, hell and the grave."

In that same discourse President Young declares that those who were "righteously slain" were the wicked that the "Lord had to slay" in ancient Israel. There is not one word in that discourse to indicate that those who were slain to "atone for their sins" were killed in Utah; but to the contrary they were ancient inhabitants of the earth, viz., the antediluvians who perished in the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Jericho and the cities destroyed by the Israelites; the prophets of Baal whom Elijah slew (I Kings 18:40) and a host of others of that class and the class to whom the one belonged of whom the Savior said: "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." President Young's remarks agree with those of Peter when he declared that the Jews who were guilty of assenting to the crucifixion of Christ could not be baptized nor have their "sins blotted out" until the "times of refreshing shall come," which was at the time of the "restitution of all things."--Acts 3:19-21.

4. In extreme haste here to make a point, Mr. Evans left in the middle of a sentence and hurried on to the next page to complete the expression he desired to convey. This is what President Cannon said: "A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives; but when it is recollected that the mobbings, drivings, and expulsions from cities, counties and states which we have endured, and our exodus to these mountains all took place before the revelation of that doctrine was PUBLICLY known, it will be seen at once that our belief in it has not been the cause of persecution." Now, I ask, is it not plain to see why his quotation stopped in the middle of a sentence? The Saints all know that President George Q. Cannon was always faithful to his testimony that plural marriage was introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Latter-day Saints generally declare that this doctrine was not _publicly_ known in the days of Joseph the Seer, but that it was taught by him to his trusted friends. When this fact is known the alleged quotations which follow, purported to be from H. B. Clawson, Ephraim Jensen and "Elder Whitaker" lose their force.

5. This is not in the Salt Lake Herald of February 9, 1852.

6. The following is the Brooklyn _Citizen's_ report of that same discourse from which Mr. Evans quotes his passage as given in the New York _Herald_: Elder Whitaker said: "The people of the East have been led to believe that polygamy was alone responsible for all the troubles of the Mormons, but the fact remains, that as the fight was waged against Jesus Christ, against his followers, and against all great men for declaring the truth, so the same spirit is manifest now; but the Mormons will humbly seek those willing to accept the truths inspired of God, leaving the justice of their cause to be vindicated by honest investigation and time. The fight is directed against the doctrine of the Mormon Church, though polygamy has done such yeoman service in arousing public sentiment, to attain certain ends unworthy of honest men. The crusaders have kept the public mind from the real cause of the attack. From the time the Church was organized in 1830-47, when the people, after many previous drivings, persecutions, mobbings and cruel mockings, were driven to Utah, the cry of polygamy was never made a cause of their persecutions; indeed, that subject was not committed in writing until 1843, never published to the world until 1852, and was abandoned by the issuance of the 'Manifesto' of President Wilford Woodruff, in 1890, since which time not one polygamous marriage has been solemnized; but those having wives at that time were never asked, and it was never expected they would abandon them, and when death brings such relations to a close, there will be no polygamy among the Mormons." The Brooklyn _Citizen_, Monday, January 8, 1900.

Why Mr. Evans accepted the brief extract from the New York _Herald_ in preference to the full account in the Brooklyn _Citizen_ will require no comment, but it certainly does appear that Elder Whitaker _did_ know who introduced "polygamy."

As I do not have the Yeoman's _Shield_ and am not in communication with Elder Ephraim Jenson, I cannot vouch for his remarks, but feel safe in saying that if the whole report were published, his testimony would agree with that of Elder Whitaker as published in the Brooklyn _Citizen_.

7. In quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," Mr. Evans reveals the character of his "dozens and dozens of witnesses." The reader will perceive that he depends largely on the most bitter anti-"Mormons" and apostates for his "evidence," but in quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," he certainly reaches the climax of this base testimony. This work was published in 1882, by Richard K. Fox, proprietor of the notorious _Police Gazette_. The author of these "Mysteries," undoubtedly a man, assumes the title of "An Apostle's Wife," in order to hide his perfidy. The work is one of the vilest and most contemptible of all anti-"Mormon" publications, and is most bitter in its denunciation of the Prophet Joseph Smith. In it he is called a "lusty toper," "the worst of a bad breed," "an ignorant, brutal loafer," "immoral, false and fraudulent," and the author says, "_this_ is the man who founded what he dared to call a faith, and grafted on the United States the religion of licentiousness and bodily lust known as Mormonism." An apology is perhaps due for even referring to this matter, but since Mr. Evans makes this work one of the chief of his "dozens and dozens of witnesses," I feel that he should be exposed. He professes to believe in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, and yet calls upon us to accept the wicked falsehoods of this disreputable witness, whom he declares "_ought to know whereof she affirms_." Shame upon the man who draws his inspiration from such a source!

8. This whole statement is absolutely false, and there was not the least shadow of reason for uttering it. President Smith's first wife did not refuse to consent to additional wives. He did not marry two sisters on the same day. In depending on the unreliable Alfred Henry Lewis for his argument, Mr. Evans shows the desperate weakness of his position. It would be a hard matter to squeeze more falsehoods in the space occupied by the article of A. H. Lewis, from which Mr. Evans quotes so faithfully.

9. This letter is dated March 1, 1905, but was not written until sometime after April 19, 1905, for on the latter date Mr. Evans wrote: "You may look for reply to your letter as it appeared in the Toronto _Star_, as soon as I have time to reply thereto." This reply was received May 5, 1905.

A REJOINDER TO MR. R. C. EVANS' LETTER

Salt Lake City, May 23, 1905.

_Mr. R. C. Evans_,

_Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church_.

Sir:--Your reply to my open letter of February 17 was received May 5. Whether I was "fair, dispassionate and also candid" in my letter, or, as you seem to think, "guilty of a labored effort to cover up the true facts regarding 'blood atonement, polygamy, etc.'" and "your faith"--which was not discussed--I am perfectly willing to leave to the judgment of "those who read" the same in the Toronto _Star_. So on this point we may both rest satisfied.

BLOOD ATONEMENT

I will now consider your "labored effort to cover up the _true facts_ regarding blood atonement."

In my letter I candidly placed the true belief and teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to this doctrine before you. This fact appears to be displeasing to you, as it overturns your conclusions and accusations against our people. If you desire to know the correct position of the Church on this doctrine, I would recommend a careful study of John Taylor's _Meditation and Atonement_ and Charles W. Penrose's _Blood Atonement_, which was published in answer to such wicked misrepresentations as I claim you have made in relation to this principle and our belief in relation thereto. There is no reason for any person to misunderstand our position, unless he desires to do so. I claim, too, that we are in a better position to teach that which we believe than is the stranger who attempts to present our case, especially if he is antagonistic or unfriendly.

If you do not believe the doctrine of blood atonement as that doctrine is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which church you are pleased to call "Utah Mormonism," then I say that you _do not_ believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To this I will refer later.

You delight--as all anti-"Mormons" do--in referring to statements made by President Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others during the troublous times preceding the advent of Johnston's army into Utah. I see, too, that like many others, you place your own _desired_ interpretation on their remarks, place them before the public in a garbled state, taking care to give the darkest interpretation possible from which the public may gather false conclusions. You take great pains to cover up the conditions prevailing which called forth such extreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions in some respects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Missouri in 1838-39 when other unwise remarks were made by members of the leading quorums of the Church, but in a sense justifiable and which should be condoned under the trying circumstances that called them forth.[1]

THE CHURCH JUDGED FROM ITS ACCEPTED STANDARDS

Writing on this subject Elder B. H. Roberts, in his criticism on Harry Leon Wilson's plagarisms in his _Lions of the Lord_, declares the position taken by members of the Church and all fair-minded men in these words:

"The justice of Burke's assertion has never been questioned, and
without any wresting whatever it may be applied to "Mormon" leaders
who sometimes spoke and acted under the recollection of rank
injustice perpetrated against themselves and their people; or to
rebuke rising evils against which their souls revolted."

Even the president of the Reorganized Church recognized this fact in his answer to _The American Baptist_, wherein he said: