1: Where do you live Mr. Smith?
I live at Lamoni, Deature County, Iowa.
2: How long have you lived there?
Since the fall of ’81.
3: Where did you live prior to that time?
I lived at Plano, Kendall County, Illinois.
4: How long did you live at Plano, Illinois?
Between fifteen and sixteen years, or from 1866 to 1881, and prior to that I lived at Nauvoo, Illinois since about 1839 to 1866. I loved in Missouri a while and in Ohio a while at first, but I was very young at that time.
5: What relation are you or were you to Joseph Smith who was the first President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
I am his son.
6: When were you born?
I was born November 6th 1832.
7: Where were you born?
I was born at Kirtland, Ohio
8: What is your business at the present time Mr. Smith?
I am the President of the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am int’s presiding elder, and am also engaged as the editor of the publication called the Saints Herald.
9: How long have you been the presiding elder over that church?
Since April 6th 1860.
10: I wish you would state to the reporter Mr. Smith how the re-organization of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was effected, how it came about, and by what parties it was effected?
It began some where in the year 1851 as near as I understand it, bu the meeting together of persons who were or had been members of the church, but who refused to recognize the western authorities, bu their convening themselves together and conferring in regard to the condition as they then existed. After they had done this they issued a call or kid of appeal to the scattered members of the church, and they met in conference in the year 1851, no it was I think in 1852, and appointed some of their number as missionaries, and sent them out to look after the scattered individuals. I became acquainted personally with the movement some time in 1856, by a visit to me of two of them. I united with them in the spring of 1860.
11: What time in the spring of 1860 did you unite with them?
It was on April 6th. I met with them in conference at Amboy, in 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 don’t remember, for I have no record of the date. I was received into the re-organized church like others by my original baptism, and became identified with the movement and was chosen to preside over its organization and was ordained as an high priest, and chosen to preside over the body and ordained by them. William Marks; Zenas H. Gurley, and W.W. Blair, -if my memory serves me right were the ones who officiated at the ordination.
12: Will you designate which Gurley that was?
It was Zenas H. Gurley Senior, for there was two at that time, -father and son.
13: Who were these parties?
William Marks was a member of the original church as long as I can remember any man outside of my own family. Zenas H. Gurley was also a member of the original church in my father’s day. I did not know him, however, when I was a boy, but I knew William Marks well.
14: What position did William Marks hold in the original church, – if you know?
At the time I knew him in Nauvoo he was a high priest and presided over the council and the stake at Nauvoo.
15: What did you say he was?
He was President 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.
16: What is that fact with reference to that being the highest office in the church at that place?
It is the highest occice in the local organization.
17: What position did Gurley hold in the old church?
I do not know personally about that further than by general reputation. I don’t know personally as to that, for I was too young at the time to know much about these things.
18: What kind of a meeting was this at Amboy at which you united with the church?
It was a conference, – the yearly conference of the organization.
19: It was the yearly conference?
Yes sir the regular yearly conference of the organization.
20: It was what is denominated the regular, or general conference?
Yes sir. A general annual conference.
21: By what method were you chosen as the presiding officer of the church?
By a motion and vote of the people there assembled. by a motion being made to that effect and put to a vote of the conference.
22: How was that vote taken?
It was taken on a motion properly made by some person, and properly seconded which was put to the meeting by the presiding officer, – I believe the vote was taken by a show of hands, and the vote was unanimous.
23: Do you recollect who the presiding officer was at that conference?
I believe it was Zenas Gurley, senior. That is my recollection now.
24: Was Will Marks present?
Yes sir, but I believe that Zenas Gurley, senior, was the presiding officer of that conference.
25: What was that conference made up of – what was it composed of?
It was made up of persons who had been members of the old church principally, with a number that has been baptized by means of their preaching.
26: What is the fact about there being present there, – if you recollect it, – members from more stated than Illinois?
Yes sir there were persons there from other states than Illinois. there were members present from Wisconsin, and I think from Iowa, and from Illinois, and I am not sure about it, but there may have been members present from other states.
27: Do you recollect how many were there, that were members of the church? In round numbers do you recollect how many were present at that conference, who where members of the church? In round numbers do you recollect how many were present at that conference, who were members of the church?
Well there may have been present possibly one hundred fifty people. There may have been more for the conference was held in a hall, and it is hard to say just how many were present, but I think there was at least that many.
28: I wish you would state Mr Smith if you can, the number, and given names of the officers who were members and officers in the old original church, that were present at that conference?
I think besides Elder Marks and Gurley, there were quite a number present who were members of the old church, but the number I could not state definitely. Now as we speak of I remember that amongst the number that were present was Elder Isaac Sheen; Dwight Webster; Zenas Whitecomb, – I think it was Zenas, – the old gentleman, – Israel L. Rogers; Hiram P. Brown. I don’t know that I can now call to mind any more, – in other words I do not know that I can now recall the number, but at the time I doubtless remembered and knew who they were there that were members of the old original church.
29: State as nearly as you recollect the number of elders and high priests who wee present, – the high priests and other officers of the old or original church, who prior to the year 1860 had united themselves with the re-organization of the church, or who have since united with it?
Well I could not tell you with reference to the number who had untied themselves with the re-organization of the church prior to that time, and I could only make and estimate as to the number who have united themselves with it since that time.
30: Well what is your estimate as to the number?
Well as I said I could only approximate the number, but there must be some thousands of them. The majority part of the old body who were members of the old church have united themselves with the re-organization either on or before 1860. I cannot say as to the period prior to 1860, but since that time there has been a great many of them untied with the church as it now exists. There is my uncle William Smith, and his three sisters, and the husband of the youngest of them, – Milikem, – and William Aldrich; Jon 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 original church. How many of them there is in the aggregate I am unable to state.
31: You remember the ones you have mentioned however?
Yes sir, but that is not all by any means, – these are the ones that I remember at the present time. I might think of a great many more if I had time to think it over.
32: What became of your father’s family after his death?
Do you mean of his immediate family?
33: Yes sir and his brothers?
My mother remained at Nauvoo until the fall of 1846, in September I think it was. At the time of the disturbance there we the removed north to Whitesides county, where we remained until February 1847, and we the returned to Nauvoo and remained there. My fathers mother, – my grandmother, – went to Knoxville Illinois, and resided there for a while with her younger daughter. She remained there and at Nauvoo and Colchester with my family and her youngest daughter until she died about 1855. My uncle removed first to Knoxville I think, and then to near Amboy, and from there to Pennyslyania, and finally settled some twenty odd years ago in Clayton Counyy, Iowa, where he is living at the present time.
34: State Mr Smith what members of your fathers family, or of your grand fathers family, if any, went to Utah, or became identified with what is known as the Salt Lake Church?
35: You may answer the question?
My fathers brother Hiram and Samuel both left families, and the family of Hiram, and a part of Samuel’s family went to the valley. Part of Hirams family did not remove immediately, but his oldest daughter went in 1860 or ‘2.
36: You mean to the Salt Lake Valley when you say “the Valley?
37: Well what about the rest of the family?
Well the three sisters of my father, – Cathering, Sophrinia and Lucy did not leave Illinois at all.
38: They did not go west?
No sir they did not go west. They with their children remained in the state of Illinois, and Catherine is still living there but the other two are dead.
39: How many of your fathers brothers were alive at the time of his death?
There was two of them living.
40: What were there names?
Samuel and William. Samuel and William were living at the time of my fathers death, but Samuel died soon after father however.
41: How long after your fathers death was it when your fathers brother Samuel died?
It was not long. Something like two months after father died Samuel died, but William is still living, or was up two a day or two ago.
42: Of what church is he a member now?
He is a member of the re-organized church, and all the family united with the re-organized church excepting my grand mother, and she died in 1855. She died before I became connected with it.
43: Who went with you at the time you went to the Amboy conference?
44: Was she a member of the church?
Yes sir, she was received at the time I was.
45: Was she a member of the original church?
46: Now this morning you spoke about becoming identified with the re-organization in 1856?
No sir that is a mistake. I said I became identified with it in 1860. It came to my knowledge in 1856 though by a visit to me of two of the elders, -Samuel Gurley and E.C. Briggs.
47: I wish you would explain what you mean Mr Smith, when you say it came to your knowledge in 1856?
Well I had simply heard a rumor of the gathering of the people and the work of the re-organization. I heard of it at that time, or before that time, that is of the re-organization of the church, but at that time they brought a personal message to me, and asked me to come and join with the movement.
48: Who came to see you?
Samuel Gurley and Edmund C. Briggs. This Samuel Gurley who came to see me was a son of Zenas Gurley whom I have already mentioned.
49: Now when you went to the Amboy conference, what was the first thing done there in which you were personally interested?
In what way?
50: What was the first thing done at the Conference in which you were personally interested?
I made application to be received upon my original membership, and it was so done upon motion and vote, and my mother was also similarly received.
51: Received as members of the church?
Yes sir, and our membership was acknowledged at that time.
52: After you had become a member by vote of the conference, then what was done?
I was by a vote of the body ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, -or made a high priest, and was then chosen to preside over the priesthood and the church.
53: By what power wore you chosen to preside?
By a vote of the people.
54: How was that vote taken?
Upon a motion properly put to the conference, and voted upon and declared carried. I think that vote was taken by the uplifted hand, in the same method as the former vote.
55: Was there any ordination at that conference , -of yourself?
56: Was there any ordination at that conference, -that is any ordination of yourself?
Yes sir I was ordained.
57: By whom were you ordained?
If my memory serves me right I was ordained by President Marks, Zenas Gurley, and W.W. Blair. They officiated at the ordination.
58: What position did President Marks hold at that time?
I think he was a high priest,-I think he was acknowledged as an high priest.
59: What was his office in the original church?
He was a high priest and at the time I was at Nauvoo he was President of the stake, and also of the high council. At the time of my fathers death I mean.
60: I will ask you now Mr. Smith whether or not at the time of the dis-organization of the old church, whether any branches, of that church remained intact, to your knowledge?
From what time?
61: From the time of the dis-organization of the old church, up to 1860 and 1861?
I don’t know of any personally, not having personal knowledge at the time. I know of two branches at least I should say,-one up in the northern part of Illinois and the southern part of Wisconsin, and another at Jeffersonville in Wayne County, presided over by Thomas P. Green. Mr. Green presided over it was with most of its members received on presentation. Their branch was organized about 1843
62: I understand you to say Mr. Smith that you were about twelve years of age when your father died?
I would have been twelve years of age on the sixth of November and he was killed on the 27th day of June.
63: I will ask you now if you remember having been selected and classed by your father as his successor, prior to his death?
I remember of having been called into 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, for I don’t know the terms that were used. I remember that, and I also remember that just before the 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 don’t remember all of them.
64: Name some of them?
William Marks; George G. Adams; and I think Willard Richards,-but I am not sure as to that.
65: Are you acquainted with the faith and doctrines of the old church,-the original church?
I am as are laid down in the public records, and the books of the church.
66: And of the re-organized church?
67: You are?
I am also acquainted with the doctrine that was preached when I was a boy, and was taught in the Sunday school.
68: You may state if you can Mr. Smith what caused the disruption and disorganization of the church at the time it was disrupted and dis-organized some time in the forties? State just the reason or cause of the disruption? ( Handwriting in right margin first part unreadable. Next part reads: B. Y. acting in unrightful position.)
So far as I comprehend it, it occurred from the apparent usurpation of authority on the part of President Young and some of his compeers and the practice or teaching of the doctrine,-if it can be called a doctrine,-of the plurality of wives, to which practice and teaching a great many took exception and 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 of the members of the church refused to follow these teachings and withdrew. The political troubles that occured there at that time I do not remember much about as I was too young at the time to retain any very distinct recollection regarding them, and I may say about all I know is what I heard. 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; and the principle cause of this disruption and scattering of the church was due to the introduction of doctrines that were not in accordance with the published doctrines or faith of the church that the people had been taught or baptized into.
69: I will ask you Mr Smith to examine page 709, volume 3, of the Times and Seasons, which is marked exhibit “L”, as identified by the witness Whitehead, and ask you to state to the reporter whether that contains an epitone of the faith of the old original church, and also of the re-organized church?
70: I will ask you Mr Smith, if the book “Exhibit L”, which you now hold in your hand, does contain an epitome of the faith of the original church?
Yes sir it does.
71: Will you read that to the reporter? Read to the reporter, beginning at the words “we believe”, on page 709, and down to the words “after these things, on page 710, in volume 3?
It is as follows, – “We believe in God the eternal Father, and an his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adams transgression. We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be save by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. We believe that these ordinances are, 1st, – Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2nd, – Repentence; 3rd, baptism, by imersion 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 “prophesy”, and and by laying on of the 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, prophesy, revelations, visions, healing interpretation of tongues, etc. We believe the bible to b 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 did not 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. The Zion shall be built upon this continent. That Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradise glory.
We claim the priveledge of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same priveledge, let them worship, how, where, or what they may. 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 endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praise worthy, we seek after these things.
72: Whose name Mr. Smith has, or is signed to the epitome of faith of the original church about which you have been testifying?
My fathers name, Joseph Smith.
73: I hand you now a pamphlet Mr. Smith, marked “Exhibit M”, and ask you if that is an authorized publication of the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
74: It is an authorized publication of the reorganized church?
75: I will ask you if that contained the epitome of faith of the reorganized church?
Yes sir it does.
76: Will you point out the page on that pamphlet, the page or pages on which that may be found, and read it to the reporter?
It is found on pages sixteen and seventeen.
77: What is the title of that pamphlet?
“The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in succession from 1830 to the present”, and is entitled “faith and practices of the church from 1830 to 1844”. Do you wish me to read it Colonel?
77: No sir. I will not insist upon its being read at the present time if we have a copy, or if a copy is furnished so that we can cross examine on it.
The epitome of faith above referred to as being found on page 16 & 17 of Exhibit M, is in words and figures as follows, to wit, It is entitled, Faith and practices of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1, Epitome of faith, We believe in God the eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Matt 28:19. 1 John 1:3, St. John 11:26. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adams transgression. Eccl 12:14. Matt 16:27. 1 Cor 3:13. Rev 20:12-13. We believe that through the atonement of Christ all men will be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 1 Cor 15:13. 2 Tim 1:10. Rom 8:1-6. We believe that these ordinances are, (1st)Faith in God, and in the Lord Jesus Christ. Heb 11:6. 1 Peter 1:21. 1 Tim 4:10. John 3:16,18,36. Mark 11:22. John 14:1. (2nd)Repentance. Matt 3:2,8,11. Luke 13:3. 24:7. Ezek 18:30. Mark 1:5,15. Acts 2:38. Rom 2:4. 2 Cor 7:10. (3rd)Baptism by immersion for remission of sins. Matt 3:13,5. Mark 1:4,5. Luke 3:3. John 3:5. Acts 2:38, 22:16, 2:41, 8:12, 37:28. Mark 16:16. Col 2:12, Rom 6:4,5. John 3:23. Acts 8:38,39 (4th)Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Duet 34:9. John 20:21,22. Acts 8:17, 19:96. 1 Tim 4:14, Acts 9:17, 1 Cor 12:3. Acts 19;1;16. (5th)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. Job 19:25,26. Dan 12:2. 1 Cor 15:42. 1 Thess 4:16. Rev 20:6. Acts 17:31, Phil 3:21. John 11:24. Isa 26:19. Ps 17:16 (6th)We believe in the doctrines of the eternal judgement, which provided that men shall be judged, rewarded or punished, according to the degree of good or evil they shall have done. Rev 20:12. Ecc 3:17. Matt 16:27. 2 Cor 5:10. 2 Peter 2:14,13,17. 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. Heb 5:1,5,6,8. Acts 1:24,25;14:23. John 15:16. We believe in the same kind of organization that existed in the primitive church, viz; Apostles, prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, etc. 1 Cor 12:18. Matt 10:1. Acts 6:4. Eph 4:11;2:20; Titus 1:5. 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 Job 32:8. Heb 13:8. Prov 29:18. Amos 3:17. Jer 23:4; 31:31,34; 33:6. Ps 85:10,11. Luke 17:26. Rev 14:6,7,19,10. We believe in the powers and gifts of the everlasting gospel, viz; the first of faith, discerning of spirits, prophesy, revelation, healing, visions, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues, wisdom, charity, brotherly love, etc., 1 Cor 12:1-11; 14:26. John 14:24. Acts 2:3. Matt 28:19,20. Mark 16:16 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. Gen 2:18,21-24; 7:1,7,13. Prov 5:15-21. Matt 2:14-15. Matt 19:4-6. 1 Cor 7:2. Heb 13:4. D&C 42:7;49:3. We believe that the doctrines of a plurality and a community of wives are heresies and are opposed to the law of God. Gen 4:19,23,24;7:9 22:2. in connections see Gal., chapters 4 and 5. Gen 21:8-10. Mal 2:14,15. Matt 19:3. The Book of Mormon says, “Wherefore my brethren hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord; for there shall not be 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” Jacob 2:6,9 We believe that in all matters of controversy upon the duty of man towards God, and reference to preparation and fitness for the world to come, the word of God should be decisive and the ends 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. John 14:21-24. Doctrine and Covenants, sec 58, par 5. We claim the privileges of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, allow all men the same privileges, let them worship how, where, and what they may. Epitome of Faith and Doctrines.
78: You may state Mr Smith whether or not the two epitomes of faith which you have read, – that of the original church, and that of the re-organized church, – are the same, and if they are not the same, state what the differences are in them, and where in the differ if at all?
They are mainly alike. There is some differences in regard to the language that is used, and in regard to the question of marriage, – this matter being stated more fully in our re-organized epitome, of faith, and in the enlargement of the texts cited, but the principles are the same in both.
79: What principles, if any are there, in the original epitome of faith, – or the epitome of faith of the original church, that are not contained in the epitome of faith of the re-organized church?
I do not remember that there is any specific principle, except in regard as I state before, – on the question of marriage, – the principle is the same, but it is enlarged in the epitome of faith of the re-organized church, and specifically mentions the plurality of wives, which is not in the epitome of faith in the original church. There is nothing said at all I believe in the original epitome of faith on that matter”.
80: I hand you now Mr Smith a book which has been identified in connection with the evidence of Mr Whitehead, and which is marked Exhibit E, and ask you that that book is?
It is the book of Doctrine and Covenants. It was published in 1835, and contains a lecture on faith of the doctrine and commandments of God to the church, and the rules and regulations adopted by the church in 1835.
81: I will ask you to state what the doctrine of the original faith was he reference to marriage?
It was monogamistic, – monogamy, – one man and one wife, – one man and one woman only to be united in wedlock.
82: I will ask you to point out in the book you now hold in your hand, and which is marked exhibit E, the doctrines and rules of the church with reference to marriage?
It occurs on page two hundred and fifty one, section one hundred and one, according to this enumeration, and the subject of the title is marriage.
83: What does it say there?
Well this section one hundred and one prescribes the forms that shall attend the marriage ceremony etc., the duties of the parents towards their children and of children to parents, etc.
84: Is that the only place in the book where the question of marriage is dealt with?
No sir, there are other parts of this book that refer to it?
85: Well you may designate to the reporter the parts of the book of doctrine and covenants that deal with that question?
All portions of it that refer in particular to the question of marriage?
86: Yes sir, as they occur in that book which you hold in your hand marked exhibit Ex ________ in paragraph 7 of section 13 of this work there is a commandment to the church, and which is recognized by the church in reference to marriage.
87: What page is that on?
It is on page one hundred and one and one hundred and twenty two, and on page one hundred and ninety two, paragraph threee, section sixty five, there is a declaration in reference to marriage, or the connection between husband and wife.
88: Now I will ask you Mr Smith if the publications of the doctrine and covenants of the years 1846 -‘ 52- 1854- and 1869, contained the same statement with reference to marriage as that contained in the book which you now hold in your hand, marked Exhibit K?
Yes sir and it is the same publication of the doctrine and covenants that is used in ever faction of the church that I know anything about down to 1865 contained it. They were published possibly in 1864, and from that time on down it has been the same.
89: Do they contain any other form of doctrine of marriage, than that now set out in Exhibit E which you now hold in your hand.
90: They do not?
91: Is there any other form of marriage recognized or endorsed by the Reorganized church, other than what is set out in Exhibit E which you now hold in your hand?
No sir. The following is a true, correct and accurate copy of section 101, on pabe 251 of Exhibit E, above referred to by the witness in his answer to question 82, to wit, – Marriage 1 According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by law and ceremonies; therefore, we believe that all marriages in this church of Christ of LatterDay Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting or feast, prepared for that purpose; and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest bishop, elder or priest, now 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 termination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2 Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization; the person 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 their be no legal objects; 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. 3 The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. 4 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 had 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 that all persons who exercise control over their fellow beings and prevent them from embracing the truth will have to answer for that sin. The follow is a true correct and accurate copy of paragraph 7, section 13 to be found on pages 121 and 122 of Exhibit E, referred to by witness in his answer to question 86, to wit, – “And again I say unto you, though shalt not kill put he that killeth shall die. Thou shalt not steal; and he that stealeth and will not repent, shall be case out. Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent, shall be cast out. Thou shalt love they 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 repents not, he shall be cast out. Thou shalt not commit adultery, and he that commiteth 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 shalt forgive; but if he doeth it again he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out. Thou shalt not speak evil of they neighbor or 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.”
92: I hand you now Mr Smith that has been identified by the witness Whitehead, and marked Exhibit D., and ask you what that book is?
It is the Palmyra edition of the Book of Mormon published in 1830.
93: Is that the first edition of the Book of Mormon?
94: It is the first edition of the book of Mormon that was published.
95: I will ask you if the original church endorsed that book as a book of doctrine?
I so understand it.
96: I will ask you if the re-organized church endorsed that book and recognizes that book as one of its standard authorities on the question of doctrine?
It does. Yes sir we do. We have had it printed several times.
97: I will ask you to point out in exhibit D, Mr Smith, all the passages, or references there are in it to the question of marriage?
I don’t really know that I could do that without taking up too much time at the present, but I can give some of them.
98: Well, give what you can of them?
On page 127, there is an express declaration in regard to the question of having more wives than one. It declares 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 iniguity; they understand not the scriptures; for they seek to excuse themselves in commiting 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 abonminable before me, saith the Lord; I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, but 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 brethern 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 is an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts”. That is about all that it 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 558 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 brethern, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness, and cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandments 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 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”. One page 558, the reference is an follows, – “And Riplakish reigned in his stead, and it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon this mens shoulders which was grievous to be borne; yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes; and with the taxes did he build many spacious buildings”.
99: Now I will ask you Mr Smith whether it was not the duty of every member of the church at all times to obey the law in relation to marriage, as it is set forth in the books to which you have referred, as well as what relates to marriage in the bible, and that it was not the priveledge or within the power of any one to set any of the law aside at their own will?
100: State the facts about that Mr Smith?
The facts are that every member of the church was under obligations to observe the marriage rules given in the books, – in the book of Mormon, in the book of commandments and covenants, and also as taught in the bible, as we understand it, and also to observe the law of the land in regard to it.
101: I wish you would state from the book of Doctrine and Covenants the 1835 edition, that has been offered in evidence, and which is marked exhibit E, the authority for that, Mr Smith?
I don’t understand your question. I do not understand what you mean by “authority”.
102: I mean with reference to the church being obligated to observe these commandments and obligations, and the church ordinances on the question, etc.?
The fifth paragraph of the book reads this, – “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 fulness 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 teachings, until the fulness of my by the Comforter, ye shall speak and prophesy as seemeth me good; for behold the Comforter knoweth allthings and beareth record of the Father and of the Son.”
103: Where is that found?
That is paragraph 5 of Sec 13, and is found on page 121.
104: Well what is the next?
On page 123 in paragraph 16 of the same section is found the following, “Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received which have been given unto thee in my Scriptures for 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”.
105: On the same subject Mr. Smith is it the duty of members of the church to obey the laws. If so, you may cite and read to the reporter?
Paragraph 8 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, 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 Fathers kingdom, otherwise there remaineth a scourge and a judgement 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”.
106: You may now read to the reporter the provisions that refer to the priesthood, and how they are to be ordained etc, and by what authority?
It is section 2 of the second part, paragraph 17, and is as follows, “Every president of the high priesthood, or presiding elder, bishop, high councilor, and high priest, is to be ordained by the direction of a high council, or general conference”.
107: You may turn to the same book, and cite to the reporter section 3, paragraph 11 of the same book?
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 uphold by the confidence, faith and prayer of the church, from a quorum of the presidency of the church. The twelve travelling counsellors are called to be the twelve apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ, in all the world; thus differing from other offices in the church in the duties of their calling. And they form a quorum equal in authority to the three presidents, previously mentioned. The seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world. Thus differing from other offices 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”. That is not the whole of the paragraph, but it is about all that bears on this subject I think.
108: Yes sir that is sufficient. Now on the same question we offer section 5, paragraph 6 from the same exhibit, please read that to the reporter.
“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 according to the dignity of his office, that he should preside over the high council of the church; and it is his priveledge to be assisted by two other presidents, appointed after the same manner that he, himself was appointed; and in case of the absense 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”.
109: I will also ask you to read paragraph 2 of section 14 of the same book?
“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 nor 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”.
110: Now I will ask you Mr Smith if the sections and paragraphs that have been referred to by you in your testimony in Exhibit E are the same in the publication of the same boo, – the book of Doctrine and Covenants, – published by the re-organized church, as they are in the 1835 edition?
They are the same in substance. That is the reading matter is the same, but the sections have been arranged differently, – that is most of them have.
111: Then I understand you to say the difference is in the numbering of the sections and paragraphs, and not in the text, or in the reading matter?
Yes sir. The sections are placed in different order, but there is no change in the test. They are referred to in this book (referring to the edition published by the reorganized church) and the sections are referred to in the original publication, – the sections and paragraphs also are given, so that one can find any reference in one book by comparing it with the other.
112: I hand you no this book marked Exhibit N, and ask you to state to the reporter what it is?
It is the church record belonging to the re-organized church, and containing the minutes of the first conferences held, and also the records of the different branches of the church. The records of membership etc, – conference minutes etc,
113: I will ask you if that is the official of the church?
Yes sir it is. So far as it has been held it is.
114: I will ask you to read from that book Mr Smith the declarations made by the general conferences with reference to its belief?
What is that you want?
115: I ask you to read from that book from the records of the general conference , what records there was there, if any, with reference to the belief of the re-organized church?
116: You may proceeed and answer the questiion?
On page 3, resolution 5 is as follows,- “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 says ,- 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.,”- Resolution 9 says,- 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 not to faint in the discharge of duty.”.
117: Those are the resolutions?
118: I will ask you Mr Smith what book is referred to there as the record of the Jews?
The bible,- the old and the new testament.
119: That is what is referred to by the book of the Jews?
Yes sir,-the bible,-the old and new testament.
120: I will now ask you Mr Smith, what if anything the re-organized church did in the general conference towards rendorsing the record you have just read? If anyihing was done towards endorsing you may state what it was?
121: I will first ask you if you were present at the first conference held in September 1878,- the general conference of the church I mean?
I believe I was,
122: Do you remember what was done at that time?
Well I don’t know that I could remember specifically what was done. I don’t now that I could 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 if it serves me right is to the effect 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.
123: Do you know what was done by the general conference of the church in 1878 in relation to endorsing the books of doctrine of the church?
124: You may answer the question?
I was present and knew of the action that was taken. I knew at the time what was being done and my memory serves me that there was something done in ref- erence to endorsing the books, but what was done I really could not tell you from recollection.
125: Well for the purpose of refreshing your recollection, I hand you exhibit “M” and ask you to state what you know about that?
126: Now Mr Smith have you refreshed your recollection by reference this exhibit M ?
127: And are you able to state what was done?
128: You know what was done?
Yes sir, for I presided at that meeting and put the resolution when it was presented.
129: Well you may state what was done?
That resolution was present -ed for recognizing the standard books of the church, – the scriptures, book of Mormon, book of doctrine and covenants.
130: I will ask you now if the books referred to in the action of that general conference, were the same books so far as the test is concerned, as the the book of Mormon now present here, and whih is marked exhibit D, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants here marked exhibit E, and the book of Doctrine and covenants marked J, the same being the 1880 edi- tion?
No sir, – not altogether. Not in 1880, – they were not in the book of covenants we had at the time in 1878.
131: You do not understand the question, – were the books referred to in the action of the General Conference in 1878, the same as the book of Mormon which you now have here, – the book of Doc- trine and Covenants of the edition of 1836, and the books of Doctrinr and Covenants published up to 1878?
132: I will hand you now Mr Smith a paper marked exhibit 5, being the articles of Incorporation of the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of date June 6th 1891, in Iowa, and I will ask you if you were one of the incorporators?
133: Iwill ask you if your name appears upon the articles of incorpor -ation?
134: I will ask you if that is the articles of incorporation of the church from whose records you have been citing passages to the reporter during the taking of your deposition?
Yes sir, it is.
135: I will ask you if the church government as expressed in these article of incorporation, is the church government of the church of which you are the President?
136: I will ask you now Mr Smith if the articles of church government as set out in the articles of a incorporation, dated the 6th of June 1891, are the same as those set out in the three standard works to which you have referred during the taking of your deposition?
I so understand them.
137: The records to which I refer being exhibits D, J and E?
Yes sir, – that is the way I understand it.
138: I will ask you now Mr. Smith if the order of church goverment as set out in the articles of Incorporation of the Re-organized Church, is the same as that set out in the King James translation of the bible which was identified in connection with the testimony of the witness Whitehead, as Exhibit C?
139: You may answer the question?
So far as I know they are the same. I don’t know of any difference.
140: I will ask you Mr Smith if you are acquainted with, and familiar with the practices and usages of the church in reference to the acceptance of revelations?
141: I mean the acceptance by the church of revelations?
Yes sir I am.
142: I wish you would state to the reporter what the usage is? I will change that question so that it will not be objectionable to the Colonel If I can, – state what the usage was so far as you know in the original church, and what the usage is in the re-organized church with reference to accepting revelations by the church, – or what purports to be revelation?
That which 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 quoroms of the church, and be accepted by them before it can be presented to the body for its action, and upon their acceptance becomes binding upon church.
143: I will ask you to explain Mr Smith just the routine or road or method that is followed, – Explain first, what you mean by the use of the term “quorom”?
I mean certain organizations of the ministry, – as for instance the first Presidency.
144: Please explain what you mean by that?
Well I mean what I say, – The President of the church and his Council forms the first quorom.
145: How many members is there in that?
Three in full.
146: State the next quorom?
It is the quorom of the twelve, – composed of the twelve apostles. It is to own as the twelve apostles, and contains the twelve apostles when it is full.
147: What is the next quorom?
It is the quorom known as the seventy, and, and it may consist of seven quoroms of seventy each when full. The matter of revelation is presented to each of these quoroms separately, to be examined by them separately, and when they have decided it is either accepted or rejected, and they may examine the matter separately or con-jointly, and after they have passed on it, it is presented to the body and acted upon by the body of the church.
148: I will ask you to look at that book Mr Smith, which is marked exhibit “G”, and state to the reporter whether or not it is an official publication of the original church?
It is, – or was rather. It is the “Time & Seasons”, published by the church at Nauvoo, Illinois.
149: I will ask you Mr Smith if you were a member of the original church at the time that notice I have just read to the reporter was issued?
I believe that I was.
150: I will ask you if the book from which I have read being the Times and Seasons, was held out by the original church as being a church paper, and authorized by the church, and whether or not if up to 1844 it was so recognized, – and whether or not it has been recognized since then as the, – or as a recognized publication of the church, – the Re-organized Church?
151: I am not through with my question, – I asked you if the book from which I have just read, being the Times and Seasons, was held out by the original church as being a church paper, and authorized by the church, and whether or not it up to 1844 was so regarded, and whether or not it has been recognized since then as a recognized publication of the church by the re-organized church?
152: Answer the question?
It was the authorized publication of the 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 us, and not by us alone, but by every body else wo has ever had anything to do with the church. That is my understanding of it however, for I do not pretend to say what others may think of it.
153: I will ask you Mr Smith whether or not in all the discussions between the elders of your church, and those of other factions or churches, – between yourself and others factions of the same church or other churches, – whether or not the publication from which I read, being “Exhibit O”, is not recognized as the official publication at that time?
The book has always bben regarded as an official publication and the authorized publication of the church up to the time of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. It was always regarded as the current official and authorized organ of the church, up to the time, and is so regarded to day.
154: Well I will ask you Mr Smith to state what the attitude of the church, – the original church, was from the time of its organization up to the time of the death of your father in 1844 toward the Government of the United States? State and city from the rules of the church, – the official records of the church, and standard books that have been identified during the taking of these depositions, what that duty was?
155: Let the record show that the party asking the question only asks for the reading of the passages referred to, for the books authorized by the church, as to what the attitude of the church was toward the Government of the United States?
The attitude of the church towards the government of the United States was that of loyalty and obedience as expressed in its records, and in its articles of faith and government. In connection with this answer I will read from Exhibit K, page one hundred and thirty seven, where occurs the following, – “Let no man think that he is a ruler, but let God rule him that judgeth according to the council of his own will, or in other words, him that counselleth, of sitteth upon the judgement 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 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 we hold them forth. Behold, here is wisdom.” Again on page one hundred and twenty five of the same book, paragraphs one and two, – I should say paragraphs twenty one, twenty two and twenty three of section thirteen Exhibit E, in evidence, as follows, – Paragraph twebty one, – “Again every person that 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 shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealth with according to the law of the land; For remember that he hath no forgiveness; and it shall be proven according to the laws of the land”. Paragraph twenty two, – “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 life 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 that 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 into the law of the land. And if he or she shall lie, he or she shall be delivered up into 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 twenty three, – “And if they 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 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 he shall 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 any one 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, and that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her. And thus ye shall conduct all things.
156: Is that all?
No sir in the enactments of the church there is a declaration of the church in regard to the laws, and governments, all in general, especially as to governments. Shall I read it?
157: What is it did you say?
It is a declaration of the attitude of the church in regard to governments?
158: Well we offer in evidence Mr. Reporter, second one hundred and two of Exhibit E, at pages 252, 253 & 254, and ask that it be made a part of the record, – the whole of the section?
Section one hundred and two above offered, is in words and figures as follows, to wit, – Section C I I Of Governments and laws in General, – That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same”. 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 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 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 Soverign. 4 We believe that religion is instituted of God, and that men are amenable to Him and Him only for the exercise of it, unless the religious opinions prompts 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 built but never supress 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 inaleinable rights by the laws of such govern- ments, 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 in their own judgements as best calculated to secure the public interest, at the same time however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience. 6 We belive that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, -being placed for the protect- ion 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 ex- press purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man, and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules of spiritual concerns, for faith and worship both to be answered by man to his Maker. 7 We believe that ruler, States and Governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all cirizens 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 priveledge, or prescribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence is shown to the laws, and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy. 8 We believe that the comission of crime should be punished according to the nature if the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all re- spects should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that gov- ernment in which the offence is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringin 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 foster -ed and another is prescribed in its spiritual priveledges, and the individual rights of its members as citenzs, denied. 10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduet according to the rules and regulations of such societies, provided that such dealings 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 worlds goods, or put them in jeopardy ,either life or limb, no neither to inflict any physical punishment upon them, – they can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from their fellowship. II 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 or property 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 /exigen- cies where immediate appeal cannot be made to the 1aws, 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 in- terfere with bond servants, nor preach the gospel to, nor bap- tize them, contrary to the will and wish of their masters, or to meddle with or influence them in the lest to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; sueh interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every Goverment allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
159: Mr Smith you have testified here with reference to the authority of a number of publications filed as exhibits?
160: Mr Smith you have testified here with reference to the authority of a number of publications filed as exhibits in this case, and amongst a number of others you have state that the Book of Mormon is an authority in the church to which you belong?
161: That is the fact is it not?
Yes sir, I so stated.
162: And that it was an authority in the church before in left Nauvoo, Illinois?
163: No will you state whether or not you use the same edition of the Book of Mormon that the Nauvoo church did?
Yes sir, we use the same edition, – that is the Palmyra edition of the Book of Mormon published in 1830 if my memory serves me right as to the date of that edition, – and also one published by ourselves, the re-organized church.
164: These are the editions you regard as authority?
165: What is the date of the edition published by yourselves, – that is the one that is published by the re-organized church?
Well we began publishing it in 1865 or ‘4, – if my memory serves me right that is the date, and the edition was issued either in Chicago or Cincinnati.
166: Is the subject matter in these editions the same?
We understand it to be.
167: You say “we understand it to be”?
Yes sir, that is our understanding.
168: Well Mr Smith I am not asking you for your understanding, – I am asking you for your positive knowledge on that subject?
Well my knowledge is that we are identical in words, – that is they are not all identical as far as the words go. There was an edition got 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.
169: Well if you use any edition in your church different from these by authority of your church, state what edition it is?
Well we regard them all alike.
170: You regard them all alike?
Yes sir. We use this one (referring to book in hand) because it is versified and is more easily handled on that account, but we have all of them and they are of equal authority with us, for there has been no specific change in any of the, – that is in any if the Books of Mormon, published by any one that I know anything about.
171: You have also testified Mr Smith that a book of doctrine and covenants is an authority in the re-organized church, and that the same book, or a book of the same name was an authority before the he gira from Nauvoo? Did you not testify to that?
172: Yes sir? That is what you testified to? Now I will ask you if there are different editions of that book?
173: What are those editions?
All those that I have seen, – all I have seen that was used in the church at that time is the same as the edition of 1835.
174: Where was that edition published?
At Kirtland, Ohio, and there was the edition of 1845 and I think 1846 published at Nauvoo Illinois.
176: Was the 1845 and 1846 edition published at Nauvoo?
Yes sir the edition I have reference to was.
177: Is that all the editiobs you know anything about?
178: Are all these editions identically the same?
They are in substance so far as I have had an opportunity to examine them. Some of them I have examined pretty thouroghly, and some I have not, but to the best of my judgement they are practically the same.
179: Are there not what purports to be revelations in some of the later editions of the book called the “book od Doctrine and Covenants”, that are not in some of the prior editions?
180: That is the fact?
181: Then how can you call these bookd identically the same, – if they are of different editions and printed at different times and places, how is it that you can say they are identically the sam?
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 by the body of the church, and were published in book form.
182: Now do I understand you rightly when I understand you to say that some of the later editions have subject matter in them that was not in the former editions?
What is that. I don’t believe I understand your questions.
183: I asked you if I understood you correctly when I say I understood you to say, that some of the later editions of these works have subject matter in them that some of the former editions don’t have?
184: I understood you correctly?
Yes sir, I say so.
185: Then these books entitle book of doctrine and covenants, are not identically the same are they?
They are not in that regard.
186: Now what editions of these books contain matter that was not in the old book first published in 1845?
The first one was published in 1835,
187: Well the first edition published in 1835, I am obliged to you for the correction, – what editions of these books contain matter that was not in the first edition published in 1835 and the editions published subsequent there to in 1845 and 1846, – or both of the latter dates?
Well I don’t know what I can mention them specifically.
188: Well answer the question as nearly as you can?
I think however that there was a revelation said to be given some time in 1834 that is not in the later editions.
189: That is not in the later editions?
No sir, not in the later editions and in the edition that is 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
190: About what prportion of that book is so composed?
191: Well about how much of it?
Oh only a small portion, – a few pages.
192: Well about how many pages?
I couldn’t tell you how many, but about fifteen or twenty, – possibly twenty four.
193: Were these revelations, – These new revelations which you speak of in the book which you now regard and here present as authoritive?
194: I asked you if they were not in the book which you regard as, and present there, as being authoritive?
195: What book is that?
Exhibit “J”. The book of doctrine and covenants.
196: What date is the publication of that edition?
197: The edition was published in 1882?
198: Are all these that are there spoken of to be found in any other book?
Well I don’t know that they are? There may have been some other editions that they are in for we published a number of them.
199: Now in what other editions were these changes to be found?
I wouldn’t like to say as to the dates?
200: Give you best opinion as to the time in which, or at which I should say, these other editions in which these changes are to be found, were published?
Well I think not prior to 1878, for there was then an authoritive declaration made by the church and authorizing the Board of publication to insert them in he book of doctrine and Covenants, and ordering them to be published.
201: Then did you testify that the re-organized church from the time, – First I will ask you what time it was the church was re-organized?
202: Then the church from 1852 to 1878 used the 1845 and 1846 edition of the Book of Doctrine & Covenants, as containing all the revelations?
All of them that had been authoritively received by the church up to that time.
203: What is that? I do not understand.
That is all that had been authoritively received by the church up to that time.
204: Up to the time of the publication of the book?
Yes sir, so far as I know.
205: Now then when was there new revelations given that were regarded as authoritive by the church after the publication of that book in 1845?
The re-organized church do you mean?
206: Yes sir?
1861 and 1865.
207: Was there a revelation given in 1861?
208: And another in 1865?
Yes sir in 1865, and another in 1863.
209: AT first the revelations were not comprised in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
210: Why not?
They were not published until they were accepted and authorized by the church.
211: Where was that done?
I think all of them that had been received up to 1878 were ordered to be printed in the book.
212: Now were these revelations of which you speak as authoritive in the church, – as authoritive in the church, as any, to be found in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
After they were accepted by the church they became a rule to the church and authoritive and binding upon the church.
213: Were these revelations accepted by the church in the order in which you have given them, and at these times?
They were acted upon, but were not ordered to be printed and accepted until later.
214: Were they accepted as authority by the church prior to their publication?
Yes sir some of them were.
215: Were they accepted at the time of the revelations, or about that time?
216: That in the book of Doctrine and Covenants which is now the rule of action in your church, and binding upon the church, there are rules and doctrines that were not to be found in the original book of Doctrine and Covenants?
218: They are not to be found in the book of Doctrine and Covenants published in 1845 and 1846 to which reference has been made here?
219: They are not to be found in these editions?
220: They are not to be found in the book of 1832?
1835 you mean I suppose?
221: Yes sir, they are not to be found in the edition of 1835?
222: Nor are they to be found in any book published between 1835 and 1845 or 1846 that you know anything about?
No sir, none that I know anything about.
223: Now will you please state the method that was followed in the reorganized church in the adoption of the book of Doctrine and Covenants or of the revelations to be published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir. The methods which the rule required, is that they should be presented to the quorums as I have mentioned in my examination in chief to be acted upon by them, which is done, and they then present them to the body and they are accepted by them in conference.
224: What is “the body in conference”?
It 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 church forming the conference.
225: Who composed that official membership of the conference?
Well if my memory serves me right it was the President of the church, the twelve, the high priests, the seventy and the elders. If my memory serves me right they were ex-officio members of the conference, and they attend it and they 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 votes of their districts.
226: How are the delegates selected?
By the branches if they are isolated branches, and by the members of the districts at their district conferences.
227: What are branches?
They are church organizations, or congregations I suppose they may be called.
228: Local churches?
229: What are districts?
They are officially designated territories composed of two or more branches contiguous to each other.
230: Who has oversight over the branches?
In what way?
231: Who has the oversight over any given branch?
Those officers that may be chosen by the branch in case there is an organization.
232: Who has oversight over the districts?
One that may be appointed by the conference temporarily, but usually one may be selected by the members of the district. He is called the District President, or presiding elder of the district as the case may be, but we usually say President of the District.
233: And so these delegates of which you speak, are elected by the local churches or branches, each branch being entitled to how many delegates I would ask?
Well if it was an insolated branch I don’t know that I could give you the exact representation it would be entitled to, but if the number of members is over twenty it is entitled to two
234: How are the districts represented?
They are represented by delegates chosen by their members at their district conferences.
235: Now are the branches and districts the only organizations below the conferences?
236: The branches or districts?
237: They are the only organizations below the conferences?
The churches exist in the branches and districts where they are organized, but branches may exist without a district organization.
238: Well, what is the next highest order of government in the church?
The general conference.
239: The general conference is the next highest organization in the church?
240: Well what does it represent?
The whole body of the church everywhere.
241: That is composed or represents the whole body of the church everywhere?
242: Does that mean the church in the United States, and all the other nations of the earth?
243: It means the entire church?
Certainly, it means the church wherever it may exist without reference to location, or what country it may be in. It means the entire church wherever it may exist, whether at home or abroad.
244: And what constitutes a quorom to do business in the conference?
The membership present and ex-officio delegates.
245: What is the member of a quorom, – what does it take a constitute a quorom in point of numbers?
There has never been any designated number required to form a quorom. 246 (Question and answer are missing)
247: What I want to know is what part of the membership present it takes to constitue a quorom?
There is no specific number designated, or understood to form a quorom. That is there is no specific number designated to form a quorom.
248: Now how are the proceedings of these annual conferences that you have described kept?
They are kept by secretaries. I might say in explanation that they are kepr through the 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 then the proceedings are kept by persons selected temporarily to perform that duty, and report to the secretary.
249: Well what are done with these proceedings after they are taken?
They are usually published to the church.
250: Well what I want to know particularly is how they are published.
They are usually published to the church through the medium of the official publication or organ of the church; but the record itself is kept, the written record is kept by the secretary and recorder of the church in his office.
251: Are they uniformly published?
I believe so.
252: Are they always uniformly published?
I couldn’t say, for I don’t know.
253: For how long then, do you know of your own knowledge of their having been regularly and uniformly published?
They have been ever since my connection with the church.
254: And when was it you became connected with the church?
255: And since that daye they have been published regularly?
256: Were they published prior to your connection with the church in 1860 at all?
I don’t know that the minutes of the conference held by the re-organized church were published for the reason that they had no organ until January 1860 I think. I can’t say that they were published prior to that date, for this reason.
257: Who had not any organ?
The re-organized church hadn’t.
258: Prior to 1860 you say the re-organized church had not any official organ? Is that what you mean to say?
Yes sir, that is my understanding of it.
259: Well I am talking about the church that existed in 1845 or ‘6, – The church that existed form 1832 to ’33, ’34 or ‘6?
Well I couldn’t say anything about that. I couldn’t say anything bout their minutes, only as I see them represented in the publixhed records or journals of the day.
260: Then shall I understand you to testify that you have never seen the records of the conferences held from 1832 to 1845 or 1846?
Only as I have seen them published in the journals of the day.
261: What are these journals?
The Times and Seasons and the Millenial Star.
262: Where was the Millenial Star published?
It was published at Liverpool England.
263: Well then you testified if I remember you correctly that you do you remember that you have ever seen any of the original official publications of the proceedings of the conferences of the church, – I said from 1832, – but I should have said from 1830, for I believe that was about the time that the original church was organized, – down to 1845 to 1846?
I have not seen them unless I have seen them in the current journals of the time.
264: That is the only place you have seen them?
265: You have not seen the written originals?
266: Were these records of the proceedings of the conferences to which you have referred as having seen them in these publications authenticated?
Well I could not tell you.
267: You do not know whether they were authentic or not?
No sir, I could not say as to that, but I have no doubt but that they are authentic.
268: Well you do not know that of your own knowledge?
269: Do you know what became of these records of the church?
I don’t know personnaly. We have in our possession one of the minute books of the church. It is the record of one of the first quoroms of the elders.
270: How did you get that?
That was a record that was kept by a man named Morton I think who died up in Michigan, and he sent it to us. He has died since it was sent to us.
271: Is there any sect which claims to have those records of the minutes of the conferences that were held from 1830 down to 1845 or 1846?
272: And sect or faction of the church which claims to have these records?
I could not say whether there is any that claims to have them or not.
273: You don’t know about that?
274: Is there any other church of which you have any knowledge that claims to be the church, – the true church?
In what respect.
275: Any other faction or sect that claims to be the true church as it existed in the days of Joseph Smith, other than the re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of Which you are the President?
At what time?
276: My question is is there any other sect that claims to be the true church, that practices the same doctrine and faith, and its guided and governed by the same rules and faith, as the church which existed under the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints from 1830 up to 1845 or 1846?
277: Put it 1844 Colonel?
278: Well from 1844, I mean from 1830 to 1844 or 1846 or whatever time it was the original church left Nauvoo, or were dispersed up to the time of the death of Joseph Smith say, is there any other sect or now existing any where that claims to be the same as the original church?
I believe there is.
279: And has such church existed all the time from 1844 and 1845 or 1846, down to the present time?
I think so, yes sir.
280: Does that church possess these records?
I could not tell you that sir. I couldn’t tell you that for I don’t know.
281: You could not say whether or not that church is possessed of these records?
No sir. I have never seen them, and no nothing about them.
282: Are the minutes of the last general conference, held I believe in April 1891, of the re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, authoritive published?
Yes sir, I believe they are.
283: What makes the publication of a general conference authoritive?
It is usually ordered to be published, and this last spring they were ordered to be published in a pamphlet as a supplement to the Herald.
284: Were they so published?
285: Are there any other official publications of the church, the re-organized church, outside from the publication of the proceedings of the General Conference, and the official books of the church?
Not unless it is the current journal.
286: What is that?
The Saints Herald, there are no others unless the Saints Herald should be considered as an authentic authorized publication.
287: Well now is the Herald an authentic authorized publication of the church?
It was authorized to be.
288: In what way?
It was selected by the board of publication. It is maintained by the church and from time to time the official proceedings of the church are to be published in it.
289: That is by whom?
By the conference.
290: What conference?
The general Conference of the Church that used to be held twice a year, and now it is held once each successive year.
291: How long ago was this publication authorized?
At every conference I think from 1859, but I am not sure of that, I am not sure as to that date; but I think it was January first 1861 it was first published.
292: Where was it first published and by whom?
It was first published by Isaac Sheen at Cincinnati Ohio.
293: How is the publication of that paper effected?
Do you mean how is it accomplished?
294: Yes sir?
It is published under the charge and control of a Board of Publication.
295: Appointed by whom?
By the church at its each annual meeting or sustained as the case may be and then. They either sustain or retain the old Board of Publication or select as the case may be a number of persons to edit or manage it, and 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 printer.
298: Are all these persons selected by the conference?
No sir. They are not.
297: What ones are selected?
By the conference?
298: Yes sir?
Only the Board of Publication.
299: They have charge of the publication?
Yes sir, they are selected by the conference and have charge over everything connected with the printing and publishing department, and they appoint all the other employees, – that is the board of publication appoints them.
300: Does the paper have an editor?
Yes sir it has two of them.
301: How were they appointed?
By the Board of publication.
302: Is everything that appears in the column of the paper authentic and binding upon the church?
That part which bears the official signatures, – 303 (Question and answer crossed out)
304: What signatures are authoritive?
303 (Repeat of number 303)
304: What signature?
I do not know that I understand and you? 304 (Repeat of number 304)
304: What signatures are authoritive?
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, or if the elders would do it, or each quorom would do it, it would be the same. Each of these would be authentic as coming from them, and the writers of each communication are responsible for their own communication.
305: Is everything that appears in that way authentic and binding upon the church?
It 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.
306: Then if everything in this publication is not authentic, why you offer it without any exception as testimony in this case?
I have not offered anything in it in testimony in this case.
307: Do you sat that the Herald has not been offered?
I could not say for I have not been here all the time. It has not been offered while I was here. If it was offered while I was here, it has escaped my attention.
308: Do you know the paper called the Times & Seasons?
309: What is the character of that paper?
That was a journal published in Nauvoo from 1839 to 1846 I think.
310: How was it published?
It was published in pamphlet form, and issued to subscribers.
311: Have you anything further to say as to the character of the paper?
Do you with me to describe it?
312: Yes sir, describe it and state what its character was?
Well I don’t know that I can describe it specifically. It partook of the nature, or rather the character of a church publication at the time it was published.
313: Was it an official organ of the church?
314: Of what church?
The church organized in 1830. The church organized and existing at that time.
315: It was never an official organ of the church of Latter Day Saints?
No sir it was not issued by them, but it was accepted by them, and that is what it purports to be. That is what it purports to be however, although it was not issued by them.
316: You have had frequent opportunities of observing these volumes of the “Times and Seasons” produced here?
Yes sir, and a part of them are from my own library.
317: Are they complete?
318: They are not complete?
No sir, a part of them are missing.
319: Which of them are complete?
The first three volumes are complete.
319: Well will you state just wherein the exhibits of these volumes of the Times and Seasons we have before us, are not complete?
Well the last three volumes I have not examined, and I don’t know whether they are complete or not. If there is anything incomplete it is leaves that have dropped out by wear and time, or which have been accidently torn out, but as to that I couldn’t say, for I haven’t examined them to see how that is.
320: Between what number are all these volumes of the Times and Seasons place on exhibit here?
Well I could not say positively, but I think from 1840 to 1844. I think that is what it is but the whole number ran intil 1846 I think some time.
321: Have you placed on exhibit any of the volumes after 1844?
I have not placed any of them.
322: Have you identified any of the volumes after 1844?
I don’t think I have.
323: Well have you any of the volumes after 1844 in your possession?
324: Have you them here with you?
I have not. Mr Kelley has all of them I brought here with me.
325: He has all that were brought here?
326: What volumes of the Times and Seasons, and between what dates are they, that you regard as official?
So far as the old church is concerned we regard all of them as official until the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, – on June 27th 1844 he was killed, and after that they were published by other parties. And we do not regard them as of any weight with us after that.
327: You say they were published by other parties?
328: Other parties than whom?
They were published by those that continued there at Nauvoo under the parties that took charge of the church after the death of Joseph Smith.
329: Who were they?
Brigham Young and others.
330: Was the publication of the Times and Seasons begun under Joseph Smith?
Yes sir. Under his Presidency of the church.
331: And continued under his Presidency until he was killed?
332: And its publication was continued some years afterwards when the church was under these parties who succeeded him?
333: What did his Presidency have to do with the publication of a news-paper?
I don’t know that it had anything to do with it, but part of the time he was the editor of the paper.
334: It was only a part of the while he was living?
Yes sir, – only a part of the time.
335: You mean to say that he was editor only a part of the time while he was living?
336: Well who was editor when he was not?
Ebenezer Robinson and Don Carlos Smith ran the paper, and John Taylor a part of the time. They were all on the paper at one time or another.
337: What part of the time did Robinson and Smith conduct the paper.
I could not tell you without examining the books.
338: What time did Smith conduct it?
I couldn’t tell you without an examination of the volumes. I couldn’t tell you the length of time.
339: Which conducted it first, Robinson or Taylor?
Robinson and Smith I believe.
340: Who conducted the paper after the death of Joseph Smith?
I believe John Taylor was editor at the time.
341: Was he the editor up to the date of the suspension of the paper?
Yes sir. I am not positive about that but I believe he was. That is my information but I cannot say that it is correct.
342: Do you not know whether Taylor edited it up to the time of its suspension or not?
No sir, I couldn’t be sure about that.
343: When was the paper suspended?
It was suspended when they left there some time in 1846 I believe.
344: Can you state whether or not John Taylor was the editor of the paper before our fathers death?
Yes sir, I think he was a part of the time.
345: The John Taylor referred to by you is the John Taylor who went to Salt Lake?
346: He went to Salt Lake with the church at the time Brigham Young went?
Yes sir, that is my understanding of it.
347: Well, that is the fact is it not?
I couldn’t say, that is what I was informed is the fact, but do not know it to be the fact for I was not with them at the time.
348: He went to Salt Lake and afterwards occupied a high position in the church?
Yes sir he was President of the church in Utah after the death of Brigham Young.
349: He was President of the Utah church?
350: Well is this not the fact Mr. Smith that the Times and Seasons at the beginning of its career, was an individual concern published by Ebenezer Robinson?
Yes sir, I think it was published by Ebenezer Robinson and Don Carlos Smith in partnership.
351: And is it not a fact that the paper was never published by the church at all?
No sir, that is not the fact.
352: Do you say the church ever published the publication known as the Times and Seasons?
Yes sir, it was purchased by the church, and published by it. That is by the church after Robinson and Smith ceased publishing it. It was purchased from them by the church and run in the interest of the church, and by the church.
353: Do you remember the date that that was purchase was made?
I don’t remember the date. I was too young to remember the things and I expect that I did not know anything about it at the time. I could not give you the date.
354: Was the paper considered as an authority in the church prior to the time of the purchase from Robinson?
I could not tell you whether it was or not?
355: Well was it afterwards?
356: And it was considered, you say, as an authority in the church up to the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
357: When after the death of Joseph Smith was it not considered as
What is that. I did not understand the question.
358: When after the death of Joseph Smith was the paper first considered to be an authority?
Well now that I don’t know. I presume that by them who published it was considered as an authority, but it was never so regarded by us.
359: You say it was “never so regarded by us”. Now who do you mean “by us”?
The reorganized church, the members of the church who were members of the church before fathers death, and who did not take affiliation with the incoming authority.
360: I don’t know that I just understand that answer. Well you please reply over again?
I meant I said the members of the church who had been members of the church before fathers death, and who after his death did not affiliate with the authority that came in at that time.
361: Was there a history of Joseph Smith, as written for himself. I mean written by himself, for publication?
There was a history.
362: Was it written for the public?
363: Was it ever published?
364: Where was it published?
It was begun in the Times & Seasons, and I am not sure but what it was in a paper published here.
365: At what date was that?
I am not certain as to the date.
366: Well about what date was it?
I said I was not certain about that, but it must have been about 1833. It began to be published again in the Times and Seasons very nearly at its start. I don’t remember what the date of the commencement of its publication was.
367: Was the publication continued in the Times and Seasons after his death?
Yes sir. After the death of my father?
368: Yes sir, after the death of Joseph Smith was the publication of that history continued in the Times and Seasons?
369: That publication was a life of Joseph Smith as written by himself, was it not?
It purported to be.
370: Is it accepted by the reorganized Church of Latter Say Saints as correct?
No sir, not that part of it that appeared after his death.
371: Will you explain how exhibit M, here is an authorized publication of the reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? What makes it an authorized publication?
An authentic publication?
372: Yes sir?
It was published by the Board of Publication under its management.
373: What is the Board of Publication?
A body of men chosen by the church at its conferences to conduct, take control of and manage its publishing interests.
374: Has this pamphlet, Exhibit M, ever been passed on by the General Conference?
375: It has not?
No sir, not as a pamphlet it was not.
376: When was this document marked Exhibit M, printed?
It was printed this winter.
377: About what date this winter was it printed?
Oh I couldn’t tell you the date exactly.
378: Well about what month was it printed?
Probably in the month of December.
379: It was printed then?
Yes sir, I believe that was the time that it was printed.
380: That would be December 1891?
Yes sir. I couldn’t say as to the exact date, but it has been this winter though. It was this last December, which will be December 1891 that it was printed, but I can’t remember the exact date.
381: Then it purports to have been published by the Board of Publication of the church?
382: Has it any body’s name to it as authority?
No sir. It was published by the Board of Publication and so states.
383: The Board of Publication of what?
Of the re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, at Lamoni, Decatur County Iowa. It stated the facts on the last page.
384: It was printed and published by the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
It was published by the Board of publication.
385: It purports to have been published by the RE-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of Lamoni, Decatur County, Iowa?
Yes sir, but what a man does by his agent he does by himself, and the Board of Publication did this.
386: Is it not a fact that what that Board does as the agent of the Church is the work of the church?
Yes sir, until it is questioned and proved otherwise.
387: Then if that is printed and published by that Board, do you regard it as authority, the same as if it had been endorsed by the church in its conferences?
388: Why not?
Because it is subject to inquiry. It is subject to inquiry by the church in conference assembled, to be either approved or diss-approved, upon its merits by the examination by the body.
389: Then you say this is an official publication of the church simply because it was printed by the Board of publication, and published under their authority?
390: Mr Smith was not this publication printed and published since the institution of this suit?
391: And was it not printed and published with a view to being used in this suit?
In what way?
392: In any way, – with a view I will say of being used in the taking of these depositions?
393: You say it was not?
394: For what purpose then was it printed and published?
As a pamphlet for the information of our men in the field, or as a compiled statement of the position of the church for the information of the men in the field and others, giving as it does a statement of the position of the church in succession. Now that it might be used in this suit was presumed, but at that time I knew nothing of the taking of these depositions here.
395: Then it was not compiled to use in this suit?
No sir, – of course as I stated before it was thought that it might be of use in this suit, but that was not the object of its compilation.
396: Of whom is that Board of publication composed?
Bishop E.L. Kelley is one, David Dancer is another, and William W Blair, James H. Peters, and I believe Robert Minning of St Joseph is another.
397: How do you know it was published by that board?
Because I was there in the office and helped compile it.
398: Did you assist in compiling it?
Yes sir. I helped also to read the proofs.
399: Then is it a fact that anything that is printed and published by that Board of Publication is an authentic publication of the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
400: It is not?
401: Well sir we print a good many things in the
publishing house that are the authentic declarations of other men and we publish them as such. We publish them for what they are, or purport to be, but ti does not follow from that that they are the declarations of the church, or are binding upon the church. We just publish these things for what they purport to be, and nothing else.
402: Where did you get the matter from that is found in this publication marked exhibit M?
The matter that is quoted we obtained from the published and authorized works of the church, and other published documents.
403: Then it was not original testimony at all?
No sir it wasn’t original matter, -not all of it.
404: It is not original matter?
No sir not all of it, but some portions of it is original.
405: You say some portions of it is original matter?
406: Well what portions of it is original matter?
The connecting portions of it is original. The part that is used by the writers to connect it together is original with the writers whoever wrote it.
407: Who are the writers of this connection portion?
W.W. Blair, E.L. Kelley and Joseph Smith.
408: At the time you were compiling this pamphlet, was it not the intention of it, -was it not the expectation of the compilers that it should and would be used in this trial?
The expectation was that it might be used in this trial of the case, or rather that it might be used in this examination.
409: You say that was the expectation?
410: That it might be used in the trial of this case?
That it might be used in this examination, -yes sir that was the expectation.
411: Is it not a fact that at the time of the compilation of this pamphlet you were fixing up testimony for this case?
no sir, that is not true.
412: Will you answer my question?
I think I have answered it. If I haven’t I don’t think it is possible for me to answer it.
413: I asked you if it was not a fact that at the time of the compilation of this pamphlet you were fixing up testimony for this case, and you answer that it is not true?
Yes sir, that is my answer.
414: I did not ask you if it was or was not true, I asked you if it is not a fact that at the time you compiled this pamphlet you were fixing up testimony for this trial of this case, or at this examination?
No sir that is not a fact.
415: The it is not a fact that at the time of the compilation of this pamphlet you were fixing up a mass of facts to be used as testimony in this case?
416: You did not introduce it is that what you say?
417: I believe you stated yesterday that in all those revelations, or rather that in order that revelations, should be recorded a authentic after being received they pass thorough the quoroms of the church.
I said that was the rule to be observed in the presentation and acceptance of revelations to become authentic and binding upon the church, and be accepted by the body of the church.
418: I will ask you if all these quotations on pages 16 and 17 of this pamphlet marked Exhibit K, have passed through the various quoroms of the church?
They have been adopted by the church.
419: They have been adopted by the church?
420: Well, but that is not the questions?
What is the question?
421: I asked you if they passed through, and have been ratified by these various quoroms of the church, as you have stated was the requirement?
No sir. I did not state that.
422: Well, then, what did you state?
I did not state that things of that kind were required to pass through the ordeal. It was simply that which purported to be revelation that was to pass through that ordeal. Now a declaration of doctrine and faith must necessarily pass through such an ordeal, but they are all presented to the church, and accept by the church before they are received authoritive.
423: Presented to what church?
The Re-organized church.
I don’t know that I can tell you the exact date from memory.
At Plano, Kendall County, Illinois.
426: At about what time?
I can’t tell you the date exactly.
427: Well about when was it?
I could not tell you the date.
428: Has it been since you became connected with the church?
429: Since you became connected with the church, what church do you have reference to?
The Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
430: Was it before or after 1878?
It was before ’78.
431: Is that as near it as you can state it?
I couldn’t give the exact date without referring to something to refresh my memory.
432: Your answer is that these pages 16 and 17 which have been introduces in evidence here from exhibit M, were presented to the church in the regular way and endorsed in such a way as to render them authoritive to and binding upon the church?
No sir I do not say that. I say that subject matter on the 16th and 17th pages were presented and not the pages themselves. The pages themselves as they appear in this pamphlet was only compiled this winter.
433: Do you mean by that all the subject matter on these pages?
I mean the epitome of faith their presented.
434: Do you mean that every statement in this epitome of faith was presented to and passed upon by the church and approved by the church?
435: But you are unable to state when that was done?
Yes sir, I am unable to state when without examining this record. I helped compile that epitome of faith myself, and was present when it was present and was with the body when it was as the epitome of faith. of faith.
436: Did you include in this epitome what is said on page seventeen under the head of church record, history of action of the churches at Newark, Wisconsin?
437: You did not include that?
No sir we did not, for the reason that it is not a part of the epitome.
438: Is what is stated there authoritive?
I believe so.
439: From what authority is that taken?
From the church records.
440: What church records?
It is taken from the church records presented yesterday.
441: What records?
The minutes of the conference.
442: And it is authentic?
Yes sir, – What is taken from the church records is authentic, and the whole of it is taken from the church records.
443: Then is this statement contained here true, – “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”?
Yes sir. It was considered true at the time it was adopted by the conference.
444: What time was that?
I can’t say.
445: Well look at it and see if you can identify it with reference to the time it was adopted?
446: That was in June 1852?
447: Now is it not a fact that is as true at the present time as it was then?
448: That is not a fact?
449: Why not?
Simply because of the fact that there has been additions to the church rules since that time. There has been additions to the rules o the church since that time.
450: Now do you state here positively as a fact, – a positive fact, – that there has been additions to the rules of the church since 1852?
451: You state that as a positive fact?
452: Additions authorized by the church?
453: Authorized by the church at its general conference?
454: And by its various quoroms?
455: Do I properly understand you as saying that all revelations to be authentic and of binding force upon the church must be presented to the quoroms and approved by them?
456: You do not?
457: Well what did you sat about that?
I said that before a revelation, or that which purports to be a revelation, could e accepted as binding upon the church, it must be submitted to the ordeal.
458: Can a revelation according to the doctrine held by your church, become a law of the church until it is submitted to the quoroms, and endorsed by them?
It cannot become a law and be binding as a law, but it may be accepted by the members and acted upon subject to inquiry and explanation.
459: Is it not a fact that the endorsement of revelation by the quoroms makes it no more a revelation?
No sir, it makes it binding upon the church, but it may be a revelation without such acceptance.
460: Was that the doctrine of the church prior to the death of Joseph Smith in 1844?
I so understand it.
461: Were there any revelations given, and published by Joseph Smith you father as such, that he submitted to the quorom?
I could not tell you.
462: Was the revelation on which, – as stated by Mr Whitehead, and I believe yourself, – you were ordained, submitted to the test of the quroms?
I don’t know that it was.
463: You do not know whether that revelation was submitted to the test of the quoroms?
No sir, I don’t know whether it was or not.
464: Well, do you, claim that it was?
I do not.
465: You do not claim that it was submitted to the quoroms?
No sir I do not.
466: You do not make any such a claim?
No sir, 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.
467: Do you state there was no such a revelation given?
468: Well what is your position or statement in connection with that revelation, – if there was a revelation?
My statement is that I did not know anything whatever about it. I don’t know whether there was one given or not.
469: Is it the law of the church that if there was such a revelation given and it was submitted to the quoroms that it is not valid?
What is the question?
470: I asked you if it was the law of the church that if there was such a revelation given and it had not been submitted to the quoroms, world it be valid?
I couldn’t say as to that.
471: Could you have been properly ordained under the laws of the re-organized church to the office which you now occupy, without a revelation to that effect from your father?
472: Do you say you could?
473: Then I understand you to say that under the laws of the re-organized church you could be properly ordained and qualified and put in possession of the office which you now hold in the church without revealation to that effect from your father?
Yes sir, you understand what I say correctly.
474: If your father received such a revelation were you ordained under that revelation?
I couldn’t say. I would not like to as to that for I have already said I did not know there was such a revelation.
475: Well then were you ordained legally and effectually according by the laws of your church to the highest office in your church without reference to any revelation from your father?
I understand that the ordination was legally according to the rules of the church, and that was all that was necessary.
476: I believe you stated that you were ordained at Amboy?
Yes sir it was at Amboy.
477: At Amboy, Illinois?
478: Was your ordination at Amboy, Illinois made without reference to the alleged revelation t your father?
I could not say as to that.
479: If it was not made upon the authority of the revelation, I would ask upon that authority it was made?
Upon the authority of the understanding of the law that they had of it, and from the fact that they all regarded it as a fact that there had been such a revelation, but personally I knw nothing whatever about it. Now that is eh way it is, for personally I do not know whether there was or was not such a revelation. I know that there was such an appointment, or understanding, but by virtue,
480: Can a President or high priest according to the laws of the
re-organized church, be lawfully ordained without a revelation.
As a rule there must be some manifestation in regard to it individually, before he can be ordained to any office in the Melchesideck (???) priest-hood.
481: Is it a law that such a revelation before it can be enforced must be accepted by the quorom?
482: Then what does it require?
Acceptance by the body.
483: What body?
it must be accepted, – I should say acted upon and accepted by the body before which it comes, – either a branch, district conference, or general conference.
484: That is the modus operandi to be followed or pursued before a revelation of that character can be effective?
485: Now then do I understand you to say that a revelation may be authentic without being before the branches, – without being submitted to the quoroms?
It is owing to the nature of the revelation. Let me explain, 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, without the matter being submitted to the different quoroms, 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 many local congregation on any emergency it must be acted on immediately by the voice of the people there assembled.
486: Will you state where the law of the church to that effect is to be found?
I don’t know that I could.
487: Can you state where it is to be found?
I do not know that I can.
488: Is it in the Book of Mormon?
Precedents are in the Book of Mormon.
489: State where in the Book of Mormon it is to be found?
Well you are asking for a specific instance, – a specific law is what you are asking for, and I told you I did not know where I could find it ot whether it can be found.
490: Is it in the Book of doctrine and covenants that has been identified here?
491: Point it out?
The principle is undoubtedly there, – I don’t that the exact law is there.
492: Is it in any of the authorized publications of the church.
Yes sir, it is in the authorized publications of the church.
493: Answer me this question, – is it in any of the authorized publications of the church prior to 1852?
I think so.
494: If so, will you please state where?
I don’t lnow that I can give you the exact location of it.
495: Is what I am not going to read to you the law of the church with res7ect to revelations, – “There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from God to any man can be tested”, etc. down to the words “brother Joseph said let no revelation go to the people until it has been tested”? What do you say to that?
That in itself is not a law of the church, – it is a statement of one Orson Hyde in reference to the matter.
496: In reference to that matter?
In reference to what was the rule of the church.
497: Do you say that is not the law of the church?
No as it is contained there.
498: Well what is it?
It is the statement of one Orson Hyde as to what was the rule, and he belonged to the Utah church.
499: Well is the statement a correct one?
I believe it to be.
500: Is it a statement that is equally applicable and equally authentic in the Utah Church?
I couldn’t tell you that.
501: What is it, – what is the publication known as the Millenial Star?
It is a publication published in England by, – at present by the body of people in the valley. I don’t know whether it is being published now or not.
502: What do you mean “by the body of the people in the Valley”?
In the Salt Lake Valley I should say.
503: That is in Utah?
504: Now you say in your epitome of faith here, – or rather it is stated in your epitome of faith here, – “We believe in the same kind of organization that existed in the primitive church, to wit, – apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.
505: Now is that a law of the re organized church?
Yes sir, that is a statement of their belief.
506: I wish you would hand me the exhibit, – I don’t know what it is marked, but I believe it is that old book marked “Exhibit N”. Now where did this book marked Exhibit N come from here to this place?
it came from Lamoni, Iowa.
507: It was brought down from there to this place?
508: How did it get to Lamoni?
It was brought there from Plano, Kendall County, Illinois.
509: Who brought it there?
The same member of the church. It was the Secretary of the Church.
510: Who was the Secretary of the Church?
Henry A. Stebbins is and was the Secretary.
511: From what dates does this book purport to contain the records.
I think from about June 1852 down to some time in the seventies. I don’t know exactly what the year is.
512: Does it contain the records of the conferences held between these dates?
Yes sir. I think it does. I know it contains some of them but I don’t know positively that it contains all of them.
513: Does it contain the records of other meetings besides conference meetings?
I could not say.
514: Was the man, Stebbins, to whom you refer in charge of it?
All the time.
515: Yes sir?
516: Who was in charge of it before he took charge of it?
A man by the name of Isaac Sheen.
517: Where is he now?
He is now dead.
518: Was any body else in charge of it during that time?
Not to my knowledge.
519: You say Mr Stebbins brought it from Plano?
520: How do you know he brought it from Plano?
Well I really don’t know for I did not see him bring it, but he was Secretary of the church, and had charge of the books.
521: Did you ever see the book there in his possession?
522: And this is the same book that you saw there in his possession?
523: In what custody in this book at Lamoni, Iowa?
When it is there it is in the custody of the Secretary in his office.
524: What secretary?
The secretary of the church, Henry A. Stebbins.
525: Of what church is he the secretary?
He is the secretary of the re-organized church.
526: Who brought the book here?
527: You did?
528: At whose request did you bring it here?
At the request of Elder Kelley, – the bishop, – the package of books was made up at his request, and I brought it with me.
529: You have I believe placed in evidence from that book certain portions, amongst which are a number of resolutions purporting to have been passed by the conference at Newark, Wisconsin in June 1852, one of which is as follows, “Resolved that we believe that the Church of Jesus 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?
530: Do you recognize what I have just read as being introduced in testimony yesterday do you not?
531: And it was introduced from this book was it not?
Yes sir I recognize that. It was read from this book yesterday.
532: Can you tell me what was the name of the church concerning which the quotation I have just read was made?
I don’t know that I apprehend he question correctly colonel?
533: Reference is made in this quotation to the name of a church, or rather to a church organized on the 6th day of April, and my question is do you know the name of the church at that time to which reference is made?
534: You know the name of the church referred to in this quotation?
535: What was the name of the church?
The church of Jesus Christ.
536: Now are you sure of that?
537: You are not sure of that?
I wasn’t there at the time. I don’t know only by the general appelation that was given it.
538: Well is that the general appelation?
It has been called the “Church of Christ”, the “Church of Jesus Christ”, and the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”.
539: Now what was the real and technical name of that church from the day of its organization in 1830 down to 1844?
Well from my own knowledge I could not tell.
540: You can’t tell what that name was from memory or from your own knowledge?
541: Well what was the historical appelation accepted by your church?
The church of Jesus Christ, and the words “Latter Day Saints” is added as discriptive.
542: Now was the word “Jesus”, in the parent church in 1830? Was it not added after that time?
I say that I cannot state as to that of my own knowledge.
All that I know I get from my reading the books of the church, and the records, or whatever they might be.
543: Have you the first edition of the book of covenants within reach.
I presume so.
544: Please get the first edition of the Book of covenants?
Here it is. It is exhibit E.
545: Will you please read the title page of that book?
I could not do it for the reason there is no title page. It has been lost apparently.
546: There is no title page there?
No sir. I would like to read it for you if I could.
547: Will you please read the heading on page five of that book (exhibit E)?
Theology. Lecture first on the doctrine of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Of Faith.
548: The words “Jesus Christ” are not there?
549: They do not appear there at all?
No sir, not in that heading
550: Are you familiar with this book entitled Exhibit E?
551: You say you are familiar with this book?
Yes sir, reasonably so, I cannot say that I am thourougly familiar with it, but I am safe in saying I am reasonably familiar with it.
552: Have you read it?
553: Did you ever see in that book the words “Church of Jesus Christ”? Did you ever see these words in that books?
I could not say from memory whether I did not.
554: Well what is your best recollection as to that?
I really could not say whether I ever did or not, – I cannot say from recollection as to that.
555: You notice the fifth resolution I believe in this book entitled Exhibit N?
556: In the resolutions of what conference is that?
It is in the record of the conference of June 1852, – June 12th I believe 1852.
557: Now then Mr Smith if the quotation in Exhibit M, of resolution five in exhibit N, on page three, reads, “Church of Jesus Christ” the word “Jesus” is an interpolation is it not?
No sir. It is in the body of the resolution offered at the time and passed by the people.
558: Well you probably don’t understand my question. In the resolution to which we have just referred that was put in testimony yesterday the word “Jesus”, is not contained. It is there the “Church of Christ”. Now if in this epitome, – if the word “Jesus” is in there as a quotation from that resolution, it is an interpolation is it not?
I believe so, but it is not in the epitome however, – it is in that quotation from the resolution.
559: Well I say if it is in the epitome, -?
But it is not in the epitome. It is in fact properly quoted from that record.
560: Yes sir it is contained in what is called the epitome of the doctrine?
561: Then if it is in exhibit M entitled “Faith and practices of the Church from 1830 to 1844” as a quotation from the record of the conference at Newark in 1852, it is an interpolation?
If the words that are in this printed document don’t occur in the resolution they are necessarily an interpolation.
562: Well that is what I thought. Now is it not a fact Mr. Smith that if the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, marked Exhibit E, in section two, the church is denominated the “church of Christ”, that it is not properly named in said section?
I could not say as to that.
563: You could not say as to that?
564: Well then would you say that it is properly designated?
I would say this colonel, that if it be the same body, it is immeterial as to what specified 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 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 immeterial. I do not know what the title of the church was before I became connected with it. Only from the information I can gather about it by reading and otherwise, but what the title of the church has been since my connection with it I am prepared to testify about.
565: Are you prepared to testify that if the name of the church at
the time of your fathers Presidency had been the Methodist church and your church was called or designated as it is that it would make no difference?
I can’t see that it would if the churches were the same. The name has very little to do with it if the doctrines, rules and practices of the church are the same.
566: Are you prepared to say that the purport would be the same if the name in the original church has been the Methodist church
No sir I am not prepared to say as to what might have been the distinctive title of it prior to my connection with it, except as I get it from my history.
567: Well, What are we trying to settle here, is what was the name of the church from 1830 to 1834 particularly?
568: Yes sir, – what was the particular, specific name of the original church during that period?
I cannot say.
569: That is something you are not prepared to testify about?
I can testify in a manner of corse, but I am not prepared to testify of my own knowledge for I do not know anything about it from actual personal knowledge and experience, but only as I gather it from history.
570: Well as the history on these matters is quite voluminous, let me inquire of you if you have read that history?
Yes sir to some extent.
571: To what extent have you read it?
I have read it partially.
572: Let me enquire of you further whether from 1830 to 1834 the church was not uniformly styled the “Church of Christ”?
The history as I read it says that it was called the Church of Latter Day Saints”, in the histories that I have read referring to the question or matter of name. I don’t know that it was given specifically in all the cases as the name, but the reference to the title or name of the church appears in all these forms.
573: Are you sure that such was the case prior to 1834?
No sir, I know it only as I get it from history.
574: Are you sure that history so states it?
Yes sir. Well now I will qualify that by saying that 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 of course I don’t recollect how that was, but that is my recollection of my reading upon the subject. Of course as a cild I could not remember or be expected to remember what the distinctive title or name of the church was at that time, so from my personal actual knowledge and observation I could not tell you what the name was.
575: Have you read the Book of Mormon?
576: Is there any statement in it indicating that there was a dispute over what the name of the church should be?
577: There is a statement of that nature?
Yes sir, I think so.
578: And was that question settled?
I think not.
579: And it is not so stated as settled in the book of Mormon is it?
I do not know. I do not so understand it.
580: Well would you recognize this what I am not going to read from Exhibit D on page five hundred and seven as an authoritive statement of the matter there in contained. It is as follows, – “And they which were baptized were called the Church of Christ” I will go on and read further from the following paragraph, – “And it came to pass that as the deciples 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 deciples were
gathered together, and were united in nightly prayer 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 use the name where by we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter. And the Lord said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute about this thing? hath they not road the Scriptures which you must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name, for of this name ye shall be called at the last day; and who so taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day; therefore whatever ye shall do, ye shall do in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name, and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he shall bless the church for my sake; and how be it my church save it be called in my name”. Now that is what was found on page five hundred and seven, and on page five hundred and fourteen of the same book Exhibit D, there is the following, – “And it came to pass that the thirtieth and fourth year passed away, and also the thirty and fifth, and beheld the deciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about”, and on page five hundred and sixteen the following, – “And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substances no more common among them, and they began to divide into classes, and the began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ”. Still further down on the same page appears the following, – “and again there was another church, which denied the Christ, and they did persecute the true church of Christ because of their humility and their belief in Christ. Now the question was do you recognize that as authoritive teaching from the Book of Mormon?
581: You recognize that as the authoritive teachings of the book of Mormon?
I do so far as it is read.
582: Is there any other name than “the Church of Christ” given in the book of Mormon?
The same author, – the same individual, said my name is Jesus Christ specifically.
583: How is that?
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 deciples are to do everything they do, – the name of Jesus Christ, and if you will read the whole book. It called, – I should say if you will 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.
584: Is there any other official declaration of the church any where, after the publication of this declaration in the Book of Mormon, other than that there specified?
I could not tell you.
585: Is there any church any where in the book of Mormon referred to and called the Church of Latter day saints?
How is that question.
586: Is there any church any where referred to in the Book of Mormon and which is called the “Church of Latter Day Saints?
I don’t know any
587: You don’t know of any?
588: Is there any church referred to any where in the book of Mormon called the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”?
I don’t believe there is.
589: Is there any church referred to in the book of Mormon called the “Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
I don’t know of any.
590: You don’t know of any church so designated?
No sir I don’t know of any in the book of Mormon.
591: Is there one called the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
In the book of Mormon?
592: Yes sir?
No sir, – not that I know anything of.
593: Is there one called the “church of Latter Day Saints”?
I think not, for I never saw it if there is.
594: Were those names or any of the mentioned in the first edition of the book of covenants?
I think the church of Latter Day Saints, and the Church of Christ is mentioned there, but I am not certain about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
595: You think that the name of the Church of Christ is mentioned there?
I think so.
596: That is the name of these defendants mentioned here is it not?
What is that?
597: That is the name of these defenadants here is it not?
I don’t that.
598: Is that not the name of the people who have been sued in this case?
I so understand it. I understand that is the name in which they have been sued.
599: Is there any other book which you have not put in testimony here or on exhibit that is called the Book of commandments?
600: There is such a book you say?
Yes sir, there is a book of commandments.
601: What place in the laws of the church does that book hold?
I don’t know that it hold any. It does not hold any place by itself.
602: The re-organized church which you represent, then as I understand you to say doe snot endorse or hold the book of commandments to be a book of authority in your church?
Not as a book, – 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 covenants so far as that matter is authorized we recognize.
603: Do you accept all the matter in the book of comandments as published?
I say we recognize it and authorize so far as it has been passed upon and accepted by the church. Whatever in the book of commandments there is that has been acted upon by the church we accept.
604: I asked you if you accepted all the matter in the book of commandments as published?
605: Do you not recognize that book as an authority in the church?
No sir, not as a book we do not. We do not recognize it as a complete book accepted by the church.
606: Well do you recognize all the doctrines as taught in the book of commandments?
I could not tell you that colonel. 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 it was, – a committee was appointed or selected whose work it was to compile that book, but as the work was uncompleted, and never accepted or passed upon by the church, we never regarded it as an authentic publication.
607: Who never regarded it as an authentic publication?
The re-organized church never did.
608: Is it not a fact that you only regard that part of the book of commandments which you transferred to the book of doctrine and Covenants in the re-organized church as authentic? I do not believe I quite understand your question colonel.
609: I asked you if it is not a fact that the re-organized church only regards that part of the Doctrine and Covenants as authentic which the re-organized church transferred from the book of commandments to the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
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.
610: Is it not a fact that you only regard that part of the book of commandments, which was transferred to the book of covenants as authentic?
I will not answer that question for the reason that I don’t know anything about it.
611: You say you don’t know anything about that?
No sir, and I will simply state that the book of commandments was an uncompleted work, and was in fragmentary condition. It was not a completed work as we understand it, and it is not accepted by us as authentic. I will state further that our book of covenants is sometimes called the book of commandments and covenants.
612: Is the name “Doctrine and Covenants” the first name of the book that is presented here as the book of doctrine and covenants?
I think so.
613: Well examine it a state if that is the case?
I cannot say the title page is gone, but I think that is it.
614: The title page of that book is gone?
615: It is right unfortunate that the title page is out of that book is it not?
Yes sir it is unfortunate. We are sorry for it for we would like to replace it with the original. We would get some money for them if we had a few of them.
616: Well it seems to me that it is money or lots that you are after.
Yes sir. That is not testimony.
617: No sir, – don’t put that down?
I did not think you wanted it to go down.
618: Well yes sir, I don’t care, – that can go down if you want it? Now is it not a fact that the re-organized church has changed the name from that of the book of commandments to that of the book of doctrine and covenants?
I am not aware that that is the fact sir. In putting that binding on them may have put the label “Doctrine and Covenants.”
619: When in right and truth, – in fact and truth the right designation would have been the cook of commandments?
Well I could not say as to that.
620: now Mr Smith was there a revelation given through your father Joseph Smith in 1838, giving the name of the church as that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
I could not tell you.
621: You don’t know about that?
As to whether or not there was such a revelation?
622: Yes sir.
623: Have you not published an editorial in which you state that to be the fact?
624: Have you not published an editorial in the Herald in which you state that to be the fact?
In the Herald? I don’t remember of any such an editorial.
625: If the publication was produced, would you be able to recognize it?
I presume I would.
626: Do you recognize that publication? (handing witness a paper)
627: What is it?
It is a copy of the Saints Herald.
628: Where is it published?
It is published at Lamoni, Iowa.
629: Do you recognize that editorial on the first page?
I recognize it as the leading article, – questions and answers.
630: Do you recognize the authorship of it?
I recognize it as an article written by one of the editors.
631: Well who are the editors of that publication?
Joseph Smith, W.W. Blair.
632: Are they the only editors?
633: Who is Joseph Smith?
That is myself.
634: Well do you endorse that article?
I endorse it as the editorial utterance of the editor who wrote it. I endorse it as the utterance of the editor who wrote it.
635: In that editorial is this statement which I read to you from it, – “In 1838 the church adopted the further title “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. See the Millenial Star, volume 16, pages 117, 130, 131, et. hand April 26th 1838 Joseph the seer received a revelation saying, – “Verily thus saith the Lord, my church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints scattered abroad in all the world for thus it shall be in the last days, – Millenium Star, Volume 16, pages 147 and 148”. What do you say to that?
I recognize it from the quotations and citations give there.
636: Then you recognize what I have read to you as a quotation from the paper of which you are one of the editors?
Yes sir, I recognize it from the quotations just as they are stated to be from current and written history. The citations are given there and where they are to be found, but as to their correctness or truthfulness I could not say.
637: What was the object and purpose of that publication?
It was in response to a question asked, and they are given there for just what they are worth, and what they purport to be. That is all they claim to be and all that is claimed for them, and we give our authority.
638: Do you or do you not consider the authorities from which you quoted as authentic?
We considered them as being indicative of what the understanding at that time was, and as evidence touching the name of the church, and the value that was to be given to them as according.
639: Where did you get authority for addition to the name of the church of the word “re-organized”?
From the fact understood by us that it was a re-organization of the elements into a new organization or rather a gathering together again of the elements of the church that had been scattered abroad.
640: You say that was a fact?
Yes sir that the conditions existed.
641: Where did you get that fact?
We got it sir from the logic of events.
642: What events?
Things that transpired, and the membership that was gathered together in that way from different sections.
643: Do you recognize in your church the rule of the logic of events?
Yes sir, we do when we are compelled to do so.
644: Did you recognize the logic of events of every character whatever as rules for the guidance of your church?
No sir, for there are facts of different discriptions and characters, and they may be for us or against us.
645: Well was this name as given here to be for you or against you?
Well that is a question that is to be determined hereafter Colonel?
646: You can’t say how that is now?
No sir, I apprehend that will have to be determined hereafter.
647: Well you thin that it is an issue in this case? Is that the fact?
It appears to be.
648: Well can’t you give any other reason as to why you adopted or took possession of the word “re-organized”, as an addition to the title of your church?
We adopted that word as a kind of a distinctive title from that of the church in the Utah Valley at Salt Lake, or Deseret.
649: Did you get the authority for its adoption by revelation?
650: Well that is so much settled, – or did you get it by revelation?
651: Did you get it out of the Book of Mormon?
652: Did you get it out of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants?
653: You did not get it out of either the Book of Mormon or out of the book of doctrine and covenants?
No sir, nor did we get it out of the bible.
654: Nor out of the bible did you get it?
no sir, nor out of the book of commandments, nor out of the Timea & Seasons, nor the Millenium Star. We did not get it out of any of them Colonel.
655: Nor the Herald?
656: Well where did you get it from?
From the apparent necessities of the time, and our disposition in regard to it.
657: When was the church first designated as the re-organized church?
I could not give you the date.
658: Was the name formally and definitely adopted any where?
Yes sir, at our conference it was designated the re-organized church.
659: At what conference?
I could not tell you.
660: Was it called the re-organized church at the time you became a member in 1860?
I don’t know that it was.
661: What was it called then?
I don’t know that any title had been agreed upon. I do not know that any title had been agreed upon at that time.
662: That was in 1860?
663: That was the time you were elected President?
664: And from that time on down to the present you were elected the had of the church?
What is that?
665: I asked you if from that time down to the present time you have been the head of the church?
666: What is your office called, – what is the position you hold?
667: Would you not have known about so important a thing as a change in the name, or an addition to the name of the church?
668: And would you not have known distinctly at what time such a change was proposed, and at what time such a change in the name of the church took effect?
I would have known the time it took place, but to give you the date is some thing I could not do.
669: Well now was the reason of the change of the name, or the addition to the name of the word “re-organized” made, or the addition to the name of the word “re-organized” made, after some additional revelations had been placed in the book, of doctrine and covenants at that time?
I think not. I don’t think there was any additional made to the book of doctrine and covenants at that time.
670: Did you not testify yesterday that additional revelations were put in the book of doctrine and covenants in about the year 1879?
Yes sir, I think so.
671: You testified that additional revelations were put in the book of doctrine and covenants then?
672: And did you not testify that about fifteen pages were added then?
I don’t remember that I stated the number of pages, but probably it was fifteen.
673: And is it not a fact that the additions were made to the book of covenants making the change of name very appropriate?
No sir, that is not a fact.
674: You say that is not a fact?
675: Wouldn’t the change of a name of of a religious body, or any other body be very appropriate when there is a change made in the rues or regulations governing that body, or when there are different rules or regulations made governing that body?
I don’t understand the question Colonel.
676: I asked you if it is not a fat that a change of the name of a body, religious or otherwise would be very appropriate when there is a change of the rules or regulations governing that body?
No sir not exactly. I don’t see it in that way.
677: Would it be the same body after the change in the rules and regulations regulating and governing it were made, as well as a change of name is made?
678: That would not make any difference?
679: Would it be the same body, although the name might be the same, after the rules and regulations for its government were changed?
680: You say it would be the same body after these changes were made?
681: So then if you had a dozen or any other number of rules and regulations made for the government of any body, religious body I will say, and afterwards you were to add one hundred other and supplementary rules and regulations, you maintain it would be the same body?
682: Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?
It would be the same unless there was a radical change made in its organic structure of faith and doctrine, it would remain the same body if the rules and regulations you supposed were in harmony with its organic laws, and there would be no material change in its rules of government, 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.
683: But if there were additions to its rules of government and doctrine, wouldn’t it logically follow that these additions made it or constituted it another body, and gave it another distinct individuality?
684: Answer the question?
Not necessarily, if the membership remained the same without antagonizing. In that case it would remain the same governed by different rules. That is all there would be to that. I should say it would be the same body governed by additional rules, and there was no conflict in the organic structure of the church ot body effected.
685: So then it is the same church even if it has additional laws to govern it?
686: And different doctrine and an addition to its name?
Yes sir, so long as they are not in conflict with its organic laws and fundamental principles. It does not necessarily follow under these conditions that it is another body because of these facts if there be no conflict in the rules and regulations of its organic structure.
687: Now Mr Smith there is no conflict in the organization of the bodies of John Crow and James Crow, and yet they are the same bodies?
Well if there are two men and one is John Crow and the other is James Crow, they may be identically alike in composition and yet be different bodies. They certainly are different bodies for one is John Crow and the other is James Crow and they have seperate and distinct organization and existence. I do not think that your simile is quite perfect in its application to this case Colonel.
688: Well then if they appear to be very much alike it would be very proper to give them different names wouldn’t it?
Most assuredly if they were two different and distinct bodies, – as they certainly would be.
689: Well now then if one lived in 1830 and died in 1844, and the other was born in 1852, could they under any circumstances be the same man?
Yes sir, figuratevely speaking, in a sense they could be.
690: How could that be?
They could present the same interest and other constitutional identities, that attached one to the other by succession, but not withstanding this fact they would not necessarily represent or stand for the same individual.
691: How can you re-organize a dead body?
Well we don’t propose to do that. In this case the body was alive all the time, although for a time its vitality was very low.
692: You say you don’t propose to organize a dead body?
No sir, not if it is once dead.
693: Well that is just what you did do though? You attempted to do it at any rate, and I would like to to know the modus operandi that is to be followed in achieving that result.
694: Well how did you re-organize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints if such a thing was done?
Those individuals who had been members of the original church got together, as they had the undoubted right to do, and renewed their faith by entering into a representative organization, few at first it is true, but graduall gathered others unto them by calling others who had also been member of the original church during the life time of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and who listened to their proposition. That was the way it was done, and out of the scattered remnants of the original church who had remained steadfast in the faith, so gathered together the work of re-organization was begun and carried through to its sucessful consumation.
695: Now then I understand your answer to mean this, – that when the original church left Nauvoo, Illinois, that a number of the people who had been its adherents remained behind, and that in and about the year 1852 they came together and organized a church upon the same principles as had formerly existed on the regulation and government of the church at Nauvoo? Now do I state that proposition fairly, for I tried to state it fairly.
Well I can’t say what you understood me to say about that.
696: Well I asked you in making my statement, and stated that was what I understood you to say, and asked you if I understood you and had made a fairir statement of what you had stated?
Well I suppose that is substantially what I stated. What I stated was that 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 at the time, couldn’t and did not accept, and that these parties scattered throughout a great many different counties in the state of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, and having confidence and faith in the church to which they had belonged, and having been consistent member of it, they essayed an organization upon the principles of existing prior to the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith”.
697: My what authority did they meet?
By the authority that all individuals had to meet who were constitutional member of the church before its fall.
698: Did a single individual have any right to assemble the church?
No sir not any single individual member, but he had a right to commence the movement however.
699: Did a dozen individuals have a right to assemble in a church of their own free will and accord?
700: A dozen individuals had the right to call an assemble and meet for that purpose?
701: Was there any restriction on that right?
No sir, only they of course must have been member of the old original church, or had been members of that church.
702: If they had been members of the church they had that right?
703: Now were those people members of the church after the church as you claim had been dissolved?
I am not aware of the fact that I have made any such a statement or claim. The church had not dissolved, for they were its members, and had the undoubted right to claim privelege of exercising the rights of membership. They were undoubtedly members, and were in reality of the church.
704: Had they be attending church?
They had some of them in certain places. Yes sir.
705: Had they been attending conferences?
706: Why not?
For the simple reason that none had been held by these who believed with them, but conferences had been held by others, parties who afterwards came into the church.
707: How were the conferences held by the did church?
In the usual way that conferences were held.
708: Well I mean with reference to the time of holding them, – were the hold annually?
I think they were both semi-annually and annually. In the spring and fall I think there were held.
709: Was that according to the law of the church?
It was according to custom.
710: That was not according to the law?
No sir for the law simply says they shall meet from time to time. That is a matter that the church fixed itself, and it was fixed according to custom and convience I assume. There was an interval of some months, – six months I suppose between the dates of the semi-annual conferences.
711: Then these scattered people who met in 1852 did not meet in accordance with any custom did they or any law of the church?
Yes sir, they met in accordance with the custom.
712: What custom did they meet in accordance with?
The custom of meeting together for conference and for preaching and for song service, and for prayer service.
713: That is how that happened to come together?
714: That would be in there local assemblages would it not?
715: Now who notified them to come together at Newark, Wisconsin?
I couldn’t tell you that.
716: You don’t know who it was notified them to come together at that time?
717: Did any one notify them to come together?
Well that I can’t tell you either. That was before my day, and I have no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding that gathering.
718: You cannot say anything about that?
No sir for the reason that that conference was held in 1852, and I became connected with the church at first in 1860. That was before the time that I became identified with the movement by eight years, – seven or eight years.
719: Now then you state that you took no further, – that you did not go with the church to those of them who left Nauvoo in 1846 or 1847 and went to other places, and that there was quite a number of others that refused to go also, and that your refusal was based upon additions to the doctrine and practices of the church?
720: Of those who went?
Yes sir. I so stated.
721: That was your reason?
722: And you considered that you were dong right in such refusal?
723: And yet you say that afterward, – after you became a member of the church in 1860 that additions to the rules and doctrines of the church were made, and yet you stayed with the church, although after the dispersion of Nauvoo you refused to go with the church because of additions that had been made to the rules and practices of the church?
I don’t understand the question. 724 (Written as 624)
723: You testified that you refused to go with the church or any of the branches of it after the dispersion in 1846 or 1847 because of the fact that additions had been made to the rules and practices of the church?
Yes sir, – that is what I stated I believe. 725 (Written as 625)
723: And yet you joined this church, – the re-organized church, so called in 1860, and although there has been additions made to the rules and practices of that church since that time you do not refuse to leave it?
There was no rule or doctrine changed or added 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.
726: After you became a member of the re-organized church there was additional made to the book of doctrine and covenants, and yet you did not see proper to leave it?
No sir, I did not.
727: Well I would like to become acquainted with your reasons for that action. F: For not leaving it?
728: Yes sir?
Well sir it was because there was nothing added in the rules and regulations that have been added since I have been a member, or before, that has been subversive of the rights of the people or the organic structure of the church, while those we objected to, we considered were.
729: Now those you objected to originally were in your opinion subversive of the rights of the people and the doctrines of the church, – that is in your opinion they were?
730: And those additions added on the rules and regulations by the re-organized church, in your opinion were not subversive of anything?
731: That is the way it is?
732: Then the authority that has governed you in this matter has been your opinion?
733: Well what has governed you if it has not been your opinion?
The rules and organic structure of the church, – its doctrine and faith and principles as laid down in the recognized standards are the basis, or furnish the basis upon which my opinions were based.
734: Well after all it has been your own individual opinion that has governed you has it not?
My estimate of these things as a matter of course governs me in my choice of principle and doctrine.
735: Was it not a matter of fact the individual opinion of all these other parties who joined you in this movement the influence which governed them?
I do not know what governed them.
736: Well do you know anything else that did govern them?
I could not say.
737: You do not know what there motives were or have been?
No sir I do not know what there motives may have been. I cannot say what a persons motive may have been unless I see the evidences of it.
738: But you knew at the time as I understood you to say, that the church was re-organized in 1862 in consequence of any revelation or any authority contained in any of the books that are recognized as authority in the church?
No sir I don’t know that. They affirmed that they were directed by revelation, but whether they were or not that is a matter for them to testify to and not me, – that is a matter of their testimony and not mine.
739: They affirmed they were led by revelation?
740: To what extent?
I cannot say, but to a greater or lesser extent.
741: Do you affirm that you were led by revelation also?
I was in respect to uniting with them.
742: So then if the affirmations of these people who re-organized the church in 1852 is correct, it was re-organized at that time in pursuance of revelation?
Yes sir by revelation or direction to that effect.
743: Well was it by revelation?
That is what they say but of course I cannot say as to that. That is a matter that I am not competent to prove.
744: Now can you tell me how we are to ascertain whether they were deceived or not?
I cannot tell you.
745: You cannot tell me anything about that?
746: You say you joined the re-organized church in 1860 in consequence of a revelation to that effect?
747: No is there any way by which we can ascertain whether you were deceived or not?
I do not know.
748: Can you tell me any way by which we can asertain as to whether or not you were deceived, – whether or not you had a revelation to that effect?
749: Can you tell the Judge of the Circuit Court of the United
States of America?
How is that?
750: Can you distinctively tell the Judge of the Circuit Court of United States of America, – I mean the Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States, how he can know that you were not deceived?
751: Then you fill this gap between the disruption at Nauvoo and the coming together again in 1852 by the assumption that the people were authorized to come in 1852 by revelation?
752: Yes sir by various revelations to the people there assembled?
No sir, I do not fill the gap with any such an assumption.
753: You do not?
754: Then what do you fill it with?
I am perfectly willing to explain it as I understand it.
755: You say you are willing to explain it as you understand it?
756: Well you may go on and state, if you know by what authority the conference of 1852, or assembly of 1852 at Newark, Wisconsin was had?
By what authority?
757: Yes sir by what authority that assembly was had, if you know?
758: You may answer the question?
My understanding of the matter is this, – persons invested with a right of membership in the church did not lose the right, or that right I should say, – the right of the membership because of the introduction into the church of now doctrines and teachings which they held to be pernidious 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 regions round about, – one in one direction, and one in another. They had done this prior to the conference of June 12th 1852, although that was the first regular conference that had been held after the dispersion. They had not together in small bodies prior to this and had agreed among themselves and by a call to others to meet together at Newark, Wisconsin, on that day for the purpose of taking into consideration what they should do in reference to their membership, and whether they should take part in effecting an organization. Now that is the way I understand it, but what moved them to that course personally I do not pretend to say.
759: You do not know these facts of your own knowledge?
No sir, only as I have been told and from the records of the conference.
760: Well I move the Court to exclude the answer of the witness on the ground that it is not the best evidence and is incompetent and hearsay”.
761: Have you any standard histories treating upon the point?
On what point?
762: Has your church any standard histories upon the question, or any standard historical publications that are accepted by your church as stating the facts with reference to that organization?
I don’t think there has been any history authorized and accepted by the church. There was a statement made by one of the men who were present at that gathering. who was present at that gathering, I think the one who presided at that conference, and he gives an historical statement which is accepted by the re-organized church as a true statement. That it is accepted by the individual members of the church as being substantially a true statement of the conference and the matters that transpired there. Of course as to that I do not know anything about.
765: Is there any historical statement of the proceedings of that conference which is accepted by the re-organized church as a true statement of the events that transpired there?
I do not think there has ever been any formally accepted.
764: Has or has not one Z.H. Gurley published a history of that organization, and the subsequent action up to the time you became a member of the church, which is received by the re-organized church?
I think he wrote an article which is entitled perhaps a history of the re-organized church, or of the organization, and it was published perhaps in the Herald. I do not know that it was even completed, by it was simply published as his statement, and so stands in the column of the Herald.
765: Do you know whether or not that article or history has ever been endorsed by any of the authorities of the church?
I do not know that it has ever been formally endorsed.
766: I believe you are one of the editors of the Herald as you stated this morning?
767: Did you ever endorse it as one of the editors of the Herald?
768: You are familiar with these minutes as presented here in this record are you not?
What is that?
769: You are familiar with these minutes as they appear here in the record that has been offered here and identified as an exhibit?
I am only casually familiar with them.
770: Well to what extent are you familiar with them?
I am only casually familiar with them as I stated. I have read them in a cursory way, and not with any intention of charging my mind with the contents to a sufficient degree to state confidently what they contain.
771: Will you take that minute book marked exhibit N, and turn to the first organization there, and read what it recites concerning the causes which caused them to assemble there together at that time. Counsil for the plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness for the reason and on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and hear say, and not proper cross examination.
772: Could you do that?
I could do anything, I could read anything that is in that book I believe.
773: Well I know that, but can you turn to these minutes, or any of these minutes in the record which I now hand you, and which recites the authority by which they assumed to re-organize?
I don’t know that I can.
774: Well we will let it pass at that?
I don’t know that I can for it has been some time since I examined the minutes, and as a matter of fact I do not know that there is any such a thing recited there at all.
775: Do you say that there is not?
No sir. There may be, but if there is I don’t know it.
776: They personally I understand you to say you do not know anything of the proceedings of that organization down to 1860?
I was not a participant in any of their gatherings until 1860 and therefore of my own personal knowledge I do not know anything about it.
777: Were you aware of it at the time?
Aware of what?
778: That an attempt was made at re-organization? Were you aware of that fact for any considerable time before the time that you went into there-organization??
Yes sir I heard it from time to time.
779: When was the first time that you heard of the attempted re-organization?
I do not remember anything positively until 1856 when two of the brethern visited me.
780: That was the time that you were first visited in reference to joining the movement?
781: Now you say that two of the brothers visited you? I will ask who they were?
Samuel H. Gurley and I believe E.C. Briggs.
782: E.C. Briggs?
Yes sir, – Edmund C. Briggs.
783: What position did these gentlemen hold?
Gurley and Briggs.
784: Yes sir?
I don’t know positively, but I think however that they were elders.
785: They were elders?
That is my understanding, but I do not state it as apositive fact.
786: Had the church any President up to that time?
At what time?
787: From 1852 up to that time? I could not say of my own knowledge, but the history says that they had a provisional president.
788: Did they have any president after that time, and if so when was he made President?
Do you mean before 1852?
789: No sir, after 1852, and up to 1860? I ask you from 1852 to 1860 in reference to whether or not the church had any President during that time?
That is the question I have just answered. I said I understood they had a President who was appointed provisional or temporarily.
790: Can you point to any provision of the law that govern the church that would authorize a provisional President?
Yes sir. In a promiscuous assemblage the one holding the highest authority presides.
791: Where do you find that law?
I don’t know that I can state it exactly, but it is a principle however that is acceded to by all of us in this church. In a promiscuous assemblage where there is not any organization, the one holding the highest authority present, presides.
792: I think you stated that in 1860 you were elected or ordained to preside over the church as its president?
I so stated the fact to be. Yes sir.
793: What are you functions as you understand them, as President of the Church, to which you belong?
794: You may state what are your functions?
I am to preside over the organized assemblis held from time to time, and have a spiritual watch and care over the whole church in connection with my colleague.
795: That is your function as President of the Church?
796: What else do you do?
I am at present editor, or associate editor of the Herald.
797: Does that in here to the office of President of the church?
798: Well what priestly functions are connected with it?
presiding over the authorities of the church.
799: Be more explicit and state what authorities?
Over the priesthood of the church.
800: Then, are you an high priest?
801: And are you the presiding high priest?
802: Is that what is meant by President?
There rule of law required that there should be there when it is full, chosen from amongst the high priesthood, and the President of the church is called President of the high priests or priesthood. These three form a presiding quorom called the First Presidency. There are but two however, who are at present acting.
803: What office was there in the church prior to 1844 that coresponded to that?
There was the same organization at that time.
804: Your father, Joseph Smith, and his counsellors were the first presidency were they not prior to 1844?
Yes sir, prior to the time that he was killed.
805: And in them inhered the gift of revelation did it not?
806: Did it, or did it not?
No sir, for the right of revelation inheres to every member of the church who is possessed of the gift but the gift to a receive revelation for the church and its guidance inheres in the presidency of the church, and what ever purports to be revelation is still tested, as has been the custom.
807: Well Mr Smith you may state again what the custom has been in that respect?
It is our understanding according to the light we have, that whatever purports to be a revelation for the doctrine or government of the church or affecting either in any material issue, when received before it becomes authority, must be presented to and acted upon by the presiding quoroms of the church, the Presidence, the twelve and the seventy especially.
808: Have you any record or anything showing this was done with any revelation given through your father?
809: You have?
Yes sir, I believe we have.
810: Have you them here in any of these books that have been presented here?
I think so.
811: Can you law your hands upon the book or books that contain it, and point it out?
I think I can, but it will take some time to do so.
812: Let me call your attention to that law, – Now it is the law I want on the subject, and if it exists I would like for you to call my attention to it?
It is not in the law, – it is in the records of the general Assembly held on the 19th of August 1835 on page two hundred and fifty five of Exhibit E, and the same history is found in the current literature of the time.
813: And the doctribe as found stated here on the matter on which it treats is, as I understand it, accepted by the re-organized church?
The statement is accepted as the minutes of an assembly held on that day, and only that. It is accepted only for what purports to be and nothing else. I do not know that there is any doctrine in it, – it is just a simple statement of events as there transpired. At all events that is what we take it to be. The same record or substantially the same was published at the time in the Evening and Morning Star, or the Messenger and Advocate, – I don’t know just what it was, but it was either one of these publications.
814: Well, is it a fact as stated here, that the assembly being duly organized, – the assembly of August 17th 1833, – “The Assembly after being duly organized, and after transacting certain business of the church, proceeded to appoint a committe to arrange the items of doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of his Church of Latter Day Saints”?
I could not tell you. I was not present, and I take it from the history for what it purports to be. I could not tell you whether it is a fact or not but it is accepted as history, or a record of a thing that occured.
815: You were not there at the time?
Certainly not, for at that time I was not yet three years old, so I don’t know anything about it of my own knowledge.
816: Are the proceedings and actions taken at that meeting, – August 17th 1835, – a precedent or a rule of conduct for the church at the present day, – that is are they a rule and precedant for the re-organized church at the present day?
Yes sir they are a presedant.
817: They are a precedant?
Yes sir, and that is all.
818: Are all the revelations that are recognized as binding upon the church to be found in this book of doctrine and covenants, and in the subsequent editions of the book of doctrine and covenants?
Do you mean in reference to the re-organized church.
819: Yes sir?
I think so with perhaps one or two exceptions. There is somethings later that we have not yet printed in the book.
820: What do you mean by that?
I mean that there is one or two things that we have not printed in the book as yet, – that is, it is not as yet printed and bound in the book that you have there.
821: There is somethings later that is not printed in this book?
Yes sir. It is not bound in that edition which you have?
822: is there any revelations regarded as authority in the re-organized church, that are not to be found published in these books of covenants, – say in this book of covenants?
I think likely that is so, but I cannot say as I don’t know what book you have there. There is matters received and acted upon by the church in the spring of 1891, that are not incorporated in that book, but they are received by the church.
823: They were accepted by the church, and are acted upon at this time?
824: And are not in this book?
825: On page two hundred and fifty five of exhibit J, if found a revelation given February 1834. Now do you know whether that was printed to the assembly, and by the quoroms before Joseph was killed?
I do not know.
826: Is that revelation in the first edition of the book of covenants?
I could not tell you, but I hardly think it is however.
827: You hardly think it is you say?
Yes sir. I hardly think it is, but as to that I could not say positively for I don’t know, although I am pretty sure it is not.
828: Well I would like you to state whether it is or not?
I have not examined it critically and I could not say.
829: Now in the same exhibit J, at page two hundred and eighty five section one hundred and two, is a revelation given on Fishing
River, Missouri., June 28th, 1834?
830: Is that an authority in the church?
We have received it for what it purports to be
831: Is it recognized as a rule of action?
832: It is recognized as a rule of act on by the church of which you are now the President?
833: You recognize it in-so-far as it purports to be a rule of action?
834: Was that in the first edition?
I could not tell you not whether it was or not.
835: Was it ever received generally by the general assembly or by the quorome before the death of Joseph?
Not that I know of. I couldn’t say that it was.
836: Now Mr Smith on page two hundred and ninety seven of the same exhibit J, section one hundred and five, entitled “the word of the Lord given unto Thomas B. Marsh at Kirtland, July 3rd 1837, concerning the twelve aoostles of the Lamb”, Was that in the first book of doctrine and covenants? I hardly think it was for it was given in 1837 and the first book of doctrine and covenants was published in 1835.
837: Is that regarded as authoritive in the re-organized church?
For what it purports to be it is.
838: It is accepted for what it purports to be?
839: Was it ever adopted by the assembly and approved by the quorom?
Do you mean before the death of Joseph?
840: Yes sir.
Not that I know of.
841: You do not know of its having been adopted before that time?
842: Now on page three hundred of the same exhibit J, section one hundred and six there is a revelation at Far West, Missouri, July 37the 1838?
Is that a rule of action for the church?
Yes sir. So far as it purports to be it is. It is accepted and acted upon for what it purports to be.
843: Is it the same with the revelation given to Joseph Smith January 19th 1841, as found on page three hundred and one, section one hundred and seven , or exhibit J?
844: You don’t know whether any of these were ever adopted by the General Assemblies, or approved by the quoroms?
845: You do not know anything about that?
846: Do you make the same answer with reference to a letter of Joseph Smith’s, dated at Nauvoo, September first 1842, and addressed to all the Saints in Nauvoo, as found on page three hundred and twenty of Exhibit J?
We accept it as a letter as it purports to be.
847: Is it authoritive with the re-organized church in any way whatever?
We understand it to be a letter of instruction at the time written by him to the members of the church there.
848: And is it not regarded by the re-organized church of which you are at the present time the President, as authoritive?
We have regarded it as indicative of what out action should be, we have regarded it as his opinion, but we examine these things for ourselves when we have occasion to do so, but give due weight to his opine on as expressed in the communication
849: Does or does not Joseph give that letter as a revelation?
I could not tell you that.
850: Do you make the same answer with reference to section one hundred and ten on page three hundred and twenty two of the same Exhibit J?
851: What do you say as to that?
It is of the same nature.
852: You make the same answer?
853: And to the letter dated September 6th 1842?
Yes sir. It is of the same nature. It is a matter of instruction, and may or may not be considered authoritive as the question may be considered.
854: On page three hundred and thirty four of the same exhibit J is a section entitled one hundred and thirteen, entitled “martyrdom of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum”. Now what about that?
Well it shows for itself what it is.
855: Well what place does it occupy in the re-organized church?
It is simply considered as a narration of the circumstances attending the killing of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, and as being written by parties competent to write it.
856: That is what it is regarded to be?
Yes sir. 857 (Question and answer missing) 858 (Question and answer missing)
859: And is that all?
Yes sir. That is all.
860: Is it considered as true?
So a far as the relation of the fact is concerned it is so far as I know. We simply take it for what it purports to be and nothing else, and that is just what the man wrote it wrote in connection with the event, and we believe it to be a true historical narrative of the transaction, and nothing more.
861: In the same book exhibit J, on page three hundred and thirty six after the word “supplement”, are a number of sections headed with the declaration, – “the succeeding sections are published by authority of the General Conference of September 1878, held at Gallands Grove, Iowa, is as follows, – “Now these are the sections, – Whereas we accept the revelations here-to-fore given by the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, through the present presiding officer thereof, as being the word of the Lord to his Church, equally with those published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants; therefore be it. Resolved, that the revelations received by the President of the Church in 1861, and 1865, be received as from God, authoritive and binding upon us as a body; and in connection with the revelation of 1873, that they be hereafter complied with that book. Passed September 13the 1878”. Now is that deliverance of the Conference of 1878 regarded by the Re-organized church as authoritive?
862: Do you understand the question?
863: Well answer it?
I believe it to be.
864: Well is it regarded as authoritive by the re-organized church?
I believe it to be. It was so regarded. It was intended to be so regarded, and I believe it is so regarded.
865: Now on the subsequent paged, beginning at page three hundred and thirty six on this book, exhibit J, occur various deliverances for the President of the Church?
866: Who was and is that President?
867: You deliver these revelations or what purport to be revelations?
867: Then I offer section one hundred and fourteen beginning on page three hundred and thrity sex and ending on page three hundred and thirty seven, as follows,
868: Now my object in offering these sections from exhibit J, is for the purpose of showing on your cross examination that the doctrine at present taught and practiced by the reorganized church has been added to large since the year 1860. That is my object in putting these in evidence, and I will ask you now Mr. Smith if that is not the case?
869: What is you answer to the question?
I do not understand that there has been any addition. All that has been done is in reference to methods of procedure, and elucidation of what has already been written. That is all this which you call additions, consists of.
870: Well now had you any doctrine prior to your deliverance of My 4th 1865, cautioning the church against ordaining men of the Negro race to office in the church?
I do not know that there was any doctrine cautioning against the ordination of men of the negro race, and I don’t understand that there is in this.
871: Did you not in that revelation make a deliverance to that effect, —”Be not hasty in ordaining men of the Negro race to office in my church”?
872: Did you make that deliverance in that revelation?
873: Did you not make a deliverance of this kind also, which is accepted by the re—organized church, —”Until such time as the Quorom of Twelve shall be filled an unanimous decision shall be accounted final as if such quoroms were filled according to my law as given in the book of doctrine and covenants, and until such time as the Quorom of Seventy shall be filled their decision, if unanimous, and agreeing with that of the Quorom of Twelve, shall be considered the same as if the quorom were filled”. Now sir is that not the law of the re—organized church?
Yes sir it is. It is, but it is direct harmony with the fundamental law of the church regarding those organizations.
874: Did you not make this deliverance also, —”The Bishop of my church, may also choose and appoint Bishops agents, until it shall be wisdom in me to ordain other Bishops, in the districts and large branches of my church”.
875: You also delivered that utterance?
Yes sir and it is in direct harmony with the teachings of the book it has referred to
876: Was there any authority in the old organization for a direct organization?
Yes sir, I believe there was.
877: Can you point it out? I will permit you to do it at any time if you cannot find it now?
How is that.
878: I asked you if you could point it out, and said that if you could not do it, I would permit you to do it at any time?
I don’t know that I could specifically. It is a matter of the organization, and the word district is used in distinguishing conferences or organized branches, —the one from the other.
879: That is the way that is?
Yes sir 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 that is to be done, —what—ever it may bee, —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 were disqualified, —or rather I should say dis—fellowshipped,”
880: Of what did your differene branches consist?
Congregations of the church.
881: Of the elders?
Elders, priests and deacons, – whatever officers they are, – excepts in some districts where they have adopted a system of representation by delegates, – or delegate representation.
882: Does not the law to which you refer say it shall be an elders conference?
It says the several elders shall hold a conference. It says also that the branches shall send some officers or teacher, or the hand of some priests their report.
883: Is this not the law of the re-organized church as given through you by revelation, – “Presidents of the seventy are instructed to select from their several quoroms of elders, such as are qualified and in a condition to take upon them the office of Seventy”.
Where is that?
884: That is found on page three hundred and fifty, paragraph ten in Exhibit J?
I hold exhibit J here in my hand and page three hundred and forty six is the last page in it.
885: Well I will withdraw that question because I have inadvertently gone further than the exhibit exhibit extends. Is this an added law of the church on page three hundred and forty four in section one hundred and nineteen, – the last one I quoted from there, beginning one line from the top at the words “Men of God who bear the vessels of the Lord, be ye clean in your bodies and in your clothing. Let your garments be of a sober character and free from excessive ornamentation Avoid the use of tobacco and be not addicted to strong drink in any form, that your counsel to be temperate may be made effective by your example”?
886: Is that an addition to the former rule of the church?
It is a matter of instruction and amplification. I do not think it is an addition by simply an elucidation in the way of instruction.
887: Well so far as I am individually concerned and my sentiments are concerned that is a very good rule and one to be applauded; but for the purposes of this case I have quoted it here, and asked you to answer it?
Well I have to the best of my ability. It is merely a matter of instruction, and it is also in harmony with the revelation to be found in the first book of covenants.
888: Does the revelation in the first book of covenants, to which you refer, prohibit the use of tobacco entirely?
No sir not entirely. It is called a word of wisdom by way of instruction and not by way of constraint, for you can use it for sick cattle, and for bruises.
889: But does it not permit the use of a small amount for a man.
I think not, – not to chew or smoke I think.
890: That is your recollection?
Yes sir. It is not an imperative command.
891: Does this law to which you refer have anything to say about the use of ornamentation for the person?
Yes sir it says let your ornamentation be the work of your own hands. It says that it should be the workmanship of your own hands, but does limit the amount, – leaving that to the individual taste.
892: Is the word “ornament” used?
I think it is “ornamentation, ” but it may not be it may be “embellishment”.
893: Now Mr. Smith in the examination of this question of doctrine, or I should say this question of the doctrine of the revelation, I conceive it to be necessary in the examination of the doctrine of revelation as it has been presented here to ask you how these revelations from God are received?
894: Well you may proceed to answer that question?
Revelation as I understood, or understand it are received in different ways. Sometimes by impression, sometimes by the person becoming conscious of it, and sometimes by an 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.
895: How is that men when he becomes conscious of a thought or inspiration, that it is received from without, whether it is a revelation from without or a suggestion from within?
Well it is pretty difficult to tell.
896: What is that?
I said it was probably difficult to tell. Each person who receives a revelation would have to judge as to that himself.
897: Is it not a matter of his own judgement as to whether or not it is a suggestion from without or one from within?
No sir, not at times.
898: There are exceptions to that rule then?
Yes sir, as there is to all rules there is exceptions I suppose to this. Now when a man hears a voice he knows he hears it, and so that must be a suggestion as you call it, from without.
899: How does a man know when he hears a voice from without that is the voice of God, and not the voice of some other, a voice from some human source?
I don’t know how the man would tell in every instance.
900: How could he tell in any instance?
It would be according to the surroundings and conditions.
901: Then as a matter of fact it is a matter of judgement with him as to whether or not it is the voice of God he hears, or a voice of some other character?
He must base his own action on what he hears, it must be on his judgement as a matter of fact. As a matter of course it must be based on his judgement, for that is all he has to guide him.
902: Then when a revelation is received from some direct agency as you suggest, how can the recipient tell you that that voice is from God or some other source?
He will have to decide from the circumstances under which that communication was received. He will have to decide as to its intent, and objects of course, and so far as we are concerned by its relation to what we have already received and accepted as the word of God.
903: So the ultimate outcome of the whole matter is that the man’s own best judgement is the guide or judge as to whether or not
a revelation when received comes from within or without or whether it is the word of God? The whole thing rests on his own best judgement after all?
No sir I do not so understand it. If any body says anything to me I understand that they say it, and if I hear what they say clearly, and apprehend it, it is not a matter of my judgement as to whether I accept it or not. I am forced to accept it and my judgement as to whether or not I heard the thing is not called into requisition for it is a matter that is not involved in doubt at all . Whether I accept it depends on circumstances such as whether there is a reason for it or occasion for it, or whether it comports with what he has already said upon the same subject if he has said anything to my knowledge.
904: May not a man, though in the Presidency of the church, be mistaken as to these matters?
905: As to the genuineness or authenticity of revelations he purports to have received?
906: Then is it not a fact that these revelations are not accepted by the church, – by the re-organized church of Latter Day Saints until they have been adopted by the Assemblies and approved by the quoroms?
I hardly think that I apprehend that questions Colonel?
907: I asked you if these revelations, laws and rules of the church or what purport to be laws and rules of the church reveled through the instrumentality of revelations, – are they regarded as revelations or laws or rules or action to the church of which you are the President now, until they have been formally adopted by the church as such?
No sir they are not binding, – they are subject to consideration and examination.
908: But they do be come laws of the church, when they are accepted by the church as such?
When they are accepted by the church they become binding upo it.
909: Then is it not the law of the church, – of the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that new revelations may be given, and they may be accepted by the church, and thereby become laws of the church?
910: That can be done?
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 judgement. We believe this for we know it to be so, and we therefore look for further revelations in the future at such time and places and through such instrumentality as He sees fit to make the medium of His communication to this earth.
911: Then is it not a fact that the church that existed from 1830 up to the time of the disruption of 1846 or 1847, had none of these subsequent revelations as its law?
Of course they did not have any that were given subsequent to that time, nor those given to the re-organized church.
912: Is it really a fact that the church from 1830 to 1834 had the same rules of doctrine as are to be found and set forth in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants?
I could not tell you that.
913: Well according to the theory of inspiration and the theory of
imparting it and making laws for the church, could it have had the laws that were given by revelation after 1835, of after 1834, I mean, that is could the church from 1830 to 1834 had the new revelations that were given after 1834, as the laws of the church?
I think so, if they were received and accepted by the same body.
914: Could that body have been governed by laws that were passed afterwards?
At that time?
915: Yes sir.
No sir. It could not be governed by the law prior to the time of the passage of the law. That is a self evident fact I think. It would be like attempting to govern a territorial community under a state law, that is something that could not very well be done, for at that time, or prior to that time the church was in what might be called its formative period, for the laws were being revealed and formulated by which it was to be afterwards governed.
916: Is it not a fact that law is only enforced after it is enacted?
Yes sir, I so understand that to be the fact.
917: Well is that not the fact with a law of the church?
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 would be sanctioned. That has been done in the church.
918: Well would you be willing to state upon your oath that the church prior to 1834 acted upon revelations that were received subsequent to that date?
I would not like to swear to that, or even make a statement regarding that condition upon my own judgement.
920: Well no, I wouldn’t think you would?
No sir I would not.
921: Then you do not swear to that?
922: Well I should think you would not?
I am not versed in hypothetical suppositions cases of that kind, but I should say that couldn’t be.
923: This is a controversy as I understand it Mr. Smith to obtain control and possession of what is know as the “temple lot” in the City of Independence, Missouri? Is that not the fact?
I so understand it to be the fact.
924: You are the chief officer of the church which claims to bring the action?
925: Now sir can you tell me what right the church has that was reorganized in 1852 as you claim, has in and to that temple lot?
926: Will you state whether the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has ever paid one dollar for or on account of the temple lot in the City of Independence, Missouri?
My answer is that so far as my knowledge goes the reorganized church has paid money out on account of that temple lot and today occupying a part of that temple lot, – I don’t know how large a portion, but it is by motes and bounds. I believe that is the fact that they are occupying a portion of that temple lot.
927: Do you state that as a positive fact?
I state it as my best knowledge and belief.
928: Do you mean a part of ground or land that is in dispute in this case?
I don’t know that I do.
929: So then as a matter of fact you don’t know that the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of which you are the President and head, ever paid a dollar of money for or on account of the land in controversy in this case?
I don’t know that the church has ever paid anything in that way unless it is that it has paid a portion of the taxes. (???)
930: Mr Smith do you know whether or not any body has ever paid a dollar for the land in controversy or on it in any way, for the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
931: Now Mr Smith do you know of any revelation that will authorize the re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to take the property from other people who have paid there money for it, and not give them anything in return?
932: If they can?
No sir I do not.
933: You do not know of any revelation to that effect?
934: Mr Smith I believe you are one of the Incorporators of the Plaintiff in this case?
935: Where do those Incorporators reside?
Well I believe the most of them reside there at Lamoni Iowa?
936: Most of them reside there at Lamoni?
937: Well if there are not any of the Incorporators that do not reside at Lamoni, Iowa where do they reside?
Well sir I could not tell you.
938: Is there no way by which that fact can be asertained?
I could not tell you without examining the names.
939: Well please examine the names and state where they all reside, – each and every one of them, if you know?
(witness takes the copy of the articles of incorporation attached hereto as Exhibit A and answers as follows) E.L. Kelley resides at Lamoni; B.F. Nicholson at Lamoni; W.W. Blair at Lamoni, Iowa; Robert Winning resides at St Joseph, Missouri; Alexander Hale Smith resides at Lamoni, Iowa; Robert at M. Elvin resides at Lamoni, Iowa; C.H. Burroughs resides at Lamoni, Iowa; D.F. Crane also resides at Lamoni, Iowa; Jasper H. VanMeter at Lamoni, Iowa; S.P. Ball at Lamoni; Edwin B. Stafford at Lamoni, Iowa; S.D. Shippy resides at Lamoni, Iowa; D.D. Young at Lamoni, Iowa; Ed Weedmark at Lamoni; A.K. Anderson at Lamoni; Seth M. Bass at Lamoni; George Derry at Lamoni; J.B. Van Meter now lives at Kellerton, Iowa; that is a place five or six miles west of Lamoni; William Anderson at Lamoni; John Traxler at Lamoni; Emeline A. Elvin at Lamoni; Minnine A. Anderson at Lamoni; Samuel Ackerly at Lamoni; J.P. Dillion at Lamoni; David Dance at Lamoni; Edwin A. Blakesly at Galien, Michigan; Asa S. Cochrane at Lamoni; Joseph Smith at Lamoni; and Henry A. Stebbins also at Lamoni. That is all of them I believe.
940: Did these people whose nzmes you have read, and whose residence you have given, incorporate by authority, – did they incorporate of their own free will and accord, or by authority conferred upon them?
941: What is your answer?
What is the question?
942: Did the people incorporate of their own accord, and if not upon or under what authority did they incorporate?
They incorporated of their own accord by direction of a general conference, or by permission or instruction of a general conference of the church.
943: What general conference. Will you please point it out to me?
I think it is in there (referring to the articles of incorporation).
944: What I want to know is what general conference is was that gave this permission, or direction, or authority, whichever it was?
I think it was the spring conference of 1890 but I am not sure of that. I would not be positive as to that, but I think that was the conference it was.
945: Have you the minutes of that conference here?
I do not know whether they are here or not. I haven’t them I know.
946: Well in that action were these parties whose names appear written here, authorized by name to incorporate?
No sir they were not.
947: Why was that not done?
Well sir it was not necessary. The majority of them were residents and living there at Lamoni, and were members of the church or branch there, and they were there present at the meeting at the time this incorporation took place, and signed the Articles of Incorporation took place, and signed the Articles of Incorporation.
948: At what meeting was that?
The meeting held there at Lamoni for that purpose.
949: AT a meeting of the local church or branch at that place?
Yes sir, of the local organization.
950: They met for that purpose?
951: Were they authorized by that meeting to Incorporate?
They proceeded to adopt the Articles of Incorporation at that meeting and signed them at that meeting, and I believe that every member that was present at that meeting signed them.
952: How was that meeting called?
It was a regular meeting of the branch.
953: What do you mean when you say a regular meeting of the branch?
I mean a meeting of the branch that is held at regular intervals, – a regular fixed meeting, the time of the holding of which is fixed. It is a meeting that is held for the transaction of the regular routine business of the branch.
954: When was this meeting called?
Saturday afternoon, – Saturday evening. It was a state meeting and notification had been given of what would take place.
955: It was assembled by the members of that local branch at Lamoni?
956: And a resolution was passed at that meeting authorizing these gentlemen to effect his incorporation did they not?
No sir that was done by the conference, but the articles of incorporation were presented to the meeting and were adopted by the meeting. approved and gigned up upon such adoption.
957: The people did that?
958: What people did that?
959: Well were these names that appear here the names of the people who were present and who signed these articles of incorporation?
960: Was there any body else present except those who did sign these articles of incorporation?
Not that I know of. I think every member present signed them.
961: To what tribunal did they then apply for incorporation?
962: Answer the question?
After the articles were accepted and signed, the articles were filed with the court of the county.
963: And this paper here, – this one (the original) you recognize as the original?
964: And your name is signed to it?
Yes sir that is the original and my name is signed to it.
965: Each of the parties whose names attached hereto signed their own names?
I think so. I think most of them were signed there in my presence, but some of them may have been signed in the presence of the Notary Public and those of course I did not see.
966: You said that article of incorporation was filed in the county court. Now were you not mistaken about that. Did you not mean in the County Recorders office, – did you not mean that that was where it was filed?
Well the court records are kept there. There is a little difference in the organization of counties in Iowa from what it is here in Missouri or in Illinois, and I get a little confounded some time on that account, not being familiar with the way it is done in our state.
967: The greater number of the persons who signed here were members of the local church at Lamoni?
968: Did any sign who were not members of the church?
969: Who signed it who were not members of the church at Lamoni?
Robert Winning, Mr H. Kelley and Mr Blakesly.
970: Mr Winning is in St Joseph?
Yes sir, he is in business and resides there.
971: Mr Smith is there a presiding high priest over the high priesthood, and recognized by the re-orgainzed church?
972: Is there one now?
973: Who is that person?
974: When were you ordained to that office?
In April 1860.
975: You were ordained you say in April 1860, – where were you ordained?
I was ordained at that time at Amboy, Lee county, Illinois.
976: That was at the conference held at that time?
977: You were ordained twice at that conference?
978: The first ordaination was as what?
As an high priest.
979: The second as what?
President of the high priesthood.
980: That is the order in which the ordaination took place?
981: Are the published minutes of that conference correct on that subject?
Yes sir. approved and signed up upon such adoption.
957: The people did that?
958: What people did that?
959: Well were these names that appear here the names of the people who were present and who signed these articles of incorporation?
960: Was there any body else present except those who did sign these articles of incorporation?
Not that I know of. I think every member present signed them.
961: To what tribunal did they then apply for incorporation?
962: Answer the question?
After the articles were accepted and signed, the articles was filed in the court of the county.
963: And this paper here, – this one(the original) you recognize as the original?
964: And your name is signed to it?
Yes sir that is the original and my name is signed to it.
965: Each of the parties whose names attached hereto signed their own names?
I think so. I think most of them were signed there in my presence, but some of them may have been signed in the presence of the Notary Public and those of a course I did not see.
966: You said that article of incorporation was filed in the county court. Now were you not mistaken about that. Did you not mean in the County Recorders office, – did you not mean that that was where it was filed?
Well the court records are kept there. There is a little difference in the organization of counties in Iowa from what it is here in Missouri or in Illinois, and I get a little confounded some time on that account, not be familiar with the way it is done in our state.
967: The greater number of the persons who signed here were members of the local church at Lamoni?
968: Did any sign who were not members of that church?
969: Who signed it who were not members of the church at Lamoni?
Robert Winning, Mr H. Kelley and Mr Blakesly.
970: Mr Winning is in St Joseph?
Yes sir, he is in business and resides there.
971: Mr Smith is there presiding high priest over the high priesthood, and recognized by the re-organized church?
972: Is there one now?
973: Who is that person?
974: When were you ordained to that office?
In April 1860.
975: You were ordained you say in April 1860, – where were you ordained?
I was ordained at that time at Amboy, Lee county, Illinois.
976: That was at the conference held at that time?
977: You were ordained twice at that conference?
978: The first ordination was as what?
As an high priest.
979: The second as what?
President of the high priesthood.
980: That is the order in which the ordaination took place?
981: Are the published minutes of that conference correct on that subject?
982: The published minutes of that conference are correct?
I think so.
983: Well I would like you to be positive if you can be, on that matter?
On the question of the correctness of the published minutes?
984: Yes sir?
Well I think they are, but I could not be positive on that point, however I think they are correct.
985: Do you recognize that as a copy of the official publication of the minutes of the conference?
That is a copy of the Herald published in May 1860.
986: Do you recognize the publication of the minutes of that conference therein contained, as the official publication of the same?
As it appear here?
987: Yes sir?
No sir that is a copy of the publication as it appeared in the Amboy Times, – a local paper.
988: Will you look at these proceedings, entitled “monutes of the Conference”, and state whether or not they are the correct minutes of that conference or not?
I could not tell you as to their correctness. They were the minutes as presented to the Herald, and published by Mr Isaac Sheen, who was clerk of the conference, and also editor of the paper at the time but whether these minutes to this report is correct or not that is something I cannot say positively.
989: Will you turn to the minutes of that conference in the record here entitled exhibit N, and point out the references to your ordination as they appear in the minutes of that conference?
Yes sir. There are two references. One on page fifty nine and the other one page sixty.
990: Read the two references please?
“Joseph smith, son of Joseph Smith the prophet, seer and revelator, and lineal heir to said office and station, according to the law of the holy priesthood was then introduced to the conference, and he delivered an address, explanatory of his views, principles, doctrine 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”.
991: That is the first?
992: Now the next one, – where is it?
It is on page sixty, – “By unanimous vote, Brother Joseph Smith was ordained President of the High Priesthood of the Church by Brothers Z.H. Gurley and William Marks.”
993: You find reference there Mr Smith I believe to but one ordination?
994: To two?
995: Well I did not so understand it from your reading?
Well yes sir I believe it is but one. The two ordinations took place however at the same time, but they are reported as one. I was ordained first as high priest and then President of the high priest hood subsequently.
996: Then the minutes don’t show the ordination as presiding high priest of the priesthood do they? Do they show that?
I think so, but just wait a moment and I will tell you (witness refers to exhibit N, and answers) – Yes sir.
997: Well do they show an ordination to the priesthood?
Yes sir I think so.
998: Well I think you read of but one ordination?
Well that is all right.
999: How could there be an ordination to the Presidency of the priest
hood without their first being an ordination to the priest hood. Is that not a fact that there could not be an ordination to the Presidency of the high priest hood without there first being an ordination to the high priest hood?
I hardly think it would be proper, but in this case I know that I was ordained an high priest. There is no manner of doubt of that, and afterwards ordained to the Presidency. I know that as well as I know anything that ever happened in my experience.
1000: Please state whether both ordination were simultaneous, or whether there was a lapse of time between them?
The one took place before the other.
1001: Was there any proceedings of any kind intervened?
I think so, – did you ask if there was anything intervened?
1002: Yes sir?
I think not.
1003: Is that fact shown by the minutes?
I don’t appear to be.
1004: It is not shown by the minutes?
It does not appear to be that is as far as I have examined the minutes it does not appear to be.
1005: Was there a motion made, and a vote taken, on that motion to ordain you a high priest at that conference?
I couldn’t say whether there was or not.
1006: Well was there or was there not?
I say that I cannot say. My impression is that there was, but I cold not say positively whether there was nor not.
1007: Were you chosen after your ordination as a high priest, from among the high priest hood, to be ordained the presiding high priest of the high priest hood?
I would not say that I was with that formula.
1008: Do you recognize what I am not going to read from Exhibit J, one page two ninty one, paragraph eleven as a law of the church on this subject, – “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 priest hoods. Of the Melchisedeck priest hood, three presiding high priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to the office, and upheld by the confidence, faith and prayer of the church, form a quorom of the Presidency of the church”. Do you recognize that?
1009: As what do you recognize?
I recognize it as a rule for the government of the church?
1010: A rule for the government of the church? Is that what you said?
Yes sir, that is what I said.
1011: Do you recognize this also as the law in paragraph thirty one on page two hundred and ninety four of Exhibit J, – “Wherefore it must needs be that one be appointed of the high priest hood to preside over the priest hood; and he shall be called President of the high priest hood of the church. From the same comes the administering or ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of hands”. Do you recognize that as a law of the church?
1012: And this also on page two hundred and ninety seven of the same Exhibit, which reads as follows, “And again, the duty of the President of the office of the high priest hood, is to preside over the whole church and to be like unto Moses. Behold here is wisdom, yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows on the head of the church”. Do you recognize that as being the law of the church upon
1013: Well are you your father’s successor in this office?
1014: You are you fathers successor?
Yes sir I understand I am. It is so understood by, the church to which I belong, that I am by his choice.
1015: Are you then a prophet, seer and revelator?
I am in a position to exercise these gifts if required, and directed to do so.
1016: Those gifts and functions?
1017: Under what conditions?
Whenever directed so to do, – or required so to do.
1017: The Mr Smith have you the keys of the kingdom as conferred upon your father?
1018: Please answer the question, – have you the keys of the kingdom as conferred upon your father?
I do not know that I have, if I understand what you might mean by the word “keys”.
1019: What do you understand the word “keys” to mean in connection with the priest hood of the re-organized church of Latter Day Saints?
1020: Do you understand the question?
Yes sir. I simply understand it to mean the possession of the right of authority. There is a controversy among the people as to what the “keys” do mean. The right to act properly is my understanding of it.
1021: That is your understanding of it?
1022: Have you the keys of the mysteries, – these things that are concealed?
Not that I am aware of.
1023: You have not?
Not hat I know of.
1024: Mr Smith really are not, – were not these keys referred to, the Urrim and Thumnim?
1025: What is your answer?
I do not know?
1026: Any how you have not the Urrim and Thumnim?
as are set forth in the last preceding objection.
Do you ask that as a question, or make it as an assertion?
1027: Well never mind, – let that pass, – Now Mr Smith have you the Jaredite interpreters?
I have not.
1028: Then I am prompted to ask you this question Mr Smith. How can you be a seer without these things?
1029: Can you answer that question?
Yes sir but my answer would be merely an expression, and that would hardly have any value in a court of equity.
1030: Well you may answer it in your own way?
A seer may exercise the privelege or provine of seeing by virtue or inherent quality. That may belong to any person, as is proven by the many instances we have of that power or gift.
1031: Do you recognize what I am now about to read from the book of Mormon, chapter five, paragraph ten of the book of Mosiah, as follows, – “Now Ammon said unto Him, I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith he can look and translate all the records that are of ancient date, and is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters; and not man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not, and he should perish. And whoso is commanded to look in them the same is called seer. And behold the people who is in the land of Zarahemla, is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God. And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet. And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God which no man can; yet a man may have great power, given him from God. But a seer can know of things which are passed, and also of things which are to come; and by them shall all things be revealed, or rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, which otherwise could not be known. Thus God has provided a means, that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings”. I ask you now if you recognize that as a law of the church with reference to the office you have just testified you held?
We regard it precisely as it purports to be, and for what it purports to be, – the statements made by two persons, – one the king and the other a man called Ammon giving his statement in regard to it. It is merely a matter of instruction to us.
1032: Are those statements which I have just read regarded as true by your church?
I could not say any further than I have stated, – we regard them as the statements of individuals purporting to make the statements as they appear in the book itself.
1033: Does your church look upon these as revelations?
They look upon the whole book as a revelation.
1034: Including the part that I have read?
Yes sir, the whole book, including what you have read.
1035: What did you say it was, – the part I have read?
It is just what it purports to be a narration of what was said by these two people at that time, – the king and Ammon.
1036: Now then have you ever exercised the duties of a seer?
No not by the interpreter, for I have never been called upon to do it, I have never been commanded to do so.
1037: Can you be a seer without the commandments?
1038: Can you be a seer without the commandments is the question?
Yes sir a man can be a seer and cannot exercise the office or gift except by commandment.
1039: Do you state that since you have been President of the re-organized church of Latter Day Saints, there has been no necessity for the exercise of that function?
I will not say as I do not know whether there has been or has not been any necessity for it. I am not the one to determine as to the character of the necessity.
1040: Have you have stated repeatedly in this cross examination, when asked concerning these matters, or when asked concerning matters that you did not have any knowledge concerning, that you did not know?
1041: You have said that?
Yes sir I have said that when asked concerning matters of which I did not have any personal cognizance.
1042: Well if your are a seer, and holding that office, why do you make that kind of an answer?
Simply because the matter spoken of had never been brought to my knowledge.
1043: And therefor you are not prepared to answer, is that it?
Yes sir. What is or has been brought to my knowledge or comprehension in any way, that matter I am prepared to make a statement regarding it, but not otherwise.
1044: I believe from your testimony you stated that you have been President of the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for about thirty years?
Yes sir, a little over thirty years, – since April 1860.
1045: And in all that time these questions pertaining to the functions of a seer have never been raised have they?
The question has been raised and discussed frequently so far as my experience goes by a great many, but I have never taken any special part in the discussion.
1046: Do I understand you to say that you have never exercised the functions of a seer?
Not with these interpreters as you read from the book.
1047: Why haven’t you exercised the functions if you are a seer?
Simply because I have never been commanded so to do., and never had the articles in my possession to use them.
1048: Mr Smith were you called by revelation to the office of seer?
on the grounds that the same is irrelevant and immeterial, is not proper cross examination, and asks for an opinion of the witness.
I could not tell you that I was subject to my own counsciousness. I can state as to what I felt, but what others thought about it I cannot say. What others may have done, or what it was to others I cannot say.
1049: I believe you testified that you were ordained by your father to have and hold all the functions which he, your father, held?
1050: You did not?
No sir. I did not so state it.
1051: You did not, and that you testify to?
Yes sir that is what I say. I did not so state it.
1052: Well were you ordained as your fathers successor in all things?
I was not ordained by my father.
1053: Well how was it?
According to my understanding of the meaning of the word “ordained”, I was not.
1054: You were not ordained by your father?
No sir I was blessed by him and designated, – well in a sense chosen, and the word ordained 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.
1055: You said that you were blessed by your father, – were you called through that means or by that blessing?
I do not know that significance you might attach to the word “call”, but I understood it at the time, and understand it now to have been a blessing he conferred upon me in the event of a necessity therefore, and by the act conferring certain priveleges 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.
1056: Do you recognize yourself as the successor of one mighty and strong, as revealed in the revelation to your father?
I cannot answer that question sir.
1057: Why cannot you answer it?
I have already said why. I have already stated why I cannot answer it.
1058: Have you not claimed the office which you now hold as from, – or rather as a succession from your father, and that you have a right by lineal descent to it?
I claim to be his successor by lineal right, and by his blessing, and lastly by the right of selection and appointment.
1059: By right of appointment you also claim it?
1060: Is it a birth right then, to be the President of the church?
No sir, not necessarily.
1061: How does that come then?
It comes by virtue of fitness and qualification, – I might say good behaviour and the choice of the people, recognizing a call, or a right.
1062: Now Mr Smith does lineal right assume these qualifications?
1063: And did it in your case?
Well I can’t say. That is a matter I apprehend to be proven.
1064: Was the doctrine of lineal right a doctrine of your church prior to the death of your father?
I could not tell you. I do not know other than what may be found in the books, and they are open to the inspection of all. I know that there is a kind of traditional teaching to that effect there.
1065: Is it a lineal right in your church?
Nothing further than what is found in the books based on tradition. The right of th firstborn is found in the Book of Mormon and also in the Bible.
1066: What right is that?
The traditional right of the firstborn to whatever may attach to the parent.
1067: Is that right expressed or understood in such a way that your office or whatever rights you hold by virtue of your office, or whatever powers you hold or are gifted with by reason of the position you hold, would descend to your eldest son?
I will answer that by saying yes, with the qualification that all other things are equal. The same attaches to the firstborn of every family to whatever may appertain to the sire.
1068: What other claim is there, if any, of the reorganized church which existed up to the time of your father’s death, if it be not a lineal claim through you as the successor of your father?
It is the claim of the individuals who were members of the church at his death, and hold their membership, and their rights to be regarded as members of the body in the reorganized church.
1069: Do you regard your lineal successorship as one of the claims?
No sir, not necessariy in the reorganized church. The existence of the reorganized church does not depend on my lineal successorship as I understand it.
1070: I believe you stated that you have not seen the records of the church that were kept from 1830 down to 1844?
1071: You say that you never have seen them?
1072: And you dodn ot know where they are?
No sir, I don’t know anything about them, with the single exception that I told you about.
1073: What was that exception?
The minutes of one of the quorums of Elders.
1074: Have you ever seen the resports of Edward Partridge?
107: The reports of his accounts as Bishop of the Church?
1076: Did you ever see a publication of the same in any of your standard publications?
I do not remember that I ever did. If I ever did, I do not now remember it.
1077: Was there, or was there not, an officer in the old church called or designated as the patriarch–the officer of Patriarch?
1078: There was such an office?
Yes sir, along towards the latter times of the chruch there at Nauvoo there was.
1079: What were the functions of that office?
The office of Patriarch?
1080: Yes, sir.
As I undersand it, he was an evangelical minister, a kind of a local Patriarch.
1081: Is there such an office in the reorganized church?
1082: There is no such an office in the reorganized church?
No sir, we have no Patriarch. There is a provision in the organic law of the church for the office, but we have no Patriarch ordained.
1083: Is the right to that office a lineal right or not?
It is the same as the other–subject to the qualificaiton that all other things are equal and the test of personal fitness.
1084: It is the same as in the office of the president?
I made the suggestion awhile ago, or the statement I should say, that it does not simply inure to one, but it attaches to all eldest sons.
1085: Of all who are officers of the church?
Yes sir. 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.
1086: Is that a rule in the re-organized church?
That is a traditional rule if the church.
1087: It is laid down in the teachings of the books of the church?
Nothing more than what appears in the bible and the book of Mormon, and it also appears in the book of covenants.
1088: Is that a principle that appears or was practiced in the church prior to the death of your father?
I could not tell you that.
1089: You cannot say whether that is the factor is not the fact?
1090: Has the re-organized church of which you are the head, a book of rules that pertain distinctively to that church?
1091: Is that book here?
I do not know whether it is or not. I don’t know that there is a copy of it here.
1092: Was there such a book in the old church?
I have in my library Jefferson’s Manual that was used by the parliamentary people of the church.
1093: Nod did you get that book?
It was in my fathers library, and came to me in that way.
1094: But your book of rules is not Jefferson’s Manual?
No sir. 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.
1095: Have you a school for the prophets in the re-organized church?
No sir, it is not so designated.
1096: Was there such a school in the church prior to the death of your father?
I understood or understand there was at Kirtland but I cannot say whether there was one in Nauvoo or not. I cannot testify to that as these things are a matter of history, and that is where I get my information.
1097: Have you any means of determining whether the system represented in the higher grades of the church are the same in the re-organized church as were in existence in the old church before it was dissolved?
No sir, I don’t know that I have.
1098: You haven’t sufficient knowledge to state whether that was the fact or not?
My knowledge in regard to the customs of the old church is derived principally from reading and what occured during my boyhood.
1099: Have you a corps of twelve apostles in the re-organized church?
We have a body called the apostles, but they are not twelve at present. They are not twelve in number at present, but we have the body.
1100: Has the re-organized church ever had twelve?
No sir, not the full member of twelve.
1101: Did the old church ever have a full number of twelve?
I believe they had. That is my understanding.
1102: And the old church had that full number at the time of the death of your father?
I think so.
1103: What are the functions of the twelve?
They are travelling ministers whose duty it is to travel and preach, – itinerant, – take charge of the ministerial work.
1104: That is their duty?
1105: And that was their duty in the old church prior to the death of your father?
Yes that is what I understand.
1106: Is their work not of primary importance to the church?
Yes sir as spiritual ministers they are. I might say that they were the leading quorom 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 quorom in the church.
1107: Is it not a fact that the twelve, or nearly all of the twelve that constituted the quorom of twelve at the time of your fathers death, afterwards went with Brigham Young to Salt Lake City?
I believe they did.
1108: Do you know how many of them went with Brigham Young to Salt Lake City?
I believe nine of them did.
1109: Then Mr Smith if nine of the twelve went to Salt Lake City, with that part of the organization that went to Utah, and the eldest son of the officers in the church are entitled to the succession, how would it be possible for you to ever get a twelve in the re-organized church?
The history states that there was a number appointed of the new organization. Now I am only stating what history states was done, and when this was done 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.
1110: At what time?
I could not say.
1111: Well was it since 1852?
1112: It was since 1852?
Yes sir, and it may have been at that conference of 1852.
1113: What right have you to do that if the oldest son succeeds to the functions of the father, ad nine of the twelve apostles went to Salt Lake?
Well sir we had the right 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 or sire, doe snot depend upon his lineal descent alone, – it it has a co-dependence that is the fitness and moral qualification of the son to succeed the sire. In this case other things besides the question of lineal descent were not equal.
1114: Other things were not equal?
1115: What was the matter, wherein were not other things equal?
The ones that went west to Salt Lake Valley were preaching and openly proclaiming and practicing a doctrine entirely contrary to the fundamental principles of the church, and all its teachings, and they who re-organized one church in 1852 repudiated that doctrine and it is not likely that in the re-organization they would ordain the sons of men who were preaching a false and pernicious doctrine. 1115 (Second 1115)
1115: By what right did they assume to do that?
By the inherent right of man hood 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 re-organized the church asserted that right by maintaining, or rather re-establishing the church in its purity. ministers whose duty it is to travel and preach, -itinerant,- take charge of the ministerial work.
1104: That is their duty?
1105: And that was their duty in the old church prior to the death of your father?
Yes. That is what I understand.
1106: Is their work not of primary importance in the church?
Yes sir as spiritual ministers they are. 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 church.
1107: Is it not a fact that the twelve, or nearly all of the twelve that constituted the quorum of twelve at the time of your father’s death, afterwards went with Brigham Young to Salk Lake City?
I believe they did.
1108: Do you know how many of them went with Brigham Young to Salk Lake City?
I believe nine of them did.
1109: Then Mr. Smith, if nine of the twelve went to Salt Lake City, with that part of the organization that went to Utah, and the eldest son of the officers in the church are entitled to the succession, how would it be possible for you to ever get a twelve in the re-organized church?
The history states that there was a number appointed of the new organization. Now I am only stating what history states was done, and when this was done 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.
1110: At what time?
I could not say.
1111: Well was it since 1852?
1112: It was since 1852?
Yes sir, and it may have been at that conference of 1852.
1113: What right have you to do that if the oldest son succeeds to the function of the father, and nine of the twelve apostles went to Salt Lake?
Well sir we had the right 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 or sire, does not depend on his lineal descent alone, -it has a co-dependence that is the fitness and moral qualification of the son to succeed the sire. In this case other things besides the question of lineal descent were not equal.
1114: Other things were not equal?
1115: What as the matter, wherein were not other things equal?
The ones that went west to Salk Lake Valley were preaching and openly proclaiming and practicing a doctrine entirely contrary to the fundamental principles of the church, and all it’s teachings, and they who re-organized 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.
1116: By what right did they assume 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 sire and the people who met together in 1852 and reorganized the church asserted that right by maintaining. or rather re-establishing the church in its purity.
1116: So their right did not come from ecclesiasticism?
Yes sir they had the ecclesiastic right the same as they always had. Their hope of salvation depended on the proper and pure exercises of these functions, and they are responsible to God and not to man for the way in which they exercise the gift that God had given them.
1117: Is that an assumed law, – a law that they made unto themselves or is it found in your standard authorities?
Yes sir it is to be found in the books.
1118: What books of authority is it to be found in?
it is to be found in the bible, the book of Mormon, and in the book of covenants.
1119: I would be glad if you would point it out to me?
1120: Yes sir?
Well I can do it. “he that loveth me keepeth my commandments, and the same is my deciple”, and also the statement of our Saviour to John, “if you continue in my doctrine, then are you my desciples indeed”, and he also says ye shall knw the truth, and the truth shall make you free”. Now I do not know that I can answer that question any better than I have done, for there is the fundamental principle in at under lies the whole structure of the church.
1121: Well I understand that, and I think it is the truth and very fine gospel, but what I want to asertain is who it is in your church who is delegated with the power to pass upon the fact as to whether or not a man has comported himself according to the law and the rules of the church? Who is entitles to be a judge. Where is the law that makes you a judge over your fellow man. I might quote some scripture too if I wanted too in that connection but I will not do so, but nevertheless I would like to know who consituted a judge to sin in judgement on your fellow man, and cast him out of the church?
These people who went to Utah were addicted before they went to the practice of polygamy, and continued to practice after they go t there to a certain extent still, and that is something that is forbidden, in the books that are authority in the church.
1122: Well now what, – that is simply your opinion?
No sir, I know it.
1123: Why is it that John Taylor’s opinion and judgement, for instance, not as sound as is your opinion and judgement?
So far as his judgement 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 as 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 whoever preaches these doctrines that are forbidden and condemned by the church in its authorized books of doctrine and practice.
1124: Did every individual have a right to pass upon it?
Yes sir every individual who retained his self respect and integrity according to his judgement had the right to pass upon it, and repudiate it if he felt so inclined, and this is just what the re-organized church did do collectively, what the individual had the right to do by himself.
1125: Ma it not have been the judgement of these who went to Salt Lake that they maintained their integrity by the course they took
Well now you are asking me to pass upon their motives or judgement and that is something I cannot do.
1126: So there has been no arbiter between you and them, – is that not a fact?
1127: Nothing at all?
Nothing but the book, – the commandments, and the law as we found it.
1128: And as a matter of fact the issue between you and them has never been adjudicated has it?
In what way?
1129: Well say ecclesiastically adjudicated?
No sir. There has been no competent ecclesiastical tribunal before which the question of he-say and orthodoxy could be tried this side of the judgement seat of Christ, but there are standards among men, especially among the Latter Day Saints which are equivalent to them at least, to the judgement of Christ. . We have the standards and the guides which are laid down as rules of action in the lives of men, and 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 actions and teachings.
1130: Is it not a fact that when one man has a right to dix his standards of faction, that another man has the same right?
1131: Is it not a fact that more of the people who had adhered to the church of which your father was the President during his life time, went off with those nine apostles, than remained and were afterwards re-organized into the church of which you are now the President?
1132: Is that not a fact?
I don’t understand the question?
1133: I asked you if it is not a fact that more of the people who adhered to the church during the time that your father was its President went off to the Salt Lake Valley with the faction that went there with the nine apostles, than there was remained behind and afterwards united with the church of which you are now the President?
That is a fact which I am not competent to answer positively. I will say that it may be the fact that more went off than afterwards came into the re-organized church, but I think there was more remained behind than went to the Valley. I can however give you some data if you choose to accept it.
1134: Well let us have it I will not object?
At the time of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith there was something like one hundred and fifty thousand or two hundred thousand members of the church here in America and Europe and the Islands of the Sea, and there was at Nauvoo and the stake adjacent something like twenty five thousand. Now that was the number there was then and in 1850 there was something like fifty thousand there in Utah, and the census of 1880 gives us some thing like one hundred and forty three thousand as belonging to the entire Utah church that apostatized. Under this showing there is a question as to whether or not there was not more who did not go west, but who remained behind and became scattered to the four quarters of the globe. I know that we have not held all who remained behind and did not go to Utah united with us. There is a very great many who did not unite with us, and a very great many who have gone off with different factions, and others again who have not united with any faction of the church, but who have dropped out of it altogether.
1135: There are other factions of the church you say, – What do the claim?
Well they claim succession, – just like the one does here at Independence Missouri.
1136: Is it not an admitted fact that the Utah Church as from the time of its movement out from Nauvoo, been larger at all times than you church, – the re-organized church is now?
1137: Is that not the fact?
Yes sir, I think probably that is true. It is being impossible to complete the taking of these depositions on this day, the further taking of the same was hereupon continued by the Notary Public taking the same until the hour of half past nine o’clock in the forenoon of tomorrow, the same being Friday, the 29th of January 1892. Now at the hour of nine o’clock and thirty minutes on this 29th day of January, the same being Friday, and in the forenoon of said day, and being the hour to which the further taking of these depositions was continued on yesterday, come the parties as aforesaid for further cross examination as follows,
1138: Mr Smith do you know the name of the Utah Church, – the official name of the Utah Church?
I know the name by which it is usual recognized.
1139: What is that name?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
1140: Do you know when that name was first adopted?
I do not know.
1141: You don’t know the time of the adoption of that name?
No sir I don’t know that I could give it to you positively.
1142: Do you know whether that is the church that existed at Nauvoo prior to the troubles there?
1143: Is that the name of the church?
1144: That was the name of the church there?
1145: Prior to the troubles at Nauvoo, Illinois?
1146: So that the name of the church in Utah and its branches, or the churches that adhere to it elsewhere have the name of the original church, or are they known by different names?
They are all called by the one name.
1147: What is the difference between the name of the re-organized church, and the name of the church in Utah?
The re-organized church has the prefix “re-organized”.
1148: Is that the only difference in the names?
I believe so.
1149: What church, if any, ever had the name of the Church of Latter Day Saints?
I do not know that I can answer that question correctly. I do not know that I can answer that question accurately.
1150: Well answer it as nearly as you can?
My knowledge of the church and its names, has been “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, and I only know that from history as I road it that the body was called at one time the “Church of Latter Day Saints”.
1151: At what time was that?
I could not give you the dates without examining the records and history.
1152: Might I refresh your memory by referring to an article in the Saints Herald of December 18th 1886, in which it is stated another reason lies in the fact that the church in 1834 in conference assembled saw fit to denominated itself officially the “Church of Latter Day Saints”. Do you recognize what I have read to you Mr Smith?
I will have to examine it Colonel and its connections before I can answer. (witness examines the publication referred to). I recognize that as a statement taken from the Evening and Morning Star It was taken from that publication, and the citation underneath shows that fact.
1153: Who made that citation
1154: Who were the editors?
Joseph Smith and W.W. Blair.
1155: You are the Joseph Smith referred to?
1156: Can you tell how long the church was known by that name?
I cannot unless I gather it from current history, and reading about it.
1157: Ws there any other church at and about that time under any other and different name?
I could not tell you that.
1158: Winder the name of, – well let that pass. Now was the name of the church changed again in 1838 by the body, and called “the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints”, – the church of Latter Day Saints?
I don’t know. I do not know as to the date when the change took place, except as I read it from what may have been written.
1159: Look at this same paper in the next paragraph, and see about what was done in 1838?
Yes sir, I recognize that as a statement taken from the Millenium Star, the volume and pages of which are given, but I know nothing about the correctness of it.
1160: What is the Millenieum Star?
It is a periodical that was published by the church originally, and continued by the Utah Church in England.
1161: Will you please read that quotation?
In 1838 the church adopted the further title, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. See Millenium Star, volume 16 pages 117, 130, 131, etc. And April 26th 1838, Joseph the seer, received a revelation, saying “Verily, thus saith the Lord, My Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, scattered a abroad in all the world’ for thus shall it be called in the last days” etc. Millenium Star, volume 16, pages 147, 148″.
1162: Is that recognized as authority in the re-organized church
The Millenium Star?
1163: Yes sir?
1164: And these statements as taken from the Millenium Star are not looked upon as authoritive?
They are taken for just what they show on their face, and for what they are worth, – nothing more.
1165: Well, what are they worth?
They are worth just what they purport to be worth, and no more.
1166: You say the Millenium Star is not recognized as authority in the church at the present time.
1167: Was it eve recognized as authority?
Yes sir, but not after a certain date.
1168: After what date, or at what time did it cease to be regarded as an authority?
June 27th 1844.
1169: Well were the issues of it recognized, – are the issues of the Millenium Star prior to the date recognized as authority prior that date?
Only for what it contains, and then only for what it purports to be. The accuracy or correctness of it is not vouched for as it has never been accepted or passed upon, as authentic.
1170: Did you, or did you not piblish these extracts as authentic upon the question of name?
We published it from the record, and gave the volume and page of the publication, simply for what it purports to be, without vouching for their correctness. We published it simply as a quotation without vouching for its accuracy or authority, and that is all.
1171: Did you publish them with your endorsement?
1172: You did not?
No sir, no further than is stated.
1173: No further than you state in the article itself.
1174: Now then do you recognize the last paragraph in the third column from the page from which you have quoted, as your editorial comment on those quotations?
Do you mean the paragraph beginning with the words “in conclusion”?
1175: Yes sir?
1176: You do recognize that as your editorial comment?
1177: Please read the paragraph?
1178: You may read it?
“In conclusion on this point we shall readily cheerfully adopt as its corporate title “The Church of Christ”, when a command to that effect comes through Gods authorized prophet and seer to his church. Gods church is one of order and authority, and he is wise who heeds this fact, and profits by it. Private interpretation of Scripture, like private notions of church government are neither consistent nor scriptural. “If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man” and a publican”. Matthew 18; 17.”
1179: Do you recognize thia language as a part of the quotation referred to? “And April 26th 1838, Joseph the Seer received a revelation, saying “Verily, thus saith the Lord, My Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world; for thus shall it be called in the last days”. Do you recognize that as a part of the quotations?
I should judge from the reading of it that it was the editorial statement from what appears in the quotation.
1180: Did that meet with your endorsement?
No sir, only as calling attention to what was quoted or cited.
1181: And that is all?
1182: Was that statement there of which I have just read of Joseph Smith about the revelation on April 26th 1838, where it says “Joseph the Seer received a revelation, saying”, is that true?
It is true according to the record relied on.
1183: What do you mean by that?
I mean that it is true as to the record it was cited from. it is a true citation from the record, but as to the correctness of the history we do not know anything about that, not do we endorse the history or say anything about its correctness.
1184: Do you not recognize this quotation as a revelation, “Verily thus saith the Lord. My church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints scattered abroad in all the world, for thus shall it be called in the last days”. Do you or do you not recognize that as a revelation?
I have stated already that I did not know of any such a revelation and I could not vouch for its correctness as a revelation, but I can vouch for its correctness as taken or copied from the record that it purports to have been taken from. That is all I can do, for I do not know that it was ever received, approved and adopted by the church according to the rules of the church.
1185: Now Mr Smith do you recognize this editorial upon that quotation, – “In order that the reader may see the timelines of this revelation he should remember that these were trying times for the church, for some of her strong ones were turning away to the beggarly elements, following their own private notions and seeking to justify themselves therein by wrestling and perverting texts of scriptures to suit their theories, prominent among them, the name of the church”. Do you recognize that as editorial comment on the question?
Yes sir that is the statement made by the editor or write of that paragraph at the time, but it doe snot endorse however, the fact of their having a revelation, – neither as to the knowledge of the fact as to whether or not there was a revelation, nor as to correctness of the history.
1186: You were one of the editors at the time?
1187: And you endorse what the editor did, just the same as if you had done it yourself?
Yes sir. In this way, – I stand associated with him, and share what ever blame or honor there may attach to the conduct of it. 1188 (Listed as 1138)
1187: Or responsibility?
Yes sir, or responsibility. We may differ in opinion however, as to what each other may write.
1189: Will you state why you do not or have not received that as a revelation to the church?
Simply because I do not know anything about the conditions.
1190: What do you say to that question?
I said that I did not know anything bout the history of the whole affair personally.
1191: That is about the revelation?
Yes sir, I don’t know anything about it, and do not know that it is a revelation.
1192: is that not in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No that I know of. I do not blieve it is. I know I never saw it there.
1193: What has the re-organized church received in the way of revelations other than what are in the Book of doctrine and covenants.
Some of the revelations the re-organized church has received are not incorporated in the book of doctrine and covenants. There is an order from the Conference authorizing it however so far as we are concerned.
1194: And are any revelations given by yourself, received and acted upon as doctrines or rules of the church, that have not been passed upon by the church?
As I state on yesterday, – at times when exigency requires such as been done, and the matt-has been subsequently examined and approved or dissaproved, as the case may be, but it is acted upon until dissaproved, because that exigency, – or the exigency or urgency of the case required it, and there was no conference or meeting of the body to which the matter could be referred in time to have passed upon before the emergency arose.
1195: In such a case it is accepted until dissaproved.
It is acted upon, but not after it is dissaproved. Such matters are merely matters of instruction or direction.
1196: In Exhibit J, on page one hundred and two, section nineteen, paragraph two, occurs the following, – “Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt given heed to all his words and commandments, which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith; for by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his names glory. For thus saith the Lord God, him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion, in mighty power for good; and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard; yea, his weeping for Zion I have seen, and I will cause that he shall mourn for her no longer, for his days of rejoicing have come unto the remission of his sins, and the manifastations of my blessings upon his works”. Now the topic of that revelation is “Revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr., given April 6th 1830”
1197: Very well, I think your suggestion is a good one, and I will avail myself of it for I do not think that I am inclined to take any advantage of the witness. Mr Smith will you take this book, Exhibit J, and read section nineteen, beginning at the topic, and reading paragraph one?
1198: You may proceed and read the section beginning at the topic?
“Revelation to Joseph Smith, Junior. Given April 26 1830. Behold, there shall be a record kept among you, and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the Church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ: being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith; which Church was organized and established in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month, which is called April. Wherefore, meaning the (church,) thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments, which he shall give unto you, as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth in all patience and faith; for by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his names glory. For thus saith the Lord God, him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in might power for good; and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard, yea, his weeping for Zion I have seen, and I will cause that he shall mourn for her no longer, for his days of rejoicing are come unto the remission of his sins, and the manifestations of my blessings upon his works. For behold I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard, with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe in his words which are given him through me, by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men, for the sins of the world; yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. Wherefore it behooveth me that he should be ordained by you Oliver Cowdery, mine apostle; this being an ordinance unto you, that you are an elder under his hand, he being the first unto you, that you might be an elder unto this Church of Christ, bearing my name; and the first preacher of this church unto the church, and before the world; yea, before the Gentiles; yea, and thus saith the Lord God, lo, lo, to the Jews, also, Amen.
1197: Is that the law of the old church?
1198: How do you know it is the law of the old church?
1198: It is amongst the revelations adopted and accepted by the church in 1835.
1199: Did that law or does that law, govern the acceptation or rejection of revelation?
I understand that is a part of the rule by which they were governed in the reception of revelations, and in accepting them.
1200: Did you succeed to precisely the same power that your father was possessed of in respect to revelations?
I succeeded to the power or authority to give that which may be received by me to the church in the same way.
1201: What do you mean by the “same way”?
In the same way that my father gave what he received to the church.
1202: My question is did you receive from any source or through any scource, the same power as you father had.
and immeterial, is not cross examination and calls for an opinion of the witness.
I shall answer the question in the same way as I did the former question.
1203: Well what is that answer?
I stand in the position to receive and give the church that which may be given to me, in the same manner as is stated in that section, whicj I have just read, as the successor of my father.
1204: Do I understand you correctly when I say that in your testimony, as I understand it, you say, you say that you hold the same office in the re-organized church that your father held in the old church?
1205: You stand in the same position to receive and deliver revelation to the re-organized church that your father stood in to receive and deliver revelation to the old church?
Yes sir that is as I understand it.
1206: Then are you an apostle?
1207: Were you ever ordained as an apostle?
1208: Where were you ordained as an apostle?
Well I was ordained an high priest, which makes me an apostle, but I am not standing in the quorom of Twelve apostles.
1209: Are all high priests apostles?
They are when they are engaged in apostolic work.
1210: Do they engage in apostolic work unless they are ordained and set apart as apostles?
Yes sir. They are appointed by the conferences, and so are the seventy, and an elder may be the same thing, but they do not belong to the apostles or leading quoroms as members of it.
1211: Is any one considered an apostle of the church until he has been ordained to the office of an apostle?
They are when they do apostolic work, but they do not hold that specific office in the quorom. Joseph Smith is called an apostle although he was not with the twelve.
1212: Is there any other rule governing the rule of reception of revelation by the church, – the re-organized church, – than that found in the book of doctrine and covenants?
Nothing more than many have transpired from the customs of the church, and and what may have been recorded in current history.
1213: Have any such rules been found in the customs of the church?
In the traditional teachings of the church.
1215: In what respect do they differ from this rule given here in this revelation? In this revelation given in section nineteen of Exhibit J?
They do not differ from it materially, – only in elucidation of detail, – that is all.
1216: They differ from it simply in elucidation of detail?
1217: Will you specify some of the matters of detail wherein they differ?
I did on yesterday.
1218: You did that on yesterday you say?
1219: Well I don’t recollect it if you did, and I would, like you to do so again to day?
When revelations are received they are subjected to an examination, and that is a process that is not found in that revelation.
1220: That is not found in this revelation?
No sir. The methods governing the acceptance are largely modified by the character of the revelation, – the conditions and circumstances under which revelation may be received, and instruction may be asked for before passing upon it.
1221: And those rules, – those particular rules, which you last stated are not found in the Book of doctrine and covenants?
Not all of them. Some of them are.
1222: But are found in the customs of the church which have sprung up?
The basis of them are to be found in the organic law of the church, and as matter or condition have developed in the work of ofganization, necessities have arisen, upon which it was necessary to work out matters of detail.
1223: And revelations as I now understand you, in the re-organized church, to be of force in the church, must be submitted to the various bodies of the church for which they are intended?
Before they can be recorded and become a law or rule binding upon the church, they must be so received and accepted upon.
1224: Was that the law or rule in the old church?
Yes sir I believe so.
1225: Well do you knw whether it was or was not?
I so understand it, but of course I could not answer you positively and definitely upon that question. I could not say positively of my own knowledge whether it was or not, but that is my understanding.
1226: Is that the case as laid down in the doctrine we have just read.
1227: They are precedents for this rule?
1228: But the precedents are not to be found in this doctrine and covenants?
No sir, but they are to be found in the traditional teachings of the church.
1229: Do you know from your historical re-search whether there was ever such a rule in force prior to 1835?
1230: Of course then you do not know from any other scource?
Only from history and common custom. I told you I was not cognizant of what took place when I was a small boy.
1231: now you have said that it was not necessary that an apostle should be ordained?
1232: It is not necessary that an apostle should be ordained?
I did not so state Colonel.
1233: Excuse me, – Ordained as an apostle I meant, – it was not necessary that an apostle should be ordained as such? Did you not so state the fact to be?
You asked me the question if I remember rightly, whether a man can be an apostle without being ordained, especially to the apostolic office or quorom and I answered yes, if he acted in the capacity of an apostle, and was in fact an apostle.
1234: Could he be an apostle without being ordained?
No sir, he must be ordained to the Melchesidical priesthood, but when he is ordained as an apostle, he is of course an apostle.
1235: Then could any one hold an office in the church, – the office of apostle who is an apostle?
I do not know that I understand the question.
1236: Could any one hold the office of an apostle in the church without being ordained?
No sir, he must first be ordained to the priesthood.
1237: But not to the office of an apostle?
He may be an apostle I said without belonging to the quorom of twelve. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were recognized as apostles and did not belong to the twelve.
1238: Were they, or were they not, ordained as apoatles?
I think not, but I cannot tell you though from my own knowledge.
1239: Do you say they were not?
No sir, I say I think not, but I do not know positively. They may have been for all I know to the contrary, but my impression derived in different ways, that I could hardly explain, is that they were not.
1240: I will hand you Exhibit J, opened at page ninety three, and ask to read from section seventeen, paragraph one, the first tine lines and state what that is.
Well what do you wish me to read?
1241: That section or paragraph I pointed out.
The whole of the paragraph?
1242: Yes sir. If you desire so to do.
“The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days being one thousand either hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeably to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God in the fourth month and on the sixth day of the month which is called April; which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Junior, who was called of god, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of the church, and to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called, or God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand; and this according to the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory, both now and forever. Amen.”
1243: What is that section which you have just read?
It is a recitation of the origin, rise and organization of the church in the month of April 1830.
1244: What, that is what it purports to be?
Yes sir, that is what it purports to be.
1245: Does the reorganized church accept that as a fact?
They accept it as it is stated there. Council for the plaintiff moves the court to exclude from the record the question and answer bearing on the matter asked in the last question on the ground that both the question asked the witness and the answer of the witness thereto are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross examination.
1246: Do you know what is meant by the rejection of the church in the phraseology of the church which you represent?
I believe I do.
1247: Well what is it?
We understand it to mean the introduction of doctrines and practices subversive of the faith of the church and that in such a case the church in its organized quorum capacity, the church that does that is rejected of God.
1248: Rejected by God?
Yes sir, you can put it that way if you desire. And also those who remained pure and steadfast in the principles as they held them and believed them, and after which they were baptized. Now that is the way we understand it Colonel.
1249: Well when did that rejection take place?
Well we draw the line for the acknowledgement or recognition of authority at the time of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
1250: Well when was that?
June 27th 1844. All baptism performed in the church prior to that time we consider valid and good, but baptisms performed subsequent to that we consider them to be subject to inquiry as to their character.
1251: Are there any other reasons as to why you consider the church rejected other than those you have given?
If there are others, as there is of course, they are simply amplifications upon that basis.
1252: are there any recently connected with the building of the temple?
Well not necessarily. The building of the temple was simply one of the concomitants,- it was simply a concomitant organization.
1253: Do recognize that as this paper which I now hand you?
1254: Well what is it?
It is the Saints Herald, published at Plano, Illinois.
1255: Of what date is it?
October first 1879.
1256: Were you an editor of this paper at the time it was published?
What is that?
1257: Were you an editor of this paper at the time it was published?
I think so.
1258: Do you recognize that article on the first page, entitled “last testimony of Sister Emma?
1259: Well you just explain it in as few and short words as you can what that article is?
Do you want to know what it is?
1260: Yes sir, I do not call for the substance of it, but wish you to state briefly what it is?
It is a statement that was made by Mrs. Emma Bideman.
1261: Who is she
She was my mother.
1262: And the wife of whom?
She was the wife of my father.
1263: And his only wife?
As I understand it,-yes sir.
1264: Do you know, or does this purport to be an interview with Mr. Bideman?
Yes sir,it purports to be questions asked her, and her answers to them.
1265: Will you state the time at which the interview was has with her?
I cannot without examining the dates sir.
1266: Well the paper and examine them (handing witness paper)?
It took place between the fourth and the tenth of February.
1267: Of what year?
1268: And when was it published?
It was published October first 1879 according to the dating of this.
1269: Do you know when Mrs. Bideman died?
She died in the last days of April.
1271: The last days of April 1879?
Yes sir, some time during the last days of April 1879.
1272: When was this interview with her written?
The minutes were written the time the questions were asked and the answers given.
1273: When was the article entitled “the last testimony of Sister Emma” written with reference to the time of her death?
I cannot tell you that.
1274: Before or after her death?
After her death.
1275: Well very well-that is all with reference to that?
Well if you want to know anything more about it Colonel, if I can give it to you I would be very happy to do so.
1276: Well that is all I want about that,-at least about the branch of the matter. Now I will ask you if you can answer the question as
to whether it was an exact and reliable report as to the answers which were given to the questions asked her at that time.
Yes sir I believe it is.
1277: Well is it or is it not?
As far as I know anything about it it is.
1278: I believe you were present at the interview?
1279: Was any one present at the time you were having this interview with her?
1280: Who was present?
1281: Was he present all the time?
1282: He was present?
Yes sir during the entire interview.
1283: Who was her husband?
Major Louis C. Bideman of Nauvoo, Illinois.
1284: I believe you stated that you took minutes at the time at Nauvoo?
1285: And at the time the interview was had?
1286: Were the minutes as published here October first 1879, the same as the minutes that were taken at Nauvoo in February?
1287: They were not changed in any particular?
1288: Is that the form in which the interview was taken?
I will not state as to the consecutiveness of the questions and answers, I would not state as to that, but substantially the interview is published just as it occured.
1289: Can you state why these minutes were not published before she died?
I cannot say that I can, any further than we were pressed for room at the time, and she was taken sick not a great time after that, and I attended on her all through her sickness, and helped to bury her.
1290: I believe the interview was had in the month of, – what month was it?
In February. It is stated in there when the interview took place.
1291: The interview was had in February 1879, and it was not published until the month of October of the same year?
1292: That was some months after her death?
1293: Can you state why the publication of this interview was delayed until after her death?
I can give no specific reason for it other than the failure to prepare it for publication. Redirect examination by Mr Kelley,
1294: In your cross examination day before yesterday Mr Smith you were asked the question, if there were any church, or any church claiming to be the successor to the original church?
1295: You were asked that question?
1296: Will you now state how many there has been that have made that claim since 1844?
There was been a great many of them, – their name is almost legion.
1297: Well state what they are and give their names as far as you can?
There was the organization that went west under the Presidency of Brigham Young, and there was another under the leadership of James G. Strang at Vorie, Wisconsin, and one on the island, Beaver Island in Lake Michigan there was an organization under Alpheus Cutler at Fishers Grove Iowa, and there is one at Preparation Iowa, under Charles B. Thompson, and there is or 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 that, – 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 Cannanites”, a portion of which are at Walla Walla at the present time; and one by David Whitmer, and that is all I believe that is called the “Church of Christ”. I don’t remember any others just now, but there may be others for all I know to the contrary. That, however, is all I can remember just now.
1298: You don’t think that any of them got away?
1299: You think then that some of them got away?
Yes sir, some of them got away badly. Redirect examination continued by Mr. Kelley,
1300: What about Sidney Rigdon?
1301: There was a faction under the leadership of Sidney Rigdon?
Yes sir. Sidney Rigdon led one faction that settled in the Cumberland Valley in Pennsylvania. There was a great many of these factions into which the church broke up at the time of the dispersion, there was lots of aspirants to Moses’ seat.
1302: Was Sidney Rigdon a member of the old original church?
1303: What position did he hold in the old church?
He was at the time of my fathers death a counsellor or one of the first Presidency.
1304: I will ask you whether or not there was a faction under the leadership of one of the original twelve?
1305: What was that?
There was one led by Lyman Wight that located in Texas.
1306: What position did he hold in the original church at that time of your father’s death?
He was one of the twelve, one of the quorum of twelve. Now there was one or two more factions that I remember now that went off, there was one led by Zadok Brooks, and one by W.A. Minor, and I think another called the “Church of Zion” that was led by Dr. W. McClellen and others. I don’t know whether I have got’em all now or not.
1307: Well that is all you can remember at the present time?
Yes sir. That is all I can think of just now, but there may have been still more, but there was a great many more of them. I think however that is about all that amounted to anything.
1308: I will ask you now Mr. Smith, whether or not these parties that you have named did not take followers, more or less in number, from the original church?
I so understand it. That is the way my understanding is sir. I knew some of the members that went. I knew each of these divisions, Rigdon, Lyman, Wight, Alpens Culer, Bishop Brewster and 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.
1809: You may state now Mr. Smith whether or not any of these different factions which you have recited here, or their leaders, have some of their followers, have since that time united with the reorganized church; and if any of them have, state as nearly as you can who they are and the number of their followers and where they are?
Yes sir, there has a great many, nearly all I may say of these factions have come into the reorganized church. There has been large accessions to the numbers of the members of the reorganized church from these various factions or organizations. Notably is this the fact from the church in the valley.
1310: You mean the Salt Lake church in Utah?
Yes sir There has been large accessions to the re-organized church from he organization in Utah and in that inter-mountain country that went there under the leadership of President Young, and the “Strangite” faction under Mr Strang, and a number of those who were with Mr Smith, Al Pheus Cutler, Lyman Wight, Charles B. Thompson, gladden Bishop and others. I may say that nearly all of them have since united with the re-organized church. William Smith himself is with the re-orgainzation, and the majority of those who were with Al Pheus Cutler at Fishers Grove, Iowa. .
1311: On your cross examination Mr Smith you were asked something about the man Sloane who was the recorder of your church at Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1844. Will you Please state what became of that man?
I don’t remember being asked anything about him. I don’t remember anything that was asked me about him, but I can answer your question. He afterwards became a member of the re-organized church.
1312: Is he living?
No sir he is dead. He died near Salmon Falls, California, I do not remember how long it is since he died, but it has not been many years, however.
1313: Were you acquainted with him during his life time?
I used to know him when I was a boy there at Nauvoo.
1314: On your cross examination Mr Smith you were asked something about the rules of the re-organized church with reference to the acceptance of revelations?
1315: Well you may now state and cite, and read to the reporter referenced from any of the books of authority in the re-organized church, and also in the old church. Passages showing the basis for these rules of the church, requiring revelations to be submitted to the quoroms and to the general body before they are accepted by the church. You may read from any book that is on hand bearing upon that subject, – the bible or anything else that has been identified here, or offered in evidence.
1316: I will with draw that question. Where did the church get the authority for submitting to the quoroms and body for their endorsement, – for submitting revelations after they have been received to the quoroms and body for their endorsement?
We get it from the bible, – the teachings of the bible and book of Mormon, and the revelation to the church in an early day, which required that the common consent of the people should be obtained, – I many say shall be obtained, for I take it that it is mandatory, – we have an illustration in the giving of the law from Sinia, 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.
1317: Then that mode is not a new mode that has been introduced into the church sine the re-orgainzation
1318: I will withdraw the question and asked you to state what the fact is about that Mr Smith?
The re-organization has endeavored to follow the teachings and precepts of the old church from its inception. Now there is items often that requires or states that the three leading quoroms of the church have, what may be called a concurrent jurisdiction, and the decision by either one of them is equivalent to a decision by either of the others, requiring or exercising a neutralizing power in cases of conflict, so that the rights of the people may be kept free from imposition of false doctrine or theory by any body, and also in the rules of the doctrine and covenants be submitted to the body for their action, for approval or dissaproval at the conferences held from time to time when they meet.
1319: Plaintiff now offers as part of the direct examination of this witness on the stand, paragraph four, section forty three of the book of doctrine and covenants, 1835 edition, the same being a part of exhibit E”.
1320: I will ask you now Mr Smith if your cross examination you were not asked to read from exhibit E, certain pages pointed out to you by the counsel for the defendants with reference to the name of the church?
I was asked to read from the book of Mormon I believe. I don’t recollect being asked to read form the book of doctrine and covenants as to the name of the church. It seems to me that the extracts I was asked to read on cross examination in regard to that were from the book of Mormon, but I may err in memory as to that however. I was asked to read from section one I believe and from section seventeen both from exhibit J.
1321: That is from the book of Mormon?
No sir from the book of covenants. It was in regard to the apostles I think.
1322: Were you asked to read from the body of the book?
No sir I think it was the title page.
1323: And afterwards the heeding, and did you not so read?
Yes sir I read the heading.
1324: I hand you now Mr. Smith a book marked exhibit H. and will ask you to state to the reporter what that book is?
It is an edition to the book known as doctrine and covenants. Published at Nauvoo, Illinois in 1846. It is the fourth American edition, and was printed by John Taylor.
1325: I will ask you if that book marked as exhibit H, contains the doctrine and usages of the original church, and of the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir, so far as it was printed at that tie it does. So far as it was printed in collated forth in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, it is all there.
1326: I offer now the title page of exhibit H, as follows, – “The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, carefully selected for the revelations of God, by Joseph Smith President of the said church. Fourth American edition Nauvoo, Illinois. Printed by John Taylor, 1846”. I hand you now Mr Smith a book marked exhibit I, and ask you to state to the reporter what it is?
It is an edition of the book of doctrine and covenants published at Liverpool by Samuel W. Richards in 1852.
1327: I will ask you if that book contains the doctrines and rules of the old original church and of the re-organized church, so far as they are collated, or so far I should say, as they were collated and published up to that date?
Yes sir they are in that book in compiled form.
1328: Well I offer the title page of exhibit I, 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, selected from the revelations of God by Joseph Smith, President. Third European Edition, sterotyped. Liverpool. Published by S.W. Richards., 15 Wilton Street. London: Sold at the L.D. Saints Book DePot., 35 Jewin street: and by all book sellers. 1852”. That is the title page of this exhibit I, omitting there from the words there written in ink. Now I will ask you Mr Smith from whom you received the book marked exhibit H?
I received it as a present from my cousin Samuel H.B. Smith of Salt Lake City, Utah, on January 17th 1888.
1329: How did you come to receive it from him?
I received it as a present from him.
1330: I will now ask you of what church did your cousin Samuel H.B. Smith belong?
To what church did he belong?
1331: Yes sir?
He belongs to the Utah church, the Brighamite Church, – so called.
1332: What is the title, or name of that church?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah of which Brigham Young, John Taylor and the President, – the present President Woodruff have been presi idents since its removal there under the leadership of Brigham Young.
1333: What office did he hold in that church at the time he gave you this book?
Well he is an elder, but what specific office he holds in the church I cannot say. I could not say as to the specific office he holds, although I have heard him say.
1334: From whom did you receive the book marked exhibit 1?
I traded for that book with a man by the name of John Lawson, a member of the old church after the dispersion went to Utah with the party under Brigham Young, and who subsequently united with the reorganized church. I gave him one of our later editions for it on account if its date of publication.
1335: I will ask you not Mr Smith whether or not there was, or is any rules for the trial of the President of the church, both in the old church and in the re-organized church, in case they go or act contrary to the rules or usages of Practices of the church, or in the doctrine of the church?
1336: What are they?
He is amenable to the high council of the church.
1337: What is that?
The high council is the highest tribunal in the church.
1338: Of whom is the composed, – how many members?
I am not sure but I think it it twenty four high priests, – it is fifteen or twenty four. If he is a member of the first Presidency there has to be a con-joining of the other high priests in order to make up the dificiency.
1339: You may oint out Mr Smith the Provision in exhibit J for the appointment, – the Provisions in relation to trial in cases of transgressions?
(Witness takes exhibit J) Well you will have to give me time to look it up.
1340: You may proceed and answer the question Mr Smith?
It is found in section one hundred and four, Paragraph thirty seven and others. 1341 (Written as 1441)
1340: Will you please read that to the reporter?
It is as follows, – “And in-as-much 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 twele councilors of the high priesthood: and their decision upon his head, shall be an end of controversy concerning hin. Thus, none shall be exempted for the justice and the laws of God; that all things may be done in order and solemnity, before him, according to truth and righteousness.” 1342 (Written as 1442)
1340: You may give the page, section and paragraph where that same law is to-be found in exhibits I and H?
It is on page eighty one, section three, paragraph thirty seven in exhibit I of the edition of ’32 (???), and I think it is the same in this (referring to exhibit H). No it is page one hundred and nine, section three, paragraph thirty seven in exhibit H. The paragraphs are numbered alike in both books but the sections are numbered differently.
1443: Now what is it in this one?
In exhibit E, it is in section three, paragraph thirty seven on page eighty seven.
1444: Plaintiff now offers in evidence section fourteen paragraph two of exhibit E on page one hundred and twenty six?
The paragraph above offered in evidence, is as follows. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him for it if 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 you receive not the teachings of any man that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; and this I give unto you that ye may be not 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”.
1445: Now Mr. Smith you spoke about a faction or organization that claimed to succeed, or claimed succession to the original church, headed by on J.J. Strang. I will ask you now about when that faction or organization came into existence?
When it came in existence?
1446: Yes sir, if you know?
Well I don’t know specifically. I know only from history, and the dates are difficult for me to remember. I remember events and men all right, but it is a very difficult thing for me to remember dates.
1447: Do you know about the time from your reading in history?
Yes sir, I know in that way about the time. I know it the same as I do any other historical fact that I read.
1448: Well when was it?
It was soon after my father’s death. Possibly the movement may have begun in 1846 for ought I know, or 1844 I should say.
1449: That was the faction or organization known as the “Strangites”?
1450: Where were they when the movement commenced?
They began organizing at Voree, not far from Burlington, Racine County, Wisconsin, and afterwards they went on Beaver Island in Lake Michigan.
1451: How much of an organization did they have in their palmiest days?
I could not give their number only from hearsay, and from general observation, and from what I have heard from those that were with them, but that would be hearsay.
1452: Do you know how many there is now that are following that faction, or that still belong to that organization?
1453: Don’t answer unless you know of your own knowledge. You ought to show your means of knowledge first, whether it is your own personal knowledge, or whether it is historical knowledge?
Well I have personal knowledge of one or two branches or churches that are paying allegiance to the faith as taught by Mr. Strang.
1454: Where are they?
I think there is one or two branches down in Kansas, I think it is at Muscotah, but I am not sure of the name of the place, and there is a number of followers of Mr. Strang, but they are not organized into branches in Michigan up near Boyne in Charlesvoix County, Michigan, and some about Cold Water, Michigan.
1455: Well how many do they number now in round numbers?
There is not many. I don’t know how many there is exactly in that organization, for they are divided and subdivided in opinion and location. I do not think there is more than forty or fifty in that branch of Mustotah.
1456: What became of the Cutlerites?
The most of them united with us, and a few of them went into Minnesota, and located at Clitherall, and united there I think under one Whitney, or Whiting is in charge, but I will not be certain about that.
1457: You will not be certain about that?
About who is in charge. That is my impression, but I wouldn’t be positive about it.
1458: How many, or have you the means of telling how many there are of Alpheus Cutler’s faction now?
Holding to what he taught?
1459: Yes sir?
1460: You cannot say as to that?
No sir. All that I know is what I heard one of our members state who is living there among them.
1461: Where are they now?
At Clitherall, Minnesota. They are there, or near there.
1462: What became of the organization headed by Gladden Bishop?
I do not know what became of it. It dissolved.
1463: What became of the membership, if you know?
Some of them remained at Little Sioux, Iowa, and some of them united with us. One of the principal men, John A. Forges, finally united with us before he died. I don’t know how many there was of them at any one time but I knew Bishop, and I knew John A. Forges, and he united with us before he died. I knew Forges and his family well.
1464: What became of the faction headed by Zodok Brooks?
It went to pieces.
About Kirtland. And some of them united with us Russel Huntley and William R. Calhoun and others when Mr Brooks departed the faith left here and departed into Texas.
1466: When did the faction headed by Zodok Brooks go to pieces?
I could not tell you the year.
1467: Can you recollect whether it was between 1844 and 1860?
I could not say.
1468: Or later?
I couldn’t say whether that organization was in existence in 1860 or not, but I saw Mr Brooks soon after 1860, and they were not very well united at that time, but as a matter of fact I could not state the date of their going to pieces.
1469: What became of the faction led by James Colin Brewster?
I don’t know. I know of one or two of the members that faction in New Mexico that have united with us, but I don’t know them personally. All that I know is that they have united with us.
1470: In Mexico?
No sir, I said in New Mexico.
1471: Are you speaking now of your own positive knowledge?
Yes sir, for I know men who have been there.
1472: Does that organization that Brewster led, still exist to your knowledge?
The Brewster faction?
1473: Yes sir?
1474: It is not in existence now?
1475: How long has it been since it had any existence as an organized body?
It has not been in existence for many years. I can’t say as to just how long it had been since it went out of existence.
1476: What became of the faction led by W.A. Minor?
I don’t know much about that faction. I never did know much about it.
1477: Does it still exist as an organization?
No sir, not that I know anything about. I met him in Southern Wisconsin or Norther Illinois about 1867 and it had no existence then.
1478: What became of the faction led by William Pickerton?
They split up into different divisions.
1479: Well, what became of them if you know?
A part of them remained at Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, and a part of them went down into Kansas, and I think there is a portion of them in both places yet, but how large they are I do not know. The part that is in Kansas still holds to Mr Pickerton, though he, himself, has been dismembered from the body. I can’t say where all that faction is, or what became of them.
1480: What became of the faction led by William Smith?
It went to pieces like the rest of them at Covington and Binghampton, Illinois. A great many of the Smith faction united with us, and some of them are still living around at different places. I know of some of them or did know of some of them there at Amboy.
1481: Does that faction still retain an organization?
1482: That is the faction that was headed by William Smith?
No sir it has no organization now.
1483: What became of the leader?
William Smith united with us as well as some of the members of the faction he headed. William Blair at one time united with us.
1484: Is that your uncle William B. Smith?
Yes sir. It is the same man. He belongs to the re-organized church now along with a great many of the members of the organization he had.
1485: What became of the faction headed by Joseph Morris?
He was killed at Weber, and the organization was broken up.
1486: He was killed you say?
Yes sir, he was killed at Weber by a party sent out from Salt Lake City, but Robert E. Burton an official of the Territory out there.
1487: You say he was killed by this man whose name you have given?
By a party that was sent out.
1488: How do you know that? How do you know that to be a fact?
By current report and knowledge of the membership.
1489: I want to know how you know that?
I know it by historical events, or the historical record, the same as I know other events and by a personal contact with the membership form 1852 to the present time. Numbers of the factins he led have united with us. There is elder Fortcutt and Samuel Ackerly were among them, and a number of others. I can give the names of a number who were there when it occured if it is necessary.
1490: What became of the faction led by William Davis, if you know?
I could not tell you.
1491: You do not know what became of that faction?
No sir not from personal knowledge.
1492: Well, what became of the faction led by David Whitmer?
I believe that the faction or church that Whitmer established is still existent up at Richmond. I don’t know much about them, but there is an organization, the members of which I have met with at different times.
1493: You have, you say, met with members of that organization?
Yes sir. We have one of their elders living in our town.
1494: What became of the faction led by Sidney Rigdon?
It went to pieces also.
Up about Pittsburg in the Cumberland Valley.
1496: Does that faction still retain an organization?
No sir, I believe not.
1497: What became of the faction led by Lyman Wight?
That faction or a part of it located in Texas, but it finally went to pieces so to speak. It became scattered, and the major portion of it, or a great many of them, – the Hawley family and the Ballantynes, and a number of others came up into Iowa, and united with us. Lyman Wight’s sons are with us, or apart of them and one of them lives in Missouri, not far from where we live, and he is a member of our organization along with his family. Lyman Wight’s widow united with us and also his grand children and children.
1498: What became of the faction led by William McClellen?
I could not tell you much about it,
1499: Well tell what you know?
I can’t tell much aout that. Only I know ex-members of that faction, – I knew them after its dis-organization.
1500: Well it became disorganized?
Yes sir. that os my understanding.
1501: Well do they maintain an organization?
Not that I know of.
1502: Where were they located?
I believe at Kirtland, Ohio.
1503: They were located you say ar Kirtland, Ohio?
I think so, but I don’t know positively. They published a paper there at all events.
1504: Where did McClellan live the last you know of him?
The last I knew of him he lived here at Independence Missouri.
1505: What about the faction or organization that was led by Granville Hedrick.
Well there was a faction led by him.
1506: Where were they located at first?
Well I could not tell you specifically, though I understood it to be near Bloomington.
1507: Bloomington, Illinois?
Yes sir. Mr. Hedrick published a paper down there a portion of the time, – I believe it was in 1854, – I mean in 1864, but I never got much acquainted with the organization though I knew numbers of the party.
1508: Do you know when that organization was organized?
I do not. No sir.
1509: Were you acquainted with Mr Hedrick?
Yes sir, I met Mr Hedrick several times and others that were members of the organization of which he was the leader.
1510: About which time did this re-organization about which you have spoken and the names which you have detailed in your re-examination in chief, – about what time were these different organizations by these different parties whose names you have detailed, started?
I could not give you the specific dates.
1511: Did you not attempt to give the dates?
1512: You did not?
No sir, I did not pretent to give the dates specifically.
1513: Well what did you pretend to give?
I did not pretend and do not now pretend to give the specific dates, but I said it was between the death of Joseph Smith and, – well it was subsequent to the death of Joseph Smith, -that is after 1844 and down to 1852 I think.
1514: Were any of them before 1852′?
1515: You are sure of that?
I think so. But I would not be positive on that point, but from the best information and knowledge I have on the question that was the time.
1516: Well were not some of them after 1852?
Yes sir I think so, but that I would not be positive about either. Ad to the dates I cannot tell you when it was, for as I said before I am poor at remembering dates.
1517: Your memory in so far as dates are concerned is not the best in the world?
1518: Is it not a fact that the re-organized church in 1852 at the meeting held at Newark, Wisconsin., was about as weak or weaker than some of the other organizations were when they started?
1518: You know that to be a fact?
1519: Did you not just state that as a fact?
1520: Well what did you say about that?
I said I presumed it was but did not say it was. I will state again that presume that is a fact as far as numbers is concerned.
1521: And did it not struggle along as a weak body down to 1860?
Well it was comparitively weak, but it was gathering strength all the time, however.
1522: Well about what was its strength in 1860 when you first became associated with it? That was the time you first became associated
1523: Well about what was its strength at the time?
I could not tell you.
1524: Is that one of the things you don;t know anything about?
I could not tell you the exact number that there was belonging to it at that time.
1525: Well I am not asking you for the exact number? I asked you about what was the number that belonged to it at the time you first became associated with it, and that means for an approximation of the number nearly as you can come at it?
Well I could not say, but I expect that at that time there was probably three hundred in the membership. I think that was about the number that were identified with it then.
1526: That was in 1890?
Yes sir. There was possibly that many, possibly there may have been more,-I could not say.
1527: Well can you state how many numbers there was belonging to it in the 1870?
No sir, bet there was probably some thousands belonging to it then.
1528: Some thousands you say belonged to it in 1870?
Yes sir, for at that time we built some church buildings.
1529: Would you say as many as five thousand belonged to it in 1870?
No sir, I would not like to state any specific number.
1530: Why would you not like to do that?
Not having the records of the membership before me, I would not like to make a guess at it.
1531: Well do you say there was not as many as five thousand belonged to it in 1870?
No sir,-there possible was that many,-there may have been more than that number, and there may have been less. If I had the statistics I could tell you just how many there were.
1532: You have stated here that after the organization,-after the reorganization of what is called the “re-organized church”, quite a number of the adherents of some of the other bodies came into the re-organized church?
1533: And that you state as a positive fact?
I do, of my own knowledge.
1534: And all these other bodies that you have allowed to come into it.
Do you make that as an assertion, or do ask it as a question.
1535: I ask it ask a question of course?
Yes sir I have so stated.
1536: That is your statement now that all these other bodies that you have allowed to broke up and came into this re-organization?
I say that the numbers of some of them came in as I have stated,-and a large proportions of them came in.
1537: At what time did this process begin?
1538: This process of integration of the other bodies and their coming into your church?
I could not say as to that s to when it began, but it was at quite an early date, but withink my personal knowledge of course it has been since 1860,-after I became identified with the church.
1539: Do you know how these people happened to come into your church from the Strang faction and from the Briggs faction?
I did not say that the Briggs had any organization.
1540: Well from Strang and William E. Smiths organization?
And from Brewsters?
1541: Yes sir?
Well they come in.
1542: From Brewsters and the others that came in? Were they received into your church when they came?
1543: What I want to know is how they were received?
Well all who were baptized prior to my fathers death were received on their original baptism upon their request to be so received, and if they required re-baptism they were re-baptized, but it was not required of them if they were received on their original baptism as members of the church.?
1544: That is the way they were received?
1545: They were so received not-with-standing the fact that they had been members of other organizations?
1546: If they had been baptized by these other organizations, how then
It does not effect their standing with us if they were members of the original church.
1547: Well if they had been received originally into these other organizations what then?
And baptized by them?
1548: Yes sir?
We did not receive them on their baptism unless it could be shown that the persons who baptized them, held legitimate authority in the days of Joseph Smith, and that that authority had not been corrupted.
1549: If they were baptized under these circumstances, then you would receive them?
1550: Although they came from these other organizations you would receive them?
1551: What did not make any difference?
1552: Well now what superior right, power and authority did the re-organized church have over these other organizations you have mentioned?
1553: Answer the question?
What is the question?
1554: I asked you what superior right the re-organized church over which you preside has or had over these other organizations you have referred to?
Well we assumed to represent the original church, and spoke as such ex-cathreda.
1555: That is the reason you assumed this right, or – claimed right?
1556: Well did they not assume the same ground?
I believe they did but I don’t know however.
1557: And did not and does not the Salt Lake Church assume the same ground?
Yes sir I believe that is so, but I could not tell you specifically whether it is the fact or not.
1558: It is your opinion that your organization had that right as the successor of the old original church?
Yes sir, – that is the fact.
1559: Now is there any law of your church which makes a fact out of such an opinion?
1560: Is there any law of the re-organized church making such an assumption a fact?
I do not know. I cannot answer you Colonel any further than this, – that we have acted upon the principle that that is the fact.
1561: Is there any law in any of your books recognizing the principle if you have acted upon it?
I don’t know that there is any specific rule.
1562: Is it not a fact Mr Smith that there is no such a rule or law?
I say I don’t know of any specific rule, except the drift of the teaching, that a paerson having been receiving into membership and having become identified with the church, that his right to be regarded as a member ceases by virtue of transgression up his own part from the faith, or expulsion for cause may follow. That is the drift of the teaching of the church and there cannot be question but that our church or any other has that right to discipline its members, and even proceed to the length of expulsion for cause.
1563: Now did your church after the re-organization under take to exclude any one who applied for admission into your membership, who had gone off and affiliated with these other organizations
We did not provided they came to use duly qualified upon their baptism.
1564: What do you mean by that?
I mean that if they had been baptized into the old church in the days of my father, or if they had been subsequently baptized by someone qualified to administer the rite of baptism in the days of my father.
1565: Well did you undertake to exclude any one who had gone off with those other organizations?
We did not if there was no complaint made against them. We did not pay much attention to the mere fact that they had belonged to some of these other factions.
1566: Did you under take to discipline them in any way?
No sir, – not as members of the church.
1567: Have you ever undertaken to discipline in any way the nine out of the twelve who went off to Salt Lake with Brigham Young?
1568: You have not done that, nor have you undertaken to do so?
No sir, we have never undertaken that.
1569: Nor have you undertaken to discipline any of the other secessionists who went off in the same way?
No sir. Not to my knowledge has there been anything of that kind done.
1570: Do you think that your effort at disciplining them would be effectual. if you did undertake to do it? Well I will withdraw that question for I think myself it is incompetent. The fact is that the re-organized church has never undertaken to discipline them in any way.
No sir we never did. We have never served any notice on them, or tried to try them in any way.
1571: Well if you are and were the original church why did you not do it?
Why did we not do what?
1572: Why did you not discipline them?
Simply because we did not deem it to be necessary.
1573: Well did you deem it to be the fact that you had the power to do so?
Well whether we had or had not at all events we did not exercise or assume to exercise it in that way.
1574: You did not?
No sir, – Not any more than to withdraw all communication from them, – with withdraw from all communication with them.
1575: Have you ever had a revelation to the effect that that had to be done?
1576: Did any of the parties who had ever been ordained in any of these factions present themselves to the re-organized church for reception?
If you mean that,
1577: I mean that had been ordained by or in these factions or any of them?
Upon their ordination in these factions?
1578: Yes sir?
I think perhaps there has been one or two instances of it, and I don’t know but there has been more than that.
1579: Was there ordination approved?
No sir, – not the ordination they received in these factions.
1580: But if they had been ordained in the old church I understand you to say, and then had joined some of these factions, and afterwards came to you, – came to the re-organized church to be received into membership they were received on their original ordination?
Yes sir. They were received upon their original baptism in the original church, but their admission and baptism for ordination as the case might be, had to be reaffirmed upon them by the action of the body.
1581: Did you ever try, or attempt to try any of them, for their action in their action in going off and connecting themselves with these other factions factions?
1582: You never assumed or attempted the trial of any of them for that.
1583: Now you say that you would not accept any ordination if it came through one of these other factions?
1584: Do you say that has ever been done?
Not to my knowledge? Not since my connection with the church.
1585: Well where did you get the authority to reject that ordination.
We assume it by right of our claim to represent the original church?
1586: You assume it you say?
1587: It is an assumed right then?
yes sir. You can put it that way if you desire.
1588: you have spoken of William B. Smith as one of the twelve I believe?
Yes sir, he was one of the twelve in my fathers day.
1589: By whom was he ordained as one of the twelve?
I could not say I could not tell you that sir.
1590: By what church was he ordained?
The church that existed under by fathers Presidency.
1591: Well what church was that?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 1592 (The question and answer are missing)
1593: And he went off I believe you stated in your re-examination in chief, with one of these factions?
No sir. I did not say that I said that he had organized or helped organize what you might term a faction representing the church, or claiming to represent the church.
1594: Where did that faction go?
I think one of the efforts was made at Covington, Kentucky and another near Amboy Illinois or Binghampton, Illinois.
1594: That was the faction that William Smith led?
1595: Where is he living now?
He is living in Iowa and has been living there for come twenty odd years.
1596: I believe you state that he had been received into the reorganized church?
1597: how recently has he been received into the reorganized church?
I can’t tell you the date that he was received, but it has been some several years.
1598: now when you received him into your church did you recognize his former ordination into the old church?
1599: How did you receive him?
As an high priest.
1600: Upon what authority did you receive him as an high priest?
In the right of the body to direct in regard to its officers.
1601: Did you recognize then the validity of his former ordination?
In a sense we did.
1602: In what sense?
In the sense that it conferred the high priest hood, – yes sir, – but not to the quorom of the twelve apostles.
1603: And you did that after he had been amongst these other factions?
We did it for the work which he did.
1604: And the work which he did was the undertahing of the organization of another faction?
1605: Or organism?
1606: After he had been out of the old church how long?
Well I don’t know but from the time of the dispersion I might say.
1607: Until the time that he joined your church?
Until the time he joined the reorganized church.
1608: Well that was up to what time?
I don’t remember the date.
1609: You don’t remember the date when he came back in to your church?
No sir. I do not. I know that it has been a good many years ago, however.
1610: Was William B. Smith ever ordained an apostle?
That I don’t know Colonel. That is a matter of history I suppose.
1611: Well what does the history say about that?
I could not say.
1612: Well does it, or does it not say that he was ordained an apostle?
I could not say. It all took place before my active date.
1613: Mr Smith I will ask you if you have ever read the history of William B. Smiths ordination by your father?
1614: I am not asking you for the contents of that history, – I am just asking you if you ever read the history of the ordination of William B. Smith by your father?
Well I don’t now recollect that I have, for I have read a great deal of he history.
1615: You have no recollection of reading that?
1616: Don’t you think that some body must have known of it when he was received into the church?
I suppose so.
1617: William B. Smith is your uncle is he not?
1618: And the brother of your father Joseph Smith?
1619: Did you have anything to do with receiving him into the reorganized church?
1620: Upon what knowledge of his former connection with the church did you receive him?
There were members of our reorganized church who were also members of the original church who certified as to his standing at the time he was received, and the records also show what his standing was.
1621: His standing where, in the old or in the reorganized church?
In the old original church, the records show what his standing was there.
1622: Have you any law or revelation authorizing the reception of members in that way?
I do not know that we have any law specifically. We have no law any more than when a person presents himself who is known to have been a member of the old church, and when the fact can be substantiated by oral testimony of witnesses who of their own knowledge know it to be a fact, and that knowledge being brought to the attention of the body who has the matter of acceptance in hand, they receive it as a proof and admit them. It is merely a custom so to speak that has grown out of the exigency of the occasion.
1623: Was, or was not William B. Smith, one of the quorum of twelve in your fathers day?
Yes sir. I so understand that to be a fact, that he was acting with the quorum of twelve before my fathers death.
1624: Could he have been such a member of the quorum of twelve without ordination?
I presume not.
1625: You presume not?
1626: According to the laws of your church, by what authority is a man ordained an apostle?
He is ordained to the office of an apostle upon it appearing to the satisfaction of the body that he is called to the office and when he is nominated and received by a vote of the body and then he is ordained.
1627: How does the body call him?
It may be done in several ways so far as the body is concerned.
1628: Well do far as the body is concerned how is it done?
He is presented to the body and statements are made concerning the call, and the office to which he may be called and the call is then examined and acted upon, and if the people are satisfied with the call and the fitness of the individual received it, the call is ratified, and the rite of ordination performed.
1629: Is it necessary that the call shall be a revelation?
We so understand it. It must be a revelation in some form.
1630: Was William B. Smith so called?
I could not tell you.
1631: Could he legally hold the office of an apostle without being called.
If the body chooses to ordain a man to the office of an apostle so far as the body is concerned, they would be bound by his acts, but whether he is called by the Almighty or not, that is a question we do not propose to determine.
1632: Was William B. Smith not called by revelation to be an apostle?
I could not tell you. I have answered that question three times already.
1633: Well Mr Smith I believe that is a fact, and I have to beg your pardon for asking it a fourth time. I will try and ask you a question that you have not already answered. Was there a law in the church that required a member to be called by revelation?
I told you that the rule is so far as we are concerned, and you are asking me what the rule was in the former days in the original church and I have told you I do not know what the rule is or was in those days for that was before my time or my connection with the church.
1634: Well you have been telling that for the last half day? What is the question?
1635: Was there a law in your church that required a member to be called by revelation?
Yes sir, that is my understanding of it.
1636: What is your understanding of it, – we want what you know Mr Smith, and not your understanding?
I so understand that to be the rule that is laid down in all the standard books of both the old original church, and the reorganized church.
1637: Well if a man was called and ordained as an apostle by the old church, by what authority did you assume to reject that call?
Did I assume to reject it,
1638: By what authority did the reorganized church assume to reject that call?
It would depend on the circumstances surrounding the attaching the case, and the conditions concerning it at the time.
1639: In other words you mean to say the re- that the re-organized church would do about it just as they pleased?
Yes sir, so far as that is concerned they would
1640: And the reorganized church is a law unto itself in those matters?
No sir I do not assume to say anything of the kind, but I do presume to say that the reorganized church acts upon its understanding of the rules and the organic laws of the church under which it is organized and acting and by which it is governed in all its actions as we construe it
1641: That is what you presume to say on this question?
Yes sir, that is what I presume to say.
1642: Now you have presented here, or your counsel has for you, several books for you to identify, and one of them is I believe what is called “the inspired translation of the bible”?
1643: Will you please state wherein it differs from the original translation of the bible?
I could not tell you, – there are a great many variations.
1644: Then it differs from what is commonly known as the ? “King James” translation of the bible?
1645: Well I want the question answered, – he can answer it or not as he pleases?
What is the question?
1646: The question is whether the inspired translation of the bible presented here, – differs from the old
translation generally called the “King James” translation of the bible?
I answered that it did.
1647: Then they differ?
1648: In many respects?
1649: In many material respects?
1650: When was this translation made?
1651: You may answer the question if you understand it?
I understand it. All I know about that is what I gather from history.
1652: Well what do you mean?
I mean that my information is that it was commenced some time in ’30 and finished in ’33.
1653: When was it published?
1654: Since that time has it been a law of the church?
I do not know exactly how to apply your question. I will say however that it has been accepted by the church, and is now one of the standard books of the church.
1655: It has been accepted by what church?
The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
1656: Was the book ever accepted by the old original church prior to 1844?
I don’t know that it was.
1657: Well, do you know that it was not?
I could not tell you. That would be before my time, and I could not say.
1658: It is not your historical understanding that it was?
I have never seen the fact that it was accepted by the old church in history that I know of.
1659: Well now from what history did you get your information that it was begun in 1833?
I did not say it was begun in ’33.
1660: Well so that that matter may be clear I will ask you to state again when it was begun and finished?
Well it was along about 1829 or ’30 and from that up to about ’33 or some where along there, and was finished according to the history made in 1833.
1661: is that a reliable history?
I could not tell you that.
1662: But you state distinctly that it did not become a rule of action or book of recognized authority in the reorganized church, – the reorganized church until what date?
It was authorized, – a committeee was appointed and authorized to procure this publication, and I think it was published in 1867, but I would not say positively that it was published at any particular time at first, for I don’t remember the exact date that it was published.
1663: Well has it since been recognized as one of the official works of the church?
It is and has been recognized as one of the standard works of the church.
1664: By which the church is to be guided in its doctrines?
Yes sir in connection with the King James translation, and in connection with the book of Mormon and the book of doctrine and covenants. It becomes simply one of the standard books of the church according to what it purports to be.
1665: You identified in your re-examination inchief, some two or three books of the book of doctrine and covenants, that I believe has not been presented before, – one of which I believe was published in 1852.
1666: And which was marked exhibit 1?
1667: I believe you stated that was a London edition?
Yes sir. Well now that is the general term we have used for this edition, or the editions published there, – for some of them are published at Isling _____ ton, and some at Liverpool and some at London I believe.
1668: What difference is there between this book exhibit I, and the other editions of the same book that have been presented here?
I believe there is some parts a little diferenence possibly, but in the main they are the same.
1669: They are substantially the same?
1670: Is there anything added to these books since the first edition was published in 1835?
1671: What has been added?
One or two articles I presume, and on the martyrdom I think was added, and there may have been some others, the revelation of 1834 I expect, but I could not say specifically as to what has been added.
1672: Are those books not also regarded as standard books of the church?
Yes sir. That book was published by the Utah Church, or the branch that adheres to them in England, and in so far as it is correct it is accepted by the re-organized church as one of its standard books.
1673: That church is known as the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”?
Yes sir, – that is the official title of the church.
1674: And they published the European edition of this book of doctrine and covenants?
1675: Has any body come from the Salt Lake Church to the reorganized church for membership?
1676: How many?
I couldn’t tell you.
1677: Well about how many?
I could not say, but quite a number. We emigrated eight hundred this way one year under the aid and with the assistance of some government official.
1678: About what year was that?
Well I couldn’t tell you the date of that either. The first missionary we sent out there was in 1863, and from that time on we have been doing evangelical work there, and have been preaching to them ever since.
1679: What do you require of members of the Utah church who come to your church for reception?
If they have been baptized in my fathers day, we simply require them to identify their baptism, and receive them all on their baptism the same as we do any one else.
1680: Have you required this from all the converts you have made in the Utah church, – that is have you required them to established their baptism in the original church?
Yes sir, – if they were baptized in the old original church in my fathers day, they were received into the reorganized church on that baptism.
1681: They are received into the different districts or branches in that manner?
1682: Have you any rule governing the admission of these converts or accessions to your numbers in the districts or branches?
We have had the general expression of the conferences on that question.
1683: Well what has been the general expression of the conferences upon it?
It is substantially this, that all who have been, or were baptized prior to 1844, if sufficient evidence of the fact was presented they were considered eligible for admission into the reorganized church, but if they have been baptized since that time, we take into consideration the standing of the individual who baptized them, and his standing or authority to perform the rite of baptism. All these things were taken into consideration, and if there was any individual baptized, whose baptism the Spirit recognized, we could not deny him.
1684: Was that the case not – withstanding the fact that the man or person who baptized them, had not received his authority from the old church?
We have never presumed to question the legality of a baptism that we believe to have been made under the direct sanction of the Holy Ghost or the Spirit. It is not our province to question these things, therefore we do not do it.
1685: have you or do you recognize baptisms as performed by the Utah church as of that kind?
1686: At no time?
1687: And do not know?
1688: If the testimony has been borne as you have told me, and the baptism is proved to have been performed in that way for an application from that church, what would be the modus operandi pursued in that case?
I told you this, – that if there has been any applications in that way, they have been received on the principle but I know of none.
1689: Although the party baptizing them was a member of the Utah church prior to the baptism?
I will state our position again, – persons whose baptism has been certified to orally by witnesses as having been made before the death of Joseph Smith are received on that baptism, but persons who have been baptized in these other factions or organizations which the reorganized church does not recognize, but who come to us for admission into our church are not received on that baptism. In the one case we do not question the baptism for it is not our province to do so, and in the other we do not accept it unless they are persons who were baptized in the original church before the dispersion, and although they have gone off with one of these factions, if they come to us with pentience and a desire to atone for their transgression we receive them on their original baptism.
1690: Is that a fact although they were baptized by the Utah Church or by some one authorized to administer baptism in that church?
As you do not seem to understand me I will make my statement again.
1691: Well it is not necessary to state it again. I asked you if assuming that to be a fact, or what you state to be a fact, I want to know if the individual who performed it was an official in the Utah church, and the man had been received into the Utah church, you would renounce that baptism, and would not recognize it?
Yes sir, and we would do-the very thing if it was a baptism of any of the other churches. It matters not what organization or so called faction of the church it might be, we would do the same, – the same course is pursued uniformally in all such cases.
1692: Well, that is clear. How do you receive members into the reorganized church any how?
We receive them if they have been members of the old church up their original baptism, and they are received by a vote. Suppose for an example that John N. Southern had been a member of the original church, and he should desire to become united with the reorganized church, and should present himself before a branch, or before the conference as the case might be, and it should be known to any person present and he was a member of the original church, we would receive him upon that recognition by the uplifted hand, and order his name enrolled amongst the names of the church members.
1693: Well suppose that in 1837 or 1840 if you had followed Brigham Young and had gone to Utah, -suppose that John N. Southern had done that, instead of your self, – and had been a member of the church there, although a member of the old church, would you have received him?
If he had come back to us penitent for his action, we most assuredly would receive him, and we would have killed the fatted calf in token of our joy at his return. Those are the very kind of cases we rejoice in welcoming.
1694: Would you make an inquiry of it about him, other than you would about other people?
No sir, he would be subjected to no more rigid test than others,.
1695: You would not?
No sir – , I don’t see how we consistently could.
1696: Not-with-standing the fact that he had been a member of the Utah church?
No sir, – we make no distinctions, – we could not do – that. He would be received like all others on his original baptism.
1697: Would you ask him regarding his repentance or require a confession of his error from him?
Certainly he would have to acknowledge his error, and show to the satisfaction of the body passing on his case that he was repentant for his course, else he could not be received, but upon that showing we would welcome him.
1698: You would expect to have him exhibit repentance for his course then?
Certainly, he would have to exhibit his penitence for his transgression.
1699: And that he had left those ways?
Yes sir, that he had forsaken the path of his transgression.
1700: Andd that could be shown by himself, – he could show it by his own statement?
Yes sir, and by his conduct, and the testimony of others in good standing in the church who knew the facts. Testimony corroborative of his statement could be borne at the same time by those who knew him, and knew of his deportment.
1701: If that individual had held an office in the Utah Church, – an official position, and had been ordained to that official position would you recognize his official position upon his uniting with the reorganized church?
Would you do what, – I don’t understand the question, for I did not hear it properly.
1702: I asked you if an individual should come to your church, – the reorganized church, seeking to be admitted to its membership, who had been a member, or was a member of the Utah church, and had been appointed or selected to an official position in that church to which he had been duly ordained by the proper officials in that church to conduct such an organization, would you recognize the official position he had held in the Utah church upon his becoming a member of your church in the form and manner indicated in your former answer?
No sir, unless it was a position to which he had been ordained prior to the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
1703: If there was an office or position to which he had been ordained after the death of Joseph Smith you would not recognize it?
No sir – (1704 – 1707 are missing)
1708: Then it is a fact Mr. Smith that if he fell away from those doctrines, which you say were taught and practiced in the old church, and had gone off with one of these factions and had acted with them for years, and if he had been a person holding a high position in the original church prior to the death of your father, you would not consider this fact of his falling away from the true church as robbing him of any one of the attributed with which he had been originally invested upon being ordained to his office in the days of your father?
1709: How do you recognize that position with justice and equity Mr. Smith?
We base it upon the principle stated by Ezekiel, that “if the wicked man forsake the evil of his way, the evil thae he has done shall not be remembered against him”, – that is the substance of the principle we act upon.
1710: Then it is a law of your church in receiving the members from
these other factions, as you term them, that when they come back to the reorganized church for reception, that their apostasy, so called is not destroyed, – has not destroyed I should say, – not made void, the official functions which inhered in them at the time they received the gift of those functions in the church prior to the death of your father?
Now if you will permit me and give me time I will make this as clear as I can, so you can understand it.
1711: Well sir you have my consent to do so?
An individual who was an officer in the church in my fathers day, though he may have fallen into transgression, should he return to what we understand to be the proper church, the question upon his reception and the nature of his standing would be determined by what the man had done, – that is what the man had been bfore his transgression, and what his office had been in the church to which he had connected himself, and the question would arise if under the circumstances it was not deemed proper nor wise, his standing would not be recognized, and if it should be recognized by the body that he is entitled to recognition as an office, it must be done by a vote of the people in the reorganized church properly had and presented. That is the course that would have to be pursued.
1712: And do you add to that answer “another ordination”?
Yes sir and another re-affirmation of his authority?
1713: Is it an office that requires ordination, if you require an reordination?
It requires a re-affirmation of the office he held.
1714: Is that a rule of your church?
It is a rule or custom which ever you may choose to call it.
1715: I asked you if you required under these circumstances another ordination, and you answer that it requires a re-affirmation. Now what I ask is, does it require another ordination, if he had been ordained before?
We require that his authority shall be re-affirmed on him, or in him.
1716: Will you please answer the question?
I think I have.
1717: Well I don’t think so?
What is the question?
1718: Under these circumstances would you require a reordination?
We require that his authorite shall be re-affirmed in him or on him by a vote of he people.
1719: Well how was that re-affirmation to be made?
By the laying on of hands and setting him apart to act in the office to which he has been reaffirmed.
1720: Is that a method of ordination?
1721: That is the method that would be pursued in this case?
1722: Now you say you require a re-affirmation or ordination of men who come from other branches or factions of this church has has been detailed here, and now I want to raise this question, – were those men who were assembled in 1852, – were they ordained, – the men who assembled there together in 1852, and was the ordinance of reordination performed at that time on them or any other time?
I could not say as to that.
1723: You don’t know whether they were re-affirmed or re-ordained, or anything as to that?
No sir I do not.
1724: Is it not a fact that the majority of the church or of the people who assembled at Newark, Wisconsin in 1852, came out of the Strang faction, or “Strangites”, as they were called?
I couldn’t say.
1725: You can’t say as to that, for you were not there?
No sir, I was not there, therefore I cannot say.
1726: You don’t know then whether or not it is a fact that most of the people gathered there at that meeting belonged to the Strang faction?
No sir, I could not say, I have heard that there was some, – in fact I know there was some there that belongs to that faction, but how many there was of them I could not say.
1727: I believe you have described how they come together of their own accord and organized themselves in to a conference in 1852?
Yesterday you had it impressed upon your mind in some way the original initial movement occured in 1852, but it was in 1851 that the movement began in different places, but they after some negotiation agreed upon a meeting or conference in 1852, and in pursuance of that agreement that met at Newark.
1728: They came together there voluntarily, each individual acting for himself?
Yes sir, they met there, and effected the reorganization of the church.
1729: I believe that is all I have to ask you Mr Smith.
1730: You were asked in your re-cross examination Mr Smith as to whether or not you did anything in the way of disciplining these recalcitrant members of the original church, and to what you answered you did nothing? Now I will ask you what the reorganized church did or does with reference to re-claiming these members? Or those parties I should say?
With reference to reclaiming them?
1731: Yes sir, – with reference to their re-claimation, – or trying to accomplish that end?
We sent missionaries to them and also issued pamphlets and circulated them so far as we would among them both in Utah, and amongst those persons who were travelling to Utah, on – the cars and elsewhere. We also stationed an ambassay at Kansas City, Omaha and Florence, and members of the church at Nebraska City attended to the work there, and tried to intercept all the converts we could while travelling on their way – to Utah. We guarded and watched all the crossing points on the Missouri River to try and restrain and reclaim parties, and we have a missionary in Utah ever sine 1863.
1732: Is that same thing true with all these different factions, – what you have been stating about the efforts made on behalf of the Utah faction?
We have not made the same effort in regard to them that we have made in Utah, although we have held meetings in their neighbourhoods.
1733: Have you sent elders and missionaries to them?
Not in any special way, but in travelling when they could do so they have went to them, when they could visit them.
1734: Well what has been the result of these missionary efforts?
Well in reference to Utah, we have gathered a good many members in from there and large numbers from the fragments of these other organizations. The census of the United Sates in 1880, if my memory serves me right reports eight hundred “Josephites” in the territory, besides those that came out. We have organizations at different places there, and missionaries still there.
1735: I will ask you if the “Josephites” in the territory of Utah, are all monogamists, and have been since their connection with the reorganization of this church?
The have been so far as it has come to our knowledge at all.
1736: I will ask you Mr Smith if you have ever known of an instance, as you term it, of the Holy Spirit, certifying to a baptism, or to the fact of baptism, -to the validity of a baptism that was performed by any person not properly authorized in the original church or properly authorized in the reorganized church?
No sir. No such an instance has ever come under my own personal observation.
1737: I want to ask this question, – Now could the church reorganized in 1852 reclaim that which had never belonged to it?
If the position assumed by the reorganized church was correct, they stand 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 the may be scattered, and belong to other churches, yet the mother church never renounced its claim upon her children, and we claimed they were in error and we made an effort to redeem them, – or reclaim them I should say. We hold that they were members of the olh church, and for that reason it was our privelege and duty to make this effort for their reclaimation.
1738: Then it is not right to say that you reclaimed persona and brought them back to your church, who had never been members of your church?
Well that is a technical question that I don’t pretend to determine.
1739: Now you say you never heard anything other than that a Josephite was a monogamist, – you never heard of one being other than that?
1740: Well now is it not a fact Mr Smith that the people out there are all monogamists, and those among them who are polygamists are keeping it rather dark just at the present time?
1741: And have been keeping it rather dark for several years, – they are not going around on the street corners and from the house tops proclaiming the fact that they are polygamists?
I should think not.
1742: But on the contrary they are keeping it as dark and quiet as they can?
Well I should hope so.
1743: Is it not a act that men who have plural wives are not advertising that fact?
No sir, for they are afraid of the Marshals.
1744: And they have been keeping this quiet for several years?
Yes sir. As a matter of fact though they were not very covert about it prior to “82.
1745: And is it not a fact that the large majority of the Utah church were not polygamists?
Well I could not tell you only so far as I gave credit to their statements in regard to it.
1746: Well, how far did you give credit to their statements?
1747: Well is it not a fact that none of these various branches of the Mormon church at the present time, claim to practice polygamy?
Not if we credit what they state about it.
1748: Now if we credit what they state, – is that your answer?
Yes sir, for personally I do not know any thing about it.