1: Where do you live Mr. Carter?
I live in Utah county, about three miles this side of Provo City, or what is called “Provo Bench.”
2: That is in Utah territory?
3: How long have you lived here?
Here in the territory?
4: Yes sir?
I came here in October, -the third day of October in 1850.
5: Where had you lived prior to that time?
Prior to that time as the Irishman said, I lived all over.
6: Well state where did you live prior to the time you came to Utah territory?
Well I lived at Kirtland almost two years, and went from Kirtland to Far West in ’38, and I got there the third day of October and the 15thday of January I took my back tracks and went back and went down within twenty five miles of the Mississippi river, and stayed there about a year, and then I went over into Hancock county and stayed there awhile, and just before the bust up I went to Nauvoo and lived in Nauvoo until the spring of 1846, when I left Nauvoo and went to winter quarters at a place called Carterville, and stayed there about a year, and then I moved from there to Kainesville, and stayed there until July 1850, and from there I came through to the valley.
7: That is you came to the Salt Lake Valley here in Utah?
Yes sir, after I left there I did in 1850.
8: Now the town you mention as Far West, was in the state of Missouri, was it not?
9: And the County you mention as Hancock County is in the state of Illinois is it not?
Yes sir. Far West was in Caldwell county in the state of Missouri, and Hancock county is in the state of Illinois.
10: Carterville and Kainesville were small places in Pottowatomie County in the state of Iowa, were they not?
Yes sir. They are about two and a half miles apart. Me and my brother stayed in a place called Carterville, and it went by that name ever since, and Kainesville is a little this side of it.
11: Kainesville is the place that is now known as Council Bluffs?
Well I don’t know what it is called.
12: Well I will withdraw that question?
I don’t know what it is called, but it was called Kainesville when I lived there.
13: What was your brother’s name that lived at Carterville?
There was Dominicus Carter and William Carter, two brothers older than me lived there.
14: Were you a member of the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
15: When were you baptized as a member of the original church?
I was baptized on the 4th day of July ’34.
16: By whom were you baptized, and where?
I was baptized by an elder by the name of Bean, – Daniel Bean, in the county of Oxford, in the state of Maine, in the town of Newry.
17: What office did you hold in the original church, if any?
Well I have to home an elders license, and a high priests license, and I belonged to the high council and was ordained an elder in Hancock county, Illinois. I believe it was in 1841, and they put me in the high council, and I was ordained an high priest.
18: I will ask you if you are acquainted with the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and if you were so acquainted with them in 1841?
19: Were you acquainted with the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the church from the time you were baptized in 1834 up to 1841?
20: I will ask you if you were acquainted with the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the church from 1841 up to the year 1844?
21: Were you ever a member of the church, – I will ask you first whether or not you came west as a member of the congregation, or church faction that was led by Brigham Young?
Well I have, – I was in the church at the time that Joseph Smith was killed, and I was there when Brigham Young took the lead, and I was in the meeting when he was nominated and voted in, and so on up to his death.
22: That is up to the time of the death of Brigham Young?
Yes sir, and as I said I was in the church at the time that Joseph Smith was killed.
23: I will ask you Mr Carter if you were acquainted with the doctrines, tenets and principles of the church under Brigham Young from 1846, up to the time of his death?
Yes sir. I have lived here in Utah all the time, – I lived in Provo most of the time, and I have heard him preach very often.
24: I will ask you now Mr Carter, whether or not the principles, and doctrines of the church, and tenets and teachings of the church under Brigham Young from 1846 up to the time of his death, were the same as the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the original church from 1834 up to 1844 under Joseph Smith?
Well there was some of the doctrines that Brigham Young taught were the same as the doctrines and teachings of the original church, and some of the doctrines that Brigham taught, I never heard taught by Joseph Smith. There were some of the doctrines that were taught by Brigham Young that were the same you know as the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith in the original church, and there are some other doctrines and teachings taught by Brigham, or advance by him, and taught and practiced, that I never heard taught by Joseph Smith, and I never knowed him to practice it neither.
25: I will ask you Mr Carter if these doctrines you refer to as being taught by Brigham Young, were taught in the original church prior to 1844 to your knowledge?
If a man had taught it he would have been dis-fellowshipped from the church very quick. That is up to 1844 at the time that Joseph Smith was killed. The polygamy doctrine was never taught in the early days up to 1848. I lived most two years with Joseph Smith in the one place, and I have heard him preach, and the rest of the elders, Hyrum Smith Oliver Cowdery and the rest of them, and I never heard the doctrine of polygamy taught by Joseph or any of them, – never in the world did I hear it taught.
26: I will ask you if at any time during your residence in the city of Nauvoo in the state of Illinois, you were present at a meeting at which something was said or done about the successor to Joseph Smith, – known then as Joseph Smoth, Junior?
Yes sir I was at a meeting held in the Bowery, right north of the temple and Joseph Smith came on the stand, –
27: Well wait, don’t state what he said – for I haven’t asked you what he said? Now when was that?
Well sir I couldn’t tell you exactly, but it was not long before he was killed.
28: Were was that?
Where Joseph said that?
29: Yes sir, where this occurence happened that you speak of?
It was in Nauvoo in a Bowery that was erected right north of the temple, where they held meetings before the temple was finished.
30: Well now you say that Joseph Smith that was called Junior came on the stand?
31: State what day of the week that was?
It was on a Sunday.
32: Was there a congregation gathered there on that occassion?
33: What is the fact about there being a large concourse of people gathered there, or were they few in number?
Well it was a large gathering. It was the people mostly from Nauvoo that had gathered there, and when they got together on these occasions there was a large gathering.
34: Well what was the occasion of the gathering?
Well it was for the services on Sunday, – the services that were held on Sunday.
35: The Sunday preaching services?
Yes sir. Sunday preakcing and Joseph Smith occupied the time in the forenoon.
36: And who spoke in the afternoon?
I don’t recollect just who did speak in the afternoon.
37: Now you say that Joseph Smith spoke in the forenoon?
Yes sir – he occupied the time in the forenoon.
38: Did he speak from the platform?
39: Do you recollect what other officers of the church were on the platform with him at the time he spoke?
In the forenoon?
40: Yes sir?
Well I think Sidney Rigdon was there, and I think Hyrum Smith was there, and I don’t know but William Smith was there also. There was quite a large number of the authorities there, – of the twelve, – and I guess Parley Pratt was there too.
41: I will ask you now what was said at that time, if anything, by Joseph Smith, Junior, as he was known then, or by Sidney Rigdon or by Hyrum Smith, or any other member of the quorom of twele, about the successor to Joseph Smith, Junior?
Well sir I don’t think there was anything said about the successorship there at that time, Joseph came on to the stand leading young Joseph, and they set him down on a bench at the prophets right hand, and Joseph got up and began to preach and talk to the people, and he talked a while, and I think he said, – the question was asked if Joseph would die or be killed, who would be his successor, and he turned around and said “him”, pointing to his son “there is your prophet”, said he, and he went on and said “my work is pretty near done”, and that is about all he said in regard to his son.
42: What did he say?
Said he “there is your prophet, my work is pretty near done”, and he said that in answer to a question that was asked as to who should be his successor in case Joseph was killed or died, and he pointed to his son, young Joseph, who was sitting there to his right, and said “he”, “there is your prophet”.
43: I will ask you whether or not you had a conversation with Joseph Smith afterwards, or with any other persons that were members of the church, as to who the successor would be?
Well my father in law as with me at the time, and he sat there and heard it, and when he was going home, – my father in law lived there at Nauvoo at the time, and when we were going home he asked me, said he “what does that mean”, and he said “that has got a meaning to it from the way Joseph talked and pointed to his son”, for Joseph has said “there is your prophet” pointing at the time to his son, and my father in law said “we will get the fulfilment of that by and bye” said he “that has got a meaning to it”.
44: I will ask you now Mr Carter what the general under standing of members of the church was from that time on, so long as you remained in Illinois as to who the successor to Joseph Smiths position in the church would eventually be?
Well it was the opinion of the people in the church as far as I understood it from that day on, when that boy, – Josephs body, – came of age that he would take the lead in the church, and be its head. There was a great many people believed that, and moreover President Young preached it himself for some time after he came into the Valley. That has been the belief of hundred and thousands, – was the belief then and is the belief to day.
45: I will ask you now Mr Carter if it was under that belief that you followed President Young west with the branch of the church now known as the Salt Lake church?
I have always believed that ever since I heard Josepf say the words I have state. I have always believed it ever since I saw his father point him out. I have always believed it, and I believe it to day just as strong as I ever did. I believe further that the time will come when he will lead the church, and all hell can’t hinder him.
46: When who shall lead the church?
Young Joseph Smith, – the present President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
47: I will ask you now Mr Carter what the fact is about the officers and elders, including Brigham Young and other prominent leaders of the church, who afterwards came west and located here in Salt Lake City and in Utah territory in the Salt Lake Valley, for several years after the death of Joseph Smith, publicly teaching and holding out the idea to the members of the church, that Joseph Smith, the son of Josepf Smith. Junior, – would eventually be the successor to the Presidency of the church?
Well that was the idea he held out for some time after he came here but after awhile when the boys did come here they were ejected for some cause. Well I think I know pretty well why they were not received.
48: Well did or did not the fact of their publicly teaching or holding out they idea that Joseph Smith the son of Joseph Smith, Junior, would eventually succeed to the Presideny of the church, have anything to do with your following them to the Valley of Salt Lake?
I do not understand you.
49: I say did ot did not the fact of their publicly holding out and teaching the fact to be that Joseph Smith the son of Joseph Smith, Junior, have anything to do with inducing you to come west to Salt Lake with the faction or branch of the church that came west under the leadership of Brigham Young?
Well whether they did or did not, I have always believed it all the same.
50: Would or would not you have followed the leadership of Brigham Young, or these parties that came west, if they had publicly at the time taught and advised the membership of the church that the son of Joseph Smith, Junior, would not eventually succeed to the Presidency of the church?
I don’t believe that one half the number would have followed him west that did. If they had told them that he would not I don’t believe they would have got one half to follow them that they did get.
51: I will ask you now Mr Carter in what book or books the doctrines and tenets of the church are to be found from 1834 and time you became a member of the original church, down to 1844. Name the books if you can?
The books of doctrine.
52: Yes sir, the books in which the doctrines and tenets of the original church from the time you became a member of the church in 1834 down to 1844 the time that Joseph Smith was killed?
Well it is the book of covenants. You take out the polygamy revelation and you may take the balance. That was not taught from 1830 up to 1844.
53: What was not taught?
Polygamy. It was not taught from 1830 down to 1834, – to 1844 I mean. Not publicly.
54: What is the fact Mr Carter about its being taught either publicly or privately by Joseph Smith or by any of the members of the quorom of Twelve of the church, or being contained in any of the publications, – any published record of the church, or book of the church prior to 1844?
Well sir I never heard Joseph Smith teach it either publicly or privately, but about the time Brigham took the lead in the church it was taught.
55: Well now wait. I did not ask you about that, and you are getting outside of the question. The question is confined to the period from 1830 down to 1844, – to the period prior to 1844, and after 1834 the time that you became a member of the church? I am not asking you anything about what occured after that?
Well sir it was not publicly taught in any of the book of covenants, or in any of the publications or papers of the church, nor in the revelations that were received, or the commandments that were given. It was not taught or countenanced in any way in any of the laws that were given the church, and the parties in the church who preached the truth, were not authorized to teach anything else.
56: What other book besides the book of doctrine and covenants contained the law of the church?
Well sir I was present myself in 1837 when Joseph Smith himself in the Kirtland temple, took the bible, the book of Mormon, and the book of doctrine and covenants. and laid on on top of the other, and said, “I motion that we take these three books for our guide and our doctrone,” and Oliver Cowdery sat right behind him, and he seconded the motion, and the people unanimously accepted the books.
57: I will ask you now, Mr Carter, if the revelation known as the reported or purported revelation on the doctrine of polygamy was published in any of the books containing the doctrines and tenets of the church prior to 1844?
I don’t think it was.
58: Well was it?
I say, I don’t think it was. If it was, I have no knowledge of it, and have never seen it at that time, and I don’t think it could be in any of them without my seeing it. Well, I will say it was not in any of the books of the church prior to that time, not one of them. I never seen it anyway in any of them if it was in them, and I don’t think it was.
59: As a member of the church prior to 1844 you had a copy of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir, I had, and I have yet about the oldest one there is in the country, for I got it from Bishop Partridge in 1834, and I have got two more besides it since that time, and I have had them all the time as well as two books of Mormon, and I have had them all the time too.
60: Does either of these books if published prior to 1852 contain this purported revelation on polygamy?
61: You may answer my question, Mr. Carter?
There is something written in the Book of Mormon like this.
62: Well Mr. Carter, don’t mind what is written in the Book of Mormon, but just my question as to whether the copies of the book of Doctrine and Covenants that was published prior to 1852 contain that revelation on polygamy, or purported revelation on polygamy?
Well now, I don’t know about the book of 1852–that is the book printed in that year–but it was I think presented to the church in Salt Lake in 1852-that is, the revelation was read to the people, and enforced on them.
63: Well, I move the court to strike out that answer of the witness for the reason that it is not responsive to the question. The question was whether your book or books of Doctrine and Covenants published prior to 1852 contained this purported revelation on polygamy?
I think not.
64: You think not?
Yes sir, I think not. I think that revelation was put in since 1852.
65: I will ask you, Mr. Carter, if you were acquainted with the manner of doing business in the church during the leadership of Joseph Smith from 1834 down to 1844?
66: You were?
Well yes sir, I think I do know something about it. I think I was acquainted with the manner of doing business, I think I ought to be.
67: You were acquainted with the manner of doing business under the leadership of Brigham Young?
Yes sir, I think I ought to be.
68: You are familiar with the manner of transacting the buiness of the church both when the church was under the leadership of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?
Yes sir, I ought to be.
69: I will ask you whether or not the manner of doing or transacting church business during conferences or latter times, was the same under the leadership of Brigham Young as it was under the leadership of Joseph Smith in the original church?
What is that?
70: I ask you whether or not the manner of doing or transaction business, that is transacting church business during conferences during the administration of Brigham Young was the same as it was or had been under the leadership of Joseph Smith?
71: They are not the same?
72: I believe you stated in your direct examination Mr. Carter, that you are acquainted with the doctrines of the church, that is of the old church from 1834 to 1844?
73: You stated that as a fact?
74: And you also stated in your direct examination that you received a book of Doctrine and Covenants from Edward Partridge in 1834 I believe?
It was either in 1834 or 1835 I believe that we bought the book of covenants, and I have got it in the house now. It very likely has the date in it, and if I had it here I could tell you when it was.
75: Well you state it as a fact that you received a book of Doctrine and Covenants from Edward Partridge in 1834?
Yes sir I think I did. I have the book at home that I got then, and I think they called it the Book of Commandments at the time. I believe that is what they called it at that time if I am not mistaken, and I don’t think I am either. There were two books, the first book was called a Book of Commandments, and then it came out as a Book of Covenants.
76: Then the fact is that you got the Book of Commandments in 1834 instead of the Book of Covenants?
Well I don’t know which it was, but I have it in the house.
77: Well if you are acquainted with the doctrine of the church, you certainly would be acquainted with the name of these books?
Well there was a Book of Commandments and a Book of Covenants.
78: Well now you have stated that the doctrines of the church that was led by Brigham Young, and also its practices are different from what the doctrines and practices of the church from 1834 down to 1844? Is that what you stated Mr. Carter?
Yes sir, that is what I said.
79: They differ?
80: I will ask you in what particular?
Well I could tell you lots of particulars if I had a mind to.
81: Well do on and tell him, fir that is what he is asking you for, and he has a right to ask you these questions, so tell him all about it?
82: Well answer the question?
In what particular they differ?
83: Yes sir, in what difference, or particular difference is that exists between the church under the leadership of Brigham Young and the church from 1834 to 1844 while under the leadership of Joseph Smith at the time you were a member of it under the leadership of Joseph Smith during his life time?
Well I could tell you one thing in particular. Joseph Smith never tried to take the agency from a man in regard to elections, in regard to office and affairs in connection with the proceedings and dealings of the church. At least I never seen it in Joseph’s day and I where they elected Bishops, and appointed and voted in , and I have voted on them, and I never knew Joseph Smith to interfere in any way with the arrangements of the people in deliberating on these things in the way the law says, for Joseph always said he wanted it done by the voice of the people, and he wanted every man and every woman even, to vote, –
84: I believe you said you were present when Brigham Young was chosen, –
85: Well wait until he answers the question before you fire another one at him?
86: Well answer it? Have you any thing further to say in regard to that question?
87: Well answer it?
Well there was this difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, – the differen- ce was that Brigham claimed the right to appoint all the officers, both in the church and state, and Joseph Smith never did. Now there was one point of difference.
88: Now is that question answered?
89: And that is all the answer you desire to make to it?
I guess that will do.
90: Well now I will ask the question I was going to ask you when Mr Kelley interrupted me? You stated you were present when Brigham Young was chosen or nomina- ted President?
Yes sir I was. I seed it and heard it all for I was there.
91: Was there a vote taken in that occasion?
92: Was there any priveledge granted for a negative vote?
I don’t know whether the negative vote was taken or called for or not, but I can tell you who appointed him or motioned him.
93: Well who was it?
It was Orson Hyde motioned him
94: Made the motion that he be selected as President?
95: Where did you say that was done?
It was done at Kainesville in a log school house. Orson Hyde motion- ed him, and Brother Woodruf seconded the motion, and it was put to a vote and declared carried.
96: Was there many there?
There was about two hun- dred there I suppose. It was at a conference, – well you did not ask me about that, so I will not tell you
97: Where was it?
Is was at a conference appointed by Brigham and the Twelve to be held there, and it was two weeks from the time they had the big dance and feast and Orson Hyde, – well the people turned out and cut the logs and raised and built this big log school house, and then they appointed this conference, – Brig- ham and the twele did or the ones that were there of the twelve, and the people came together, and there was Brother Brigham and Brother Kimball and Brother Hyde, and I think there was several of the twelve there that time, and I think brother Woodruf was there also.
98: Well what was done at that conference, – that was the first thing that was done?
When they got together he told them there was some business to be transacted at the conference, and he told what it was.
99: Who told what it was?
Brigham, – and then Orson Hyde motioned that brother Brigham. would be our President, and Brother Woodruf seconded it, and it was carried unanimously.
100: It was done by common consent?
It was done by the vote of the conference. That was the way it was done.
101: Well was it not done by common consent?
It was done by vote of the conference that was together there I say.
102: Well was it not done by the general consent of the church that was there present?
Yes, why of course it was.
103: Well is that not the usual way and rule to do these things in the church. Is that not the law of the church?
103: I don’t think it was the church, for the church at that time numbered something between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand and there was only about two hundred present at the time that Brigham was elected President. It was just what I called a common meeting, hardly that.
104: I thought you said it was a Conference?
Well it was called a conference appointed by Brigham and the twelve that were there but the church at large did not know anything about it at the time.
105: Well now you stated that you were present at a meeting held in November?
106: At that time you heard Joseph make certain remarks concerning his son, young Joseph?
107: That was at Nauvoo?
Yes sir in the bowery there by the temple.
108: Was there any vote taken at that meeting?
No sir, no vote at all.
109: There was no vote taken on that?
No sir, it was not a matter or a time for a vote.
110: What did Joseph do in reference to his son Joseph at that time?
He just pointed to his son, and said “there is your prophet”.
111: And you are positive there was no vote taken?
No sir, there was not any vote taken. I know there was not. I don’t think there was. I don’t recollect of any being taken and I think I would remember it if there had been any taken.
112: Now Mr. Carter have you ever read the revelation in the book of Doctrine and Covenants that was given on Fishing river in 1834?
I know it.
113: Have you ever read it?
I think I have read it some good many times.
114: Have you read the revelation on tithing?
Yes sir, lots of times, and I have paid lots of it too since I have been in Utah.
115: Is the revelation on tithing in the book of revelations you obtained in the early days of the church?
I can’t say.
116: Is it in that book?
117: It is not?
No sir for the revelation on tithing was given in Far West in 1848.
118: In 1848?
Yes sir, that is when the revelation on tithing was given, and that was the first of it.
119: You say in 1848, don’t you mean 1838?
Yes sir that is what I thought I said. In 1838 if I said 1848 it was a mistake and I meant 1838.
120: Now was this revelation given on Fishing River, concerning Zions camp in the first edition of the Book of Covenants, you obtained
I don’t think it was.
121: Well do you know whether it was or not?
I don’t think it was I say, for I think that camp was started out of Kirtland before the first book of covenants was printed. I remember very well when that camp was started up, and I knowed considerable of the people that were in it, so from my remembrance of these things I think perhaps that was given afterwards.
122: Is it not a fact Mr Carter, that there may be some things in this book, that you are not competent to say you know anything about them.
I don’t think there is but very little there but what I know about, for I have read it over hundreds of times I think.
123: Well, if you have read it over so many times, can’t you state whether you have read that?
124: This revelation here?
Why yes sir I remember that revelation. I remember that for it was given on Fishing River.
125: Well my question was did you read that revelation in the same book of covenants, – that is the first book of covenants that you say you got?
I don’t know.
126: Although you have read this revelation over so many times you can’t say whether it is in the first book or covenants you got or not?
No sir I can’t say whether it is in the first book of coventants I got or not, but I have read it in one that I have got all right enough.
127: Now sir you refer to being present at 1837 when there was three books accepted?
128: Where was that?
129: Kirtland, Ohio?
130: You remember that distinctly?
Yes sir for I see Joseph Smith pile them one on top of the other and say, – “I motion that we take these three books – the bible the book of Mormon and the book of doctrine and covenant to be our guide to go by”. He said that and then it was seconded by Oliver Cowdery, and it was carried.
131: Do you know what edition of the doctrine and covenants he used at that time?
It was the first book that was published I think.
The first book that was out, – that was at an early date and I think it must have been about the first one. It was only about four years after the church was organized that I got the book of covenants first.
132: Did you have more than one edition of the book of Doctrine and covenants at that time?
Only one and it was called the book of Commandments or book of covenants.
133: Now you said that polygamy was not taught in the time of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir, that is what I said.
134: Now is it not a fact that you said it was not publicly taught?
Yes sir, I said it was not publicly taught, – not by Joseph Smith nor Hyrum, – not while they lived, – at least I never heard them teach it.
135: You did not know them to teach it publicly?
No sir, and I know men were cut off from the church for teaching it at that time.
136: Did you ever live in Nauvoo?
I did for quite a while.
137: When did you live there?
I was living there when it was broke up.
138: Were you there at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
139: Were you there for the time just preceeding his death?
I was. I was there and was in the guard of 100 men that were there just before the time he gave himself up. He sent us home as he did not think we were wanted, and after we were home a little while the news came that he was killed. I was not there when he went to Carthage but I was there a little while after wards, and I was there then Brigham left there, and I left a little while after he did.
140: You have stated repeatedly , and have used the words that polygamy was not publicly taught while you were there during Josepgs life time?
141: Now did you ever hear of its being taught privately?
No sir not publicly.
142: Well that is not the question, – will you answer the question I asked you Mr Carter?
Well what is the question?
143: During that period did you ever hear of polygamy being taught privately? You say it was not taught publicly, and now I ask you if it was taught privately or if you ever head of its being taught privately?
I think it was by some and I think it was practiced secretly by some, for I know of two or three of them there that seduced other man’s wives and broke up there families, and that was done secretly, and I can tell you who they were and their names too if you want them.
144: In what transpired there, were there any public statements or accusations made that this doctrine was taught in the church?
Well I think the first time it was ever presented to the High Council that was there, two or three of the High Council rejected it.
145: When was that?
That was the first time the issue was ever raised. There was a man by the name of Harris, and another by the name of Marks and I forget the other man’s name, – but they bucked against it, – they wouldn’t have it and I don’t think it was ever presented to another council or any where else until 1852 then it was presented here in Salt Lake City.
146: Did you hear of that revelation at that time in Nauvoo?
Well I expect I heard of it as soon as any one of the country heard of it, for I talked with a man that was there in the council, and he told me about it.
147: Can you tell what year it was that these4 men objected to the revelation in the High council?
on the grounds that the same is immeterial and not cross examination, and because the witness has already stated that he does not know as he was not there at the time.
Well sir I said I did not know the exact time, but it was soon after the death of Joseph.
148: Are you sure it was after the death of Joseph?
Yes sir, I am sure of it, for the man that told me about it was called to the council then, and he told me all about it, for they were in session fourteen days, and during that time this revelation was presented and there was nothing done with it because of the objection of these members of the council, and I know it was after the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith
149: Were you acquainted with two men, one by the name of Austin Coles, and the other names William Law?
I knew William Law very well, and I presume I was acquainted with Austin Coles also.
150: Were you acquainted with a man by the name of Leonard Soby, a member of the High Council?
Not particularly but I have seen him.
151: Were you acquainted with a man by the name of Leonard Soby, a member of the High Council?
152: Do I understand you to say that you were acquainted with Austin Coles?
I might have known him, but I don’t recollect the name for I am a poor hand to remember names, but if I see a persons face once, I almost always know it afterwards.
153: Were you at all familiar with the authorities in the church there at Nauvoo?
Yes sir, I should say I was. I knew Joseph, and as you might say all the Smith’s and Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery and Parley Pratt, and all the twelve you might say. I knew them at the time. I knew Orson Pratt and the rest of them.
154: Were you acquainted with the President of the Stake, and his Counsellors?
155: Who was it?
Marks, – I was well acquainted with him. He was the man that redeemed the Kirtland temple, for there was a mortgage on it, and afterwards when he came there to Nauvoo he gave it back to the church.
156: You say you were well acquainted with the President of the Stake and his Counsellors?
157: Still you don’t remember that you were acquainted with Austin Coles, who was one of the Counsellors?
Well I might be acquainted with him. I don’t recollect that I was not, but as I said I am a poor cand at remembering names. If he was one of the Counsellors I have no doubt but that I knew him at the time, but I don’t now recollect the name.
158: Do I understand you correctly, when I say that I understand you to say that the doctrine of polygamy was privately taught in the church there at Nauvoo when you resided there?
I think it was but I don’t know that it was taught privately or in any other way before the death of Joseph and Hyrum. I couldn’t say it was taught before his death, – that is before the death of Joseph, but immediately after his death it was privately taught.
159: I believe you stated just now that it was taught privately for some time prior to the time that it was presented to the High council?
No sir, I do not state any such a thing. It was state to the high council, – the first time it was ever state or presented to the High Council, there was three of the High Council rejected it, but that was after Joseph and Hyrum were killed.
160: How long afterwards was it that it was first presented to the High Council?
Well now a great while afterwards.
161: Can you give any idea about how long it was?
About how long what was.
162: About how long it was after the death of Joseph Smith before this revelation was presented to the council and rejected as you say by it?
No sir I couldn’t give it exactly. I know that old Daddy Manley was called into that Council after that, –
163: Well about how long was it?
Well as I said I couldn’t tell how long it was, but it was not a great while. It was at the time that Brigham claimed, – you know that Brigham claimed after the death of Joseph, Brigham claimed at Nauvoo to be the successor of Joseph Smith, and he claimed it was his right to lead the people from Nauvoo, but he was never appointed until after they got in winter quarters at Kainesville, but there was a dispute about it, for Sidney Rigdon claimed the right too to lead the people for he was Counsellor to Joseph, –
164: Now you said in your direct examination that there was some doctrines taught by Brigham Young after the death of Joseph Smith that were not taught before that time?
165: You said that?
Yes sir, I did and I say it now. The doctrine of polygamy never was taught by Joseph Smith, – never in the world.
166: You state that as a fact?
I do sir.
167: Do you state it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to have taught that doctrine, without your knowledge?
Well he might have taught it, but I never heard him.
168: You say then he might have taught that doctrine, but if he did you never heard him?
Yes sir, if he did I never heard him and don’t believe he could have done so and I not have heard him. I was two years in Kirtland in the same place where he was, and then I went to Missouri, and from Missouri back to Illinois, and was there at Nauvoo up to the time of his death, and I never heard him teach any such a doctrine but I have heard him denounce it for I know a man who went into Wisconsin and taught it and he wrote a letter to the President of that branch to cut that man off from the church.
169: Do you know what year that was in ?
It was just before they were killed, – just a little time before they were killed I am pretty sure.
170: Well what year was it according to the best of your recollection?
Well that was in 1842 or 1843, – 1843 I think.
171: Now Mr Carter you spoke of a revelation that was presented to the High Council, – have you any knowledge or information as to the time that revelation was received by Joseph?
172: The revelation on polygamy that was presented to the High Council as you stated, and which was rejected because of the opposition of two or three of the High Council to it?
173: Answer the question?
What is the question?
174: You spoke I asked you of a revelation that was presented to the high council, – a revelation on polygamy, that was rejected by the high council, because of the objection of two or three of the members of the council, – now I asked you when that revelation was received by Joseph?
It was not at that time, for it was after he was killed.
175: Well do you know when he did receive?
No sir, and I do not believe he ever did receive it, and never did believe that he received it. Not that is the fact, – I never did believe that he received it, and I don’t now believe that he received it.
176: Of what church are you now a member?
I am a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
177: You were a member of the church here in Utah were you not?
178: When were you baptized if ever?
I was baptized at first in the year ’34 in the state of Maine in Oxford County, in the town of Newry as I told you at first, and I was re-baptized in the reorganized church about seven or eight years ago.
179: The church here in Utah is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is it not?
180: When did you leave the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Well I can tell you, – I left it seven or eight years ago. I became dissatisfied with the way they were acting, – their doctrines and teachings, and so I left them and joined the reorganized church.
181: I will ask you now if the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the reorganized church, as you claim it, or call it, which you now belong to, are the same as the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which you belonged to prior to the year 1844?
Well as far as I have any knowledge of it the doctrines and teachings are the same. If there is any difference I am not aware of it, for they teach the same doctrines out of the same books. I never have heard of them teaching any thing to the contrary if they do.
182: They teach the same as he original church did prior to 1844? Is that what you mean to say? Yes prior to 1844? Is that what you mean to say?
Yes sir, – the same as far as I can see. I know they use the same books and teach the same doctrine I believe. It is the same as was taught from 1830 down to 1844 I believe and I know it is the same as was taught from ’34 down to 1844 for that was the time I was in the original church.
183: I will ask you now Mr Carter if while you were a member of what is known as the Brighamite church, or the church here in Salt Lake, whether or not Brigham Young the leader of that church, – the party claiming to be the President of it, publicly taught that Adam was God?
He taught it.
184: Who taught it?
Brigham did. 185 How do you klow he taught it?
I heard him.
186: I will ask you if that doctrine was taught in the original church prior to 1844 to your knowledge?
No sir, – never to my knowledge.
187: I will ask you, if while you were a member of the church Brigham Young claimed to be the President, he or the other officers of the church, or any of them, members of the twelve, taught the doctrine of blood atonement?
It was. That doctrine was taught.
188: That is the doctrine of blood atonement?
189: I will ask you if that doctrine was ever taught in the church, the original church, of which Joseph Smith was the President, prior to 1844?
No sir, never to my knowledge.
190: In you cross examination Mr Carter, you spoke of the fact of Brigham Young, here in the city of Salt Lake, in 1852 presenting to the people, or congregation or church here, what purported to be a revelation – Now you may state what that was:
Well it purported to be a copy of an original revelation that had been given to Joseph Smith. It was the polygamy revelation, and Brigham said he has locked it up. – the copy of the revelation, – he said he had locked it up at the time, and I think he said that Emma Smith, Josephs wife had buried the original, and Bishop Whitney had burned the one he had, and this copy that was presented there Brigham said he had it locked up.
191: I will ask you if that was the first time the paper purporting to be the revelation was ever presented o to the church?
Well I can state this of my own knowledge. I never knew it to be presented to the church or any congre- gation up to “52 from the time that Brigham left Nauvoo, – not to my knowledge.
192: I will ask you this question Mr Carter whether or not at that time and at that place, Brigham Young him self, did not make the public declaration that no per son except himself knew of the existence of the reve lation that he presented, – that that pretended revela- tion that he presented at that time was in existence, – no one but himself knew of it?
Well that was his remarks, – that no one knew it but him self.
193: Mr Carter you say that revelation was first presented here in 1852?
194: That was the first time it was presented and it was presented here in Salt Lake in 1852?
Yes sir. That is what Brigham said that no one knew of it but himself, but as I understand it it was first presented to the high Council of the Stake there at Nauvoo. It was present -ed as I understand it to the High Council there and three of the members, – that is three of the high coun -cil rejected it, and then Brigham Young said he lock- ed it up in his desk and no-one knew about it until ’52 when he brought it out here in Salt Lake to a meeting or conference, and brother Hyde it was read it to the congregation.
195: Mr Carter do you know of your own knowledge that the doctrine of blood atonement was adopted and taught by this church here?
196: That was taught and adopted by this church here?
This church here in Utah.
197: Yes sir?
198: You swer it was taught and practiced here, and adopted by the church?
Yes sir, and if you doubt it, and I should tell you of half a dozen instances where it was practiced or put in operation you would believe it.
199: Well that is not answering my question, my question was do you know that that doctrine was taught here in Salt Lake, by the church, of your own knowledge?
200: You now it was taught?
201: How do you know it was taught?
Because I have heard it taught myself from the stand? That is how I know it was taught. I have heard it taught to a congregation.
202: When was that?
That was in Provo.
203: When was it?
Well it was not more than four or five years ago. It was the doctrine that if a man belonged to the church and apostasized and fell way from the church, that the shedding of his blood should atone for the sin. That was the doctrine sir and I heard it taught from the stand right there in Provo City.
204: What other time have you heard it taught?
Well I have heard it taught, but not right exactly from the stand, – not exactly in public, – but I have heard it taught in other places.
205: You heard this doctrine of blood atonement taught in Provo you say, not more than four or five yeards ago?
206: Was that at a public meeting?
207: That was at a public meeting?
Well it was there one Sunday in Provo. I will tell you the name of the man who taught it too, if you want to know it.
209: Well I don’t want to know. You were not a member of the church then?
Well I am not aware of the fact if I have ever been cut off from the original church, – from Brigham’s church.
210: I mean this Salt Lake church, – you were not a member of it then? Is that not the fact?
No sir. I have never been cut off from any church since I joined it in 1834. They preferred a charge against me after I joined the reorganized church, and sent me a notice to be at the meeting house at six o’clock in the evenin and answer the charge of apostasy, and I told the messenger who brought the message to go back and tell the Bishop to put it off until the next morning at nine o’clock, and I would be there then and answer to the charge, and that was the last I heard of it, for I never head of it from that time to this, and I have seen the bishop fifty times since then I suppose, but he don’t say any thing about it to me.
211: I understood you to say you were a member of the church at Nauvoo, and were a member of the church until about seven or eight years ago?
Yes sir, I joined the church in ’34 and I belonged to it until the break up in in 1846, and then I came through to the valley there with the part that came under Brigham Young, and if you want to know what made me leave this church, if it is a church, here and join the reorganized church, I can tell you all about it. There is nothing disgraceful in the way I left the church and joined the reorganization, and I aint ashamed to tell anybody all about it. I can tell you but I don’t think it is pertinent to tell you about that here at this time, for it has not anything to do with this case at all that I can see.
212: Well now Mr carter you said that you heard this doctrine of blood atonement taught in Provo, not more than four or five years ago?
I did, – that is what I said.
213: And it was public?
214: Well now was that doctrine taught by the church as a body?
It was taught by those in authority in the church.
215: Was it taught by the church as a body?
It was taught by church authority.
216: It was taught you say by church authority?
217: How do you know that?
I know it,-I know it was taught by those in authority in the church.
218: Was there any official action taken on it by the church as a church?
Well I can go back to the history of the church, to the doctrine that was taught here in Salt Lake by individuals, and show you that they would not have taught it if it had not been sanctioned by the church.
219: Well answer my question,-was any official action on it by the church,-that is on the doctrine of blood atonement,-was any official action taken on sanctioning it?
No sir not that I know of,-no official action,-Those things were done in secret and it is hard to say that there with absolute certainty, but when I see the Bishop or President of the Stake holding it and teaching it, or by appointing a man to preach they sanction what he says, I consider it is official.
220: Well that is not answering my question,-My question is, was there any official action taken by, the church in the matter?
No sir, no official action in that way, but the church by its action showed that it countenance it, for the bishop would appoint men to preach and they would declare it from the stand. That is pretty near as official as anything was done in this church out here. You must remember that the church here does business a different way from what was done in Josephs day, or is done to day in the reorganization, and whatever was done here in the valley was done by the leaders of the church to any very great extent.
221: That is an opinion of yours merely?
No sir it is the fact. We old timers here know too much about these things,-we know them while we may not be able to come right out and prove them.
222: Did you not understand that the doctrine of the church was contained n the doctrine of the church was contained in the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of doctrine and covenants?
That was the understanding I got in the Original church, and the Elders were instructed to preach nothing else when they preached the gospel,-Only faith, repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and the book of Covenants was the law of the church.
223: Well now if there had been any change in that, of faith and doctrine, would it not have been noted in the book of doctrine and covenants?
224: Wouldn’t there have been some official action taken on it?
There might have been, and there might not.
225: Well, in order to make the book a law of the church, wouldn’t it have been necessary to have done that?
It would be necessary, but you must understand that in this case there,-in the actions of this church there was a great many things necessary to be done that were not done. This church out here did not do things always as the laws says they should be done.
236: You have a copy of the book od doctrine and covenants that contains the first publication of the purported revelation on polygamy, – I believe you so stated?
Why I have got it in a little history word for word.
237: Well answer the question, – that is not an answer to my question?
What is the question?
238: Have you got the book of doctrine and covenants that contains that?
No, and I knw I would have it either. I don’t want it about me.
239: Do you know when that purported revelation on polygamy was first published, – that is the first time it was put out in book form as a part of the book of doctrine and covenants I mean?
Well it was very recently it was put in there, – that is was put in the book of foctrine and covenants. I think it was the greatest dicgrace possible to the Brighamite church when they took the law of marriage out of an old book, and put in that polygamy revelation. I think it was the greatest disgrace that could be, an eternal disgrace and dishonor on them for doing that.
240: I will ask you Mr Carter if it is not a fact that the first publication of that purported revelation on polygamy was made, – as in the book of doctrine and covenants, – was made in the year 1876?
What is that, – what is the question?
241: I asked you if it is not a fact that the first edition of the book of doctrine and covenants that contained that purported revelation on polygamy was not made in 1876?
Well I can’t say exactly when the book was made or published that it is in, but I know it has not been a great while.
242: Are you acquainted with the book known as the Journal of Discourses?
243: You have seen it?
I should say I have. I have it, and I have read it all through and through, and there are some bad discourses in there too.
244: I will ask you of what that book consists, – that is what it is made up of?
Well if I am to answer the question I will say that it is made up of discourses preached here in Salt Lake City mostly.
245: I will ask you if it is not a fact that the doctrine of blood atonement was taught publicly in the City of Salt Lake by Brigham Young himself, and whether or not it is not a fact, that the sermons in which he publicly taught the doctrine of blood atonement is printed in, and is a part of the book to which I have referred?
I think J.M. Grant preached the roughest sermon on blood atonement that I have read.
246: Is that in that book too?
247: Well answer my former question?
What is the question?
248: I asked you if it is not a fact that the doctrine of blood atonement was pyblicly taught here in the city of Salt Lake by Brigham Young him- self, and whether it is not a fact that the sermons in wcich he publicly taught the doctrine of blood atonement are printed in, and form a part of the book to which I have referred to as the Journal of Dis- courses?
Yes sir, I think it is recorded in that book, – the Journal of Discourses.
249: Now in your cross examination you referred to a pretended, – to a revelation or something being pre- sented to a high council at Kirtland?
No it was not in Kirtland.
250: It was at Nauvoo was it?
Yes sir, at Nauvoo.
251: I will ask you if you saw that document at any time, or knew at any time what it was?
I saw one, – a revelation on polygamy that was printed before Nauvoo was broken up, –
252: Well now wait, – the question is this? I will ask you this question. Did you see the paper or know anything of the contents of the paper, that you say was presented to the high council in Nauvoo?
No sir I didn’t.
253: Did you or did you not know that the paper that was presented to that High Council contained the same matter as this polygamous revelation printed in the book of doctrine and covenants issued by the church here in Utah in 1876? Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness for the reason and on the grounds that it is irrelevant and immeterial not re-direct examination and does not call for the best evidence.
I presume it was the same that was there, but I don’t know for I don’t remember.
254: Well do you know anything about what was on the paper that was presented there to the High Council at Nauvoo, and which you say was rejected? Do you know anything of your own personal knowledge about what was on that paper?
No sir, I never saw it and I don’t know anything at all about what was on it, only by the report of one of the council.