35 – Wilford Woodruff

1: What is your full name, -please state it to the examiner?
Wilford Woodruf.

2: I believe you stated your full name to the examiner?
Yes sir.

3: Where do you reside?
Well Salt Lake City is my place of residence.

4: State where you lived before coming to Salt Lake City?
Well you are not speaking of my place of birth, -nativity?

5: No just state where you lived before you came here?
I lived at Nauvoo and stopped at Winter Quarters one season and came from there here. I came from Nauvoo. where I may say, -Nauvoo was my place of residence for a season.

6: Will you state to the reporter, what church if any you are a member of at the present time?
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

7: Will you state how long you have been a member?
About fifty-eight years.

8: Will you state what the name of the church was when you first became associated with it?
Well I think that the first title that was given to it was “The Church of Christ”.

9: About what year was it Mr Woodruf when you first identified yourself with the church?
’33.

10: 1833?
Yes sir, – 1833.

11: Can you state to the reporter about what time the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was first adopted?
Well I can’t exactly state when it was”.

12: Well about when was it?
Well I can’t say exactly, – I can’t state when it was exactly from memory. Of course the journals and records show that, but if I depend on my memory of course I cannot do so.

13: I wish to present for identification to the witness King James translation for the Holy Bible. Will you identify that as a publication and book that is acknowledged as authority in the church of which you are a member?
Yes sir, yes sir, that is the book.

14: Will you please state to the reporter Mr Woodruf what office you hold in the church?
Well I occupy the position of President of the church at the present time.

15: I wish to offer now for the purpose of identification the book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, containg the revelations given to Joseph Smith, Junior, the prophet, for the building of the Kingdom of God in these last days, divided into verse with references by Orson Pratt, Senior, published by the Desert News Company, printers and publishers, 1890?
 

16: Do you identify that book as an authorized publication of the church of which you are the President?
Yes sir that is the book.

17: You recognize it as an authorized publication?
Yes sir, our faith embraces that book or work. The book above referred to and offered in evidence is hereupon marked as follows “deft’s Exhibit A.J.M.O.” Defendants offer also for the purpose of identification the Book of Mormon with the following title “The Book of Mormon, an account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi”, which is marked, “Deft’s Exhibit B.J.M.O.”

18: Can you identify that book (Exhibit B above referred to) Mr Woodruf as being an authorized publication of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of which you are now the President?
Yes sir I identify that book.

19: As an authorized publication of of the church of which you are now the President>
Yes sir.

20: I would like you to state to the reporter Mr Woodruf, if there are any other books that are authorized publications of the church of which you are the President at the present time?
Well the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants are the standards works embraced in our faith. Of course there are other works that have been published by the church from time to time.

21: I would like to get you to state Mr Woodruf if there are any other books published by the church, other than these you have mentioned specifically, that are accepted as standards of authority?
I think there is a “pearl of great price” that is the name of the book, – “Pear of Great Price”, that I think has been accepted by the church.

22: Well state what others there are, if any there are?
 

23: State what other books there are if any, that are regarded as authority in the church of which you are President, other than the ones you have mentioned?
Well I cannot state any others now, – I cannot remember of any others, – not from memory I cannot say. None that I recollect now.

24: I will get you to read Mr Woodruf section one hundred and nineteen of Exhibit A, including the title. You will find it on page four hundred and eighteen?
That is accepted to.

25: Will you state to the reporter what it is?
I did not know that I made any answer at all, I don’t know whether he wants me to read it or not?

27: Well I will ask you to read it out aloud, – if you want to do so you can?
(witness hereupon reads the section referred to as follows). “Section 119. Revelation given through Joseph the prophet at Far West, Missouri. July 8th 1838, in answer to the question, O Lord show unto they servants how much thou requirest of the properties of the people for a tithing. 1 Verily thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church of Zion. 2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the Priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my church. 3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. 4 And after that, those that have thus been tithed, shall pay one tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them for ever, for my Holy Priesthood, saith the Lord. 5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass, that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you. 6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statues and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you. 7 And this shall be an ensample to all the stakes of Zion. Even so. Amen.

28: Was that a law of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints while you were at Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

29: Is that the law of the church of which you are now the President?
Yes sir.

30: I will ask you now Mr Woodruf to turn to page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A, and read paragraph thirty nine?
“Therefore verily I say unto, that your annointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials, for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and for your ocracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations and your statues and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.”

31: Was that the law of the church in Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

32: Is that the law of the church of which you at the present time are the President?
It is.

33: Will you please turn to page four hundred and fifty five and read paragraphs fifteen and sixteen?
“And now my dearly beloved brethern and sisters, let me assure you that there are principles in relation to the dead, and the living, that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers” that they without us cannot be made perfect”, neither can we, without our dead be made perfect. That is the fifteenth paragraph I have just read, and now follows the sixteenth, – “And now in relation to the baptism for the dead, I will give you another quotation of Paul, I Corinthians XV, 29, “Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all; why are they then baptized for the dead”?

34: I will ask you Mr Woodruf to state to the reporter, whether that doctrine was taught and practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Nauvoo?
 
It was.

35: It was practiced and taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at Nauvoo, when the church was there?
It was.

36: I will ask you to state the fact in regard to that doctrine as to whether or not it is practiced in the church of which you are now the President?
It was.

37: I will ask you to state to the reporter what you know in regard to the endowments, as referred to in that revelation, being given in Nauvoo, during the lifetime of Joseph Smith?
Joseph Smith organized the endowments in the church, and gave endowments the same as has been practiced ever since by the church. I received my endowments at the hands of Joseph Smith, and a good many others did likewise, some of whom are still living, however there are very few living that received endowments under his hands but I will say that every endowment that has been practiced in the church since, has been as organized by him, and was organized by him, that is by Joseph Smith, and there has been no change made since in any sense.

38: I will ask you to read section one hundred and fifteen in Exhibit A, on page four hundred and thirteen.
 

39: Please read the whole section?
Section 115. Revelation given through Joseph the seer, at Far West, Missouri, April 26th 1838, making known the will of God concerning the building up of this place, and of the Lords house, etc. 1. Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jr., and unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also my servant Hyrum Smith, and your counsellors who are and shall be appointed hereafter. 2. And also unto my servant Edward Partridge, and his counsellors. 3. And also unto my faithful servants, who are of the High Council of my church in Zion (for thus it shall be called), and unto all the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, scattered around in all the world. 4. For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 5. Verily I say unto you all, arise and shine forth that they light may be a standard for the nations. 6. And that the gathering together upon the land of Zion, and upon her stakes, may be for a defense, and for a refuge from the storm, and from wrath when it shall be poured out without mixture upon the whole earth. 7. Let the city, Far West, be a holy and consecrated land unto me, and it shall be called most holy, for the ground upon which thou standest is holy; 8. Therefore, I command you to build an house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me. 9. And let there be a beginning of this work and a foundation, and a preparatory work this following summer. 10. And let the beginning be made on the 4th day of July next, and from that time forth from that time forth let my people labor diligently to build an house unto my name. 11 And in one year from this day let them re-commence laying the foundation of my house. 12 Thus let them from that time forth labor diligently until it shall be finished from the corner stone thereof unto the top thereof, until there shall not remain anything that is not finished. 13 Verily, I say unto you, let not my servant Joseph, neither my servant Sidney, neither my servant Hyrum, get in debt any more for the building of house unto my name. 14 But let a house be built unto my name according to the pattern which I will show until you. 15 And if my people build it not according to the pattern which I shall show unto their Presidency, I will not accept it at their hands. 16 But if my people do build it according to the pattern which I shall show to their Presidency, even my servant Joseph and his counsellors, then I will accept it at the hands of my people. 17 And again, verily, I say unto you, it is my will that the City of Far West should be built up spedily by the gathering of my saints. 18 And also that other places should be appointed as stakes in the regions round about, as they shall be manifest unto my servant Joseph from time to time. 19 For behold I will be with him, and I will sanctify him before the people, for unto him have I given the keys of this kingdom and ministry. Even so, Amen.

40: The fourth paragraph of that section reads as follows, – “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, – even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?”
Yes sir.

41: Will you state to the reporter Mr Woodruf if that was the name that was adopted by the church, at that time and from that time onward?
Yes sir, it was.

42: Will you state Mr Woodruf whether you were present, or in Missouri at the time that revelation was received or given?
What year was that given in?

43: In 1838?
In ’38. I could not remember whether I was or not without looking into my journals. I couldn’t tell without referring to my journals for I have kept journals of those things, but I couldn’t say from memory where I was.

44: Can you tell whether or not there was any action taken by the church in relation to that revelation?
I don’t know that I can. You spoke of the time the revelation was given?

45: Yes sir, whether or not there was any action taken by the church on it at the time it was given, or subsequent to that time?
From memory I cannot say whether there was or was not.

46: Mr Woodruf I will ask you to state to the reporter, what the general rule was in the church.
Well I know of course that the revelations were given to the church, and they were given to the church by Joseph Smith while he lived.

47: I will ask you to state to the reporter,
 

48: I will ask you to state what you know in regard to any rule or law in the church, requiring revelations to be submitted to the quoroms?
 

49: I will add to that question, – “before being presented to the church?
To the quoroms before being presented to the church?

50: Yes sir?
The revelations that Joseph Smith gave to the church were accepted from his mouth as the word of the Lord, and of course to what extent they were laid before the quoroms I could not say from memory. You see in those days I was absent from the church a good deal of my time on my travels, and I have not always been at the conferences at various times, but with regard to those revelations being presented, they were always accepted as the law, whenever they have been presented to the church or to the people I should say. The church of course had confidence in Joseph Smith as a prophet, seer and revelator, and they received those revelations whenever they were given.

51: I would like you to state to the reporter Mr Woodruf if you have any knowledge in regard to the fact of their being some revelations given through Joseph Smith that at the time they were given, they were not permitted to be given to the public?
There is one revelation that he received that was with held from the people, and that was on the patriarchial order of marriage, and that revelation was not given to the public for some time after its reception.

52: I wish to present to the witness for the purpose of identification a book of doctrine and covenants, the same being the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and Covenants the same being the edition of the book of doctrine & covenants of the said edition as the 1835 edition of said book offered in evidence for the purpose of identification by the plaintiffs at Independence on the occasion of the taking of the testimony there with the exception that the book I now offer contains the title page, which the book offered by the plaintiff did not contain. Now I will ask you Mr Woodruf to read form page one hundred and seventy five of the book just referred to, commencing about the words, – about the middle of the page at the wards “I command you”, and reading down to the word “received”, it is section forty four, paragraph three. Plaintiffs counsel objects to the witness reading a part of the book unless the whole paragraph is read, and insist upon their right to have the whole paragraph read by the witness if any part of it is proposed to be read.
 

53: Please read the part I asked you to read, – if they want the whole of it read, they can have it done when it comes their turn to cross-examine? And I command you that you preach naught but repentance and shew not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me for they cannot bear what but milk they must receive.
You read the lines, – I cannot read it.

54: ” I command thee that thou shalt not covet they neighbors wife. Nor seek they neighbors life. And again I command thee that though shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God, which is my word to the Gentile, that soon may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant; that they may believe the gospel and look not for a messiah to come, who has already come. And I command thee that thou shalt pray vocally as well as in thy heart; yea, before the world as well as in secret; in public as well as in private. And thou shalt declare glad tidings; yea publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see. And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers. And of tenets thou shalt be permitted to see. And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers. And of tenets though shalt not talk, but though shalt declare repentence and faith upon the Saviour and remission of sins by baptism and by fire; yea, even the holy ghost. Behold this is a great and the last commandment which I shall give unto you concerning this matter; for this shall for the daily walk even unto the end of life. And misery thou shalt receive ” etc. Do you understand that, – do you receive that as your understanding, as the understanding of the teachings of the church at that day?
Yes sir. 54 (Mistakenly listed as a second 54)

54: I will ask you now to turn to page one hundred and thirty two and read the fifteenth paragraph of the fifteenth section of the same book (the book referred to being the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and a copy of which is marked Exhibit E, being a part of the proof introduced by plaintiff) and read it?
“And now I say unto you, keep these things from going abroad unto the world, until it is expedient in me, that ye may accomplish this work in the eyes of the people, and in the yes of your enemies, that they may not know your works until ye has accomplihed the thing which I have commanded you; that when they shall know it they shall consider these things, for when the Lord shall appear he shall be terrible unto them, that fear my seize upon them, and they shall stand afar off and tremble; and all the power of his might; even so. Amen”.

55: I will ask to now read from page two hundred and fifty of the same book paragraph six of section one hundred?
And for this cause that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity to prepare the weak for those things which are coming on the earth; and for the Lord’s errand in the day when the weak should confound the wise, and the little one become a strong nation, and two should put their tens of thousands to flight; and by the weak things of the earth, the Lord should thrash the nations by the power of his spirit. And for this cause these commandments were given; they were commanded to be kept for the world in the day that they were given, but now are to go forth unto all flesh; and unto him that repenteth and sanctifieth himself before the Lord shall be given eternal life. And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people.”

56: I will ask you, Mr. Woodruff, to read the fourth verse of the twelfth chapter of Second Corinthians.
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

57: I will ask you to read the ninth verse of the seventh chapter of Matthew.
And as they came down from the mountain Jesus charged them saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

58: Now I will ask you to read the tenth and eleventh verses of the thirteenth chapter of Matthew.
And the disciples cam and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them i parables? He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of heaven, but to them it is not given.

59: I will ask you to state to the reporter, Mr. Woodruff, if you have any knowledge as to whether that was the rule and understanding in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, before the death of Joseph Smith the Prophet?
I don’t understand the question.

60: I asked you to state if you have any knowledge as to whether or not that was the rule and understanding in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, prior to the death of Joseph Smith.
That is in having revelations that were not given to the world, is that it?

61: Yes sir?
Oh yes. That was the case in some instances.

62: Will you state to the Reporter Mr Woodruf, if what you know, – what you know in regard in regard to the principle of plural marriage, or what is commonly called polygamy, being taught in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, either privately or publicly?
Joseph Smith of course taught that principle while in Nauvoo, and he not only taught it, but practiced it too.

63: Will you state to the reporter what you know in regard to the fact, if it is a fact, of Joseph Smith’s teachings that principle?
Yes sir, he taught it.

64: To whom did he teach it?
He taught it to the twelve apostles and to some other individuals. I mean to some other individuals who were not members of the quorom of twelve.

65: Will you state to the reporter what difference there is, if any in the doctrine tenets, and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it exists at the present time in the territory of Utah, and of which you are at the present yime the President, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it existed at Nauvoo, Illinois, during the life time of Joseph Smith the prophet?
There is no difference at all. There is no difference in the doctrines taught then and now. There has never been any change in the principles and doctrines of the church since the time that it was organized down to the present time that I know anything of. Nothing in regard to the principle has been changed that I know anything of.

66: Will you state to the reporter Mr Woodruf what you know in regard to the records of the church at Nauvoo being brought to the territory?
The records were brought here from the historians office. They were brought here and were used for many years in the historians office.

67: Who was the historian here?
Dr Williard Richards was the historian of the church for a length of time, and George H. Smith was also the historian, and the church records have been made up from the records of the church. of the page at the words “I command you”, and reading down to the word “received”, it is section forty four, paragraph three. Plaintiffs counsel objects to the witness reading a part of the book unless the whole paragraph is read, and insist upon their right to have the whole paragraph read by the witness if any part of it is proposed to be read.

53: Please read the part I asked you to read, – if they want the whole of it read, they can have it done when it comes their turn to cross examine? And I command you that you preach naught but repentance and shew not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me for they cannot bear meat now but milk they must receive.
You read the lines, – I cannot read it.

54: “I command thee, that thou shall not covet they neighbors wife, nor seek they neighbors life. And again I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God, which is my word to the Gentile, that soon may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant; that they may believe the gospel and look not for a Messiah to come, who has already come. And I command thee that though shalt pray vocally as well as in they heart; yea, before the world as well as in secret; in public as well as in private. And thou shalt declare glad tidings; yea publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see. And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers. And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith upon the Saviour and remission of sins by baptism and by fire; yea, even the holy ghost. Behold this is a great and the last commandment which I shall give unto you concerning this matter; for this shall suffice for thy daily walk even unto the end of life. And misery thou shalt receive “etc. Do you understand that, – do you receive that as your understanding, – as the understanding of the teaching of the church at that day?
Yes sir. 54 B (Mistakenly listed as the second number 54)

54: I will ask you now to turn to page one hundred and thirty two and read the fifteenth paragraph of the fifteenth section of the same book (the book referred to being the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and a copy of which is marked Exhibit E, being apart of the proof introduced by plaintiff) and read it?
“And now I say unto you, keep these things from going abroad unto the world, until it is expedient in me, that ye may accomplish this work in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of your enemies, that they may not know your works until ye have accomplished the thing which I have commanded you; that when they shall know it they shall consider these things, for when the Lord shall appear he shall be terrible unto them, that fear may seize upon them, and they shall stand afar off and tremble; and all nations shall be afraid because of the terror of the Lord, and the power of his might; even so. Amen”.

55: I will ask to now read from page two hundred and fifty of the same book paragraph six of section one hundred?
And for this cause that men might be made partakers of the of the page at the words “I command you”, and reading down to the word “received”. It is section forty four, paragraph three Plaintiffs counsel objects to the witness reading a part of the book unless the whole paragraph is read, and insist upon their right to have the whole paragraph read by the witness if any part of it is proposed to be read.

53: Please read the part I asked you to read, —if they want the whole of it read, they can have it done when it comes their turn to cross—examine?
You read the lines, —I cannot read it.

54: “And I commend you that you preach nought but repentance and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me for they cannot bear meat but milk they must receive. I command thee, that thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor seek thy neighbors life. And again I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God, which is my word to the Gentile, that soon may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant; that they may believe the gospel and look not for a Messiah to come, who has already come. And I command these that thou shalt pray vocally as well as in thy heart; yea, before the world as well as in secret; in public as well as in private. And thou shalt declare glad tidings; yea publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see. And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers. And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentence and faith upon the Saviour and remission of sins by baptism and by fire; yea, even the holy ghost. Behold this is a great and the last commandment which I shall give unto you concerning this matter; for this shall suffice for thy daily walk even unto the end of life. And misery thou shalt receive” etc., Do you understand that, —do you receive that as your understanding, —as the understanding of the teachings of the church at that day?
Yes sir. [54]

54: I will ask you now to turn to page one hundred and thirty two and read the fifteenth paragraph of the fifteenth section of same book (the book referred to being the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and a copy of which is marked Exhibit E, being a part of the proof introduced by plaintiff) and read it?
“And now I say unto you, keep th[es]e things from going abroad to the world, til it is exped[ient] in me, that ye may accomplish this work in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of your enemies, that they may not know your works until ye have accomplished the thing which I have commanded you; that when they shall know it they shall consider these things, for when the Lord shall appear he shall be terrible to them, that fear may seize upon them, and they shall stand afar off and tremble; and all nations shall be afraid because of the terror of the Lord, and the power of his might; even so, Amen”.

55: I will ask to now read from page two hundred and fifty of the same book paragraph six of section one hundred?
And for this cause that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plaint-ness, and simplicity, to prepare the weak for those things which are coming on the earth; and for the Lords errand in the day when the weak should confound the wise, and the little one become a strong nation, and two should put their tens of thousands to flight; and by the weak things of the earth, the Lord should thresh the nations by the power of his spirit. And for this cause these commandments were given; they were commanded to be kept for the world in the day that they were given , but now are to go forth unto all flesh; and unto him that repenteth and sanctifieth himself before the Lord, shall be given eternal life. And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord, shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people”.

56: I will ask you Mr Woodruf to read the fourth verse of the twelth chapter of second Corinthians?
How that he was cought up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

57: Now I will ask you to read the ninth verse of the seventh chapter of Matthew?
And as they came down from the mountain Jesus charged them, saying, tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

58: Now I will ask you to read the tenth and eleventh verses of the thirteenth chapter of Matthew?
And the deciples came and said unto him, why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of heaven, but to them it is not given.

59: I will ask you to state to the reporter Mr Woodruf, if you have any knowledge as to whether that was the rule and understanding in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, before the death of Joseph Smith the prophet?
I don’t understand the question?

60: I asked you to state if you have any knowledge as to whether or not that was the rule and understanding in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
That is in having revelations that were not given to the world, is that it?

61: Yes sir.
Oh yes. That was the case in some instances.

62: Will you state to the reporter, Mr. Woodruff, if what you know, what you know in regard to the principle of plural marriage, or what is commonly called polygamy, begin taught in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, either privately or publicly?
Jospeh Smith of course taught that principle while in Nauvoo, and he not only taught it, but practiced it too.

63: Will you state to the reporter what you know in regard to the fact, if it is a fact, of Joseph Smith’s teaching that principle?
Yes sir, he taught it.

64: To whom did he teach it?
He taught it to the twelve apostles and to some other individuals. I mean to some other individuals who were not members of the quorum of twelve.

65: Will you state to the reporter what difference there is, if an in the doctrine tenets, and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it exists at the present time in the territory of Utah, and of which you are at the present time the President, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it existed at Nauvoo, Illinois, during the life time of Joseph Smith the prophet?
There is no difference at all. There is no difference in the doctrines taught then and now. There has never been any change in the principles and doctrines of the church since the time that it was organized down to the present time that I know anything of. Nothing in regard to that principle has been changed that I know anything of.

66: Will you state to the reporter Mr. Woodruff what you know in regard to the records of the church at Nauvoo being brought to the territory?
The records were brought here from the historians office. They were brought here and were used for many years in the historians office.

67: Who was the historian here?
Dr. Williard Richards was the historian of the church for a length of time, and George H. Smith was also the historian, and the church records have been made up from the records of the church. of the witness on the grounds that it is not responsive to the question asked, and moves the court to strike that part of the answer out of the records for the reason given. 69 (Should be 68)

67: Will you state to the reporter Mr. Woodruff about what proportion of the officers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at Nauvoo at the time of the breaking of affairs there, emigrated to the Territory,-that is out here to Utah Territory at the time of the migration?
Well you may say that they all emigrated as a body. Of course there was some of them did not come west to the mountains, but I may say that the bulk of the church did. Of course Brigham Young led them as a people from Nauvoo, and they followed him from Nauvoo first to winter quarter and from there to this valley. There was some four thousand at first came through with him to this valley,-I do not know the exact number but some four or five thousand I think came here in 1848, and quite a number,-should judge some fifteen hundred or two thousand came through the same season later on. From my memory I could not vouch as to the accuracy of my statements without going to the records, but there are several large companies of the people that followed us the first season, and the next season or summer there was two grand divisions came out here,-I don’t know the numbers that were in them, but the records will show that, but I couldn’t tell you from memory how many there was, but all the inhabitants of the church, I mean the ones at Nauvoo, or all nearly that were at Nauvoo, came here to the mountains.

69: I will ask you Mr. Woodruff to state to the reporter, if you were ever connected with the Times & Seasons printing office?
Yes sir, brother Taylor and myself published the Times & Seasons. I attended to the temporal part of it and he was the editor. I attended to the business portion of paper, and he was the editor.

70: Mr. Woodruff I would like to have you read from the Times & Seasons, volume five, number six, on page four hundred and seventy four, commencing at the bottom of page four hundred and seventy four, and reading to the bottom of of the page of the second column.
 

71: Well Mr. Woodruff I will ask you to read that letter if you have time, and can do so?
All right, I will read it,-it is as follows,-“To the Brothern of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting,-(This letter is dated at Nauvoo, March 15th., 1844). Whereas Brother Richard Hewitt has called on me today to know my views concening some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that here; I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here, neither is there any such thing practiced here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly and such doctrine is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council and lose his license and membership also; therefore, he better beware what he is about. And again I say unto you and elder has no business to undertake to preach mysteries in any part of the world, for God has commanded us all to preach nothing but the first principles unto the world. Neither has any elder any authority to preach any mysterious things to any branch of the church unless he has a direct commandment from God to do so. Let the matter of the grand councils of heaven and the making of gods worlds and devils entirely alone; for you are not called to teach and such doctrine,-for neither you nor the people are capacitated to understand any such principles,-less so to teach them. For when God commands them to teach such principles the saints will receive them. Therefore beware what you teach, for the mysteries of God are not given to all men; and unto those to whom they are given they are placed under restrictions to impart only such as God will command them; and the residue is to be kept in a faithful breast, other wise he will be brought under condemnation. By this God will prove his faithful servants, who will be called and numbered with the chosen. And as to the celestial glory, all will enter in and possess that kingdom that obey the gospel; and continue in faith in the Lord unto the end of his days. Now, therefore, I say unto you, you must cease preaching your miraculous things, and let the mysteries alone until by and by. Preach faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; repentance and baptism for the remission of sins; the laying on of hands for the git of the Holy Ghost; teaching the necessity of strict obedience unto these principles; reasoning out of the scriptures; proving them unto the people. Cease your schisms and divisions, and your contentions. Humble yourselves as in dust and ashes, lest God should make you and ensample of his wrath unto the surrounding world. Amen. In the bonds of the everlasting covenant, I am your obedient servant, Hyrum Smith.” Plaintiff move the court to exclude from the record the letter read by way of answer by the witness, on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to any of the issues in this case, and on the further ground that it is improperly identified.

72: I will ask you to look that over Mr. Woodruff, and see if you can identify that as identical with the letter as it was published?
This gentlemen (Mr. P.P. Kelley) spoke about this volume not being the original. I think it is the original, but of course I do not know of any changes being made in it myself. I know of no change from the original in this, March 13th (???) 1844 that is dated, and that was several months before his death. No sir, I do not consider there is any change in that at all.

73: Can you identify that as being correct and identically the same as it was when originally published?
Yes sir, I think it is the same.

74: Where you born Mr Woodruf?
The place of my nativity do you mean?

75: Yes sir, the place that you were born?
I was born at Hartford Connecticut.

76: When?
The first day of March 1807.

77: When did you first go to Kirtland, Ohio?
I went to Kirtland in the spring of 1834.

78: When did you first become a member of the church?
In ’33.

79: At what place did you become a member of the church?
At Richland, Oswego County, New York.

80: Who baptized you?
Man by the name of Zera Pulsifer.

81: What was your business at the time you were baptized?
Well I was a farmer. Farming and lumbering.

82: Were you a married or a single man at that time?
I was a single man.

83: You were not married at that time?
No sir.

84: When were you married first?
the 13th of April 1837.

85: A what place were you married?
At Kirtland, Ohio.

86: Who married you, – that is who performed the ceremony?
Well some of you will have to help me. His son living up here, – the some of the man who married me lived up here, but I don’t remember his name.
He lived up here beyond Ogden.

87: Well it don’t matter much Mr Woodruf?
Well he was one of Joseph Smith’s counsellors for a while.

88: Was it Williams?
Yes sir, that was the man.

89: He was one of the counsellors you say?
He was I think a Counsellor to the first Presidency for a while.

90: Dr. Frederick G. Williams, was it not Mr Woodruf?
Yes sir, that is the man.

91: Where were you married at, – that is at what place were you married?
At what place?

92: Yes sir?
In what respect. I can’t answer that question until I know something about what you mean.

93: Well what house were you married at?
Well I think we were married at, – well at the house that President Joseph Smith occupied.

94: Was the temple finished at the time in Kirtland?
Yes sir, it was occupied.

95: Then you were not married in the temple?
No sir.

96: What ceremony was used when you were married, – was it the ceremony prescribed by the church?
It was the common ceremony of the land. I don’t know that I can repeat it.

97: Was it the same ceremony that was prescribed by the book of doctrine and covenants that was published at that time?
I don’t know sir whether it was or not.

98: Well was there a ceremony at that time?
I think so.

99: And Williams was a minister in the church at that time?
Yes sir. He was occupying a position in the church.

100: Did the laws of Ohio at that time prescribe any particular ceremony?
Not to my knowledge.

101: Then do I understand you to say you were married according to the laws of the church as contained in the book of doctrine and covenants at that time?
No sir I don’t recollect that I was married by that.

102: Well what ceremony was it Mr. Woodruf?
I don’t recollect what the ceremony was, but it was the ceremony that was used at that time, whatever it was.

103: You don’t recollect what the ceremony was?
No sir, but as I say it was the ceremony that was used at that time but of course I don’t remember now what it was then. You will understand that the marriage ceremony varies with all sects, parties and denominations on earth. Judges and Justices of the Peach all have the right to perform it, and they each generally have their own way of doing it, and whatever was the form that was in use at that time and legal was the form that was used in my case, but what it was from memory I could not state, for I don’t recollect it.

104: Well at the time you were married the church had prescribed a formula for the marriage ceremony, hadn’t it?
What is that?

105: At the time you were married the church had prescribed a formula for the marriage ceremony, hadn’t it?
Well there is a ceremony recorded in the book of doctrine and covenants, but I don’t know what the date of it is. I don’t recollect what the date of it is.

106: Well it was prior to your marriage was it not?
Well if it was prior of course it was in the covenants, but I cannot say that it was or was not.

107: Well is it not a fact that it was in the book of covenants that was published in 1835?
Yes sir, I presume it was.

108: And you were married before a regular minister of the church?
Yes sir.

109: And was a minister yourself?
No sir.

110: Well you were an officer in the church?
Yes sir, I was.

111: And your wife was a member of the church?
Yes sir.

112: Both yourself and your wife were members of the church at the time you were married?
Yes sir.

113: Now do you say you were not married according to the formula in the book of doctrine and covenants?
No sir I do not say so and I did not say so.

114: Do you say you were not married according to the laws of the church?
I have said I don’t remember what the ceremony was. I do not know what it was sir, but I suppose it was the same ceremony that was used in the church, -I expect it was, but what it was I cannot say for I do not remember.

115: Well is it not your best recollection Mr. Woodruf that it was the ceremony prescribed by the church, and which was at that time embodied in the book of doctrine and covenants?
Well sir I have repeatedly told you that I cannot remember what the ceremony was.

116: Well I am not asking you what the ceremony was, -I am asking for your best recollection?
I say I don’t recollect that ceremony, therefore I have not best recollection of it.

117: Then do you say that the ministers of the church at that time had a regular ceremony and did not adhere to it in the performance of the marriage ceremony?
No sir I do not say anything of the kind, and I haven’t said anything of the kind.

118: Well did they have a regular ceremony at that time?
I suppose they did, but of course I do not say that from memory, – it is only a supposition of mine. It was a good many years ago, and I don’t say from memory what the ceremony was that was used in my case.

119: For the purpose of refreshing your recollection I will read, paragraph two of section one hundred and eleven of Exhibit E, the same being the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and covenants. First I will ask you Mr Woodruf to look at this book, and say whether or not it is the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants?
That is correct, – that is the book.

120: Now for the purpose of refreshing your recollection I will read paragraph two of section one hundred and eleven, – no it is section one hundred and fifty one in the book of doctrine and covenants in the 1835 edition thereof as follows, – “Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person efficiating, as he shall be directed by the Holy Spirit; if their be no legal objection he shall say, calling each by their names; “you both mutually agree to be each others companion, husband and wife, observing the legal right belonging to this condition; that is keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others during your lives”. And when they 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 hence forth and forever. Amen”. Now I will ask you if that ceremony was administered to you when you were married?
Well now I should think it altogether likely it was, but from memory I could not say that it was.

121: You cannot say then whether that ceremony was performed at the time you were married?
No sir, – not from memory, – I couldn’t say.

122: Well you recognize that as the law of the church at that time, on marriage?
Yes sir. It certainly was the ceremony made use of and the law.

123: Well you left Kirtland did you not?
Yes sir.

124: Where did you go from Kirtland?
I went from Kirtland to Canada, and from Canada to Connecticut, and from Connecticut to Fox Island.

125: You were a missionary?
Yes sir.

126: You were at the General Assembly at Kirtland?
What year do you refer to.

127: Well was there more than one there?
A General Assembly?

128: Yes sir?
Well I don’t know hardly what you would count a General Assembly. We had a conference ever year.

129: Well I don’t mean general conferences, – I mean general assemblies.
What is the date of it?

130: It was the time when the quoroms were all assembled?
Well that must have been in the spring of 1835 I presume, – Some time in the spring of 1835.

131: Were you present at that General Assembly at that time the quoroms were all assembled?
No sir.

132: Where were you at that time?
I was not there I was in Tennessee and Kentucky.

133: That meeting was in August 1835?
How?

134: That meeting I called for was the 17th of August 1835?
Yes sir I suppose so.

135: Were you present at it?
Yes sir, I suppose so.

136: What office did you hold in the church at that time, -at that time in 1835?
I held the office of an elder.

137: You held the office of an elder at that time?
I think I held the office of an elder, but of course I do not know positively that I did. Well yes I was holding the office of an elder at that time, but of course I don’t remember the date that I received confirmation or ordination.

138: When did you go to Missouri, if at all?
I went to Missouri in the spring of 1834.

139: With your family?
No sir.

140: You were not married then?
No sir.

141: Did you go to Missouri on a mission to preach?
Yes sir, I think you could call it a mission to preach.

142: How long did you live in Missouri, -or first answer and say how many went with you to Missouri?
Two hundred and four.

143: Two hundred and four?
Yes sir.

144: You were in Zion’s camp?
Yes sir.

145: Where in Missouri was that located?
How?

146: Where in Missouri was Zion’s camp located?
Well it was not located anywhere, but when they got into they stopped for a short time on, -I don’t know the name of the creek, but they broke up there and went through different parts of the country.

147: Then the name of Zion’s camp referred only to a number of men and women who left Kirtland, -or men who left Kirtland?
Yes sir.

148: Had any parties been driven out of Jackson county at that time?
Yes sir.

149: Then the subject of your going there was to restore them to the rights of their land, -was it under the direction of the governor?
Well they took up goods and means to assist those members of the church who had no homes, and not much to do with. Of course the history of their operations is published in the history of the times.

150: Was it not the object of that expedition to restore those members to their lands and homes from which they had been driven, -as the governor had promised?
Yes sir, of course they had that in view too if they could accomplish it.

151: They had been driven out of Jackson County?
I think they had.

152: At that time?
Yes sir.

153: Had they been driven from the church property?
They had been driven from their own property that they held, but I don’t know that the church held any property there at that time. I cannot say about that for I do not know, but I know that they had been driven from their own property that they owned or had bought there. It might have been the temple block or something like that, but there was no property held other than that.

154: It had been bought at that time, had it not?
What? What had been bought at that time?

155: The temple block?
Well I could not say as to that sir.

156: Well was it bought afterwards?
I cannot say as to that either. I cannot tell you when it was bought.

157: Well the church never went back down there did it?
No sir.

158: You knew Bishop Partridge did you not?
Yes sir.

159: You knew him in Kirtland?
Yes sir.

160: You know him before he went to Missouri did you not?
Well now look here. I don’t know that I knew him in Kirtland, but I knew him in Missouri. That is the way it is. I know him in Missouri, but I don’t think I knew him before he came to Missouri. I think he left Kirtland before I came there, and consequently I did not know him until he or I came to Missouri.

161: You know well enough, – you know don’t you that money was contributed by the church or its members, and put in his hands for the purpose of coming to Missouri and purchasing lands?
No sir I don’t know that I do.

162: You never saw a report from Bishop Partridge on that subject?
I do not recollect now that I did.

163: Well did he ever make a report to the church so far as you know?
On what subject?

164: On the subject on matter of the deposition of the money that was placed in his hands by the church for the purpose of purchasing lands in Missouri?
Well I can’t say. With regard to what was published in regard to that, if there was any thing, I cannot say. I can’t say from memory what it was, and if I state anything about it, it would have to be from memory.

165: Didn’t you know Mr Woodruf that the property in question was claimed as church property, and understood to be church property by all the members of the church who at that time there in Missouri?
The temple clock?

166: Yes sir?
I say the temple block was of course supposed, I supposed it was claimed by the church as church property, but how or in what way I do not know.

167: Hs there ever been a time from that day until this that the church has not claimed that property as church property to your knowledge?
 

168: Well I will repeat my question, now, – Has there ever been a time from that day to this to your knowledge, that the church has not claimed that property?
I don’t know sir whether there has been or not.

169: Has not the church so far as you know, – has not the church so far as you know whenever the question has been raised, – always claimed that the property was church property, and the temple property and that it would be, – that the church would eventually claim its rights in the property?
 
Well of course the church has looked upon that temple clock as a place to build a temple upon according to a certain revelation given at an early date in the church, and that is about all there is to it that I can say as to the claim of the church, or answer to the question.

170: Where is that revelation?
I think it is recorded some where in the book of doctrine and covenants.

171: Is it in the 1836 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants?
I could not say. I think though that it is recorded in the Covenants in some place, but in what place it is I could not say sir.

172: We will call your attention to it hereafter Mr Woodruf. Now has there ever been a disclaimer on the part of the church, so far as you know, to any interest in that property? In other words has the church so far as your knowledge extends ever disclaimed any interest in that property?
I have heard of none sir.

173: There was and has been no official action taken by the church looking towards a disclaimer has there, so far as your knowledge goes?
Well all I can say of course about that is from rumor, or by rumor. I would have heard it by rumor if there had been, and I will say I have not heard of any. I have never heard any man claim the property directly of course, but I have hard rumors.

174: Well what I asked you for is if there has been any official action of the church taken disclaiming an action of that kind?
This church here?

175: Certainly, – I did not think you recognized any church but this church here?
Not to my knowledge.

176: When did you go to Far West Mr Woodruf? To Far West Missouri?
 

177: What time did you go to Far West Mr Woodruff?
You asked me why I went to Far West.

178: No sir, I asked you when you went to Far West?
I never was in Far West in my life only for about two or three hours, and I don’t recollect postively when it was that I was there, but if I am not mistaken it was on the 26th day of April 1839. I was there only that time, and then for a short, and never lived there at all.

179: Who of the members of the church were there when you were there if you recollect? I mean prominent members in the church, – elders, etc.?
Well there was very few any way of the members of the church that were there for they had all been driven out.

180: There were some there was there not?
Oh yes, there was a few there of course, but not many at that time I was there.

181: Well how many of the church were there?
I do not know how many.

182: About how many?
I could not say.

183: Was there as many as twenty five?
Yes sir, I should think there was twenty five perhaps.

184: Do you recollect any of their names?
Yes sir.

185: Who were they?
Brigham Young was there, –

186: Is that all?
Orson Pratt was there; John Taylor; George A. Smith; and I think Judge Elias Smith was there also.

187: Was not Judge Elias Higbee there too?
I don’t think he was there, – from memory I do not think he was there at that time, but I can’t tell, for those are matters that I have had to rely on my memory for.

188: Will you say that Elias Higbee was not there at that time?
No sir I will not say that he was there, or that he was not there.

189: Did you know a man there by the name of Gates at that time?
I could not say.

190: E.J. Gates?
I don’t recollect.

191: Were you ever acquainted with E.J. Gates?
What was his first name? What was the “E” for?

192: I don’t know the first name?
Well I don’t recollect the man myself.

193: Did you know any person there by the name of Gates?
Yes sir there was, –

194: I think the name was Edward J. Gates?
I don’t recollect him, but there is a Gates living in Provo, – old Jacob Gates.

195: Was Jacob Gates there at that time?
I think not.

196: How was the doctrine of the church at that time, an abandonment of the idea of the building of the temple in Jackson County?
I don’t think there was anything said about it at all.

197: In your cross examination you referred to a revelation given at some time commanding the building of a temple in Jackson County or in substance that?
Yes sir.

198: Now Woodruf I will read from Exhibit E. being the edition of 1835 of the book of doctrine and covenants, from section four paragraphs one and two, to be found on page eighty nine of said exhibit E. It is a revelation given the 22nd and the 23rd day of September 1832, and is as follows, – “Section four, A revelation given the 22nd and 23rd of Sept. 1832, on Priesthood. 1. A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jr., and six elders as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high; Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days, for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon mount Zion, which shall be the city New Jerusalem; which city shall be built beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the Western boundaries of the state of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jr., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 2. Verily, this is the word of the Lord, that the City New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation; for verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy priesthood which he reveiced under the hands of Caleb, and Caleb received it under the hands of Elihu, and Elihu under the hand of Jeremy, and Jeremy under the hand of Gad, and Gad under the hand of Esias, and Esias received it under the hand of God; Esaias also lived in the days Abraham and was blessed by him, which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchisidek, who recieved it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah, and from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers, and from Enoch to Abel who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother who received the priesthood by the commandments of God by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man; which priest hood continued in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days and end of years”. Now is that the temple lot in Jackson County, Missouri to which you refer?
 

199: Answer the question?
yes sir that is it?

200: Now when did you go to Nauvoo, Illinois, if at all?
I went to Nauvoo in ’38, – I think it was in the spring of 38 that I went there. That was the time I think we went there, but of course I could not say just when it was that we did go to Nauvoo without referring to my journal, – however, – I think it was in the spring of 1838 that we went there.

201: Well now let me refresh your recollection?
Very well I will be very glad for you to do so.

202: The church was driven from Far West in the latter part of ’38, that was the time they were driven from there or notified to leave and most of them left early in ’38, or in the fore part of ’39?
Yes sir, I remember that we stopped in Quincy for a while, and from there we went to Nauvoo, but of course as to the day or date, or exact time of any of these movements I could not say sir. We went there in 1838 I think, only I could not swear to anything only the date, – I mean to anything about the dates of these various events unless I refer to my journals.

203: Were you at the conference in Far West, Missouri in 1838?
No sir.

204: Were you at any general meeting of the church in Far West in 1838?
No sir. I never was in Far West as I have already stated only once and then for only a few hours, when I went up there in April 1839 as I stated, with a few brethern.

205: That is the only time you say you were ever there at Far West?
Yes sir.

206: Were you elected by the vote of the church to be an apostle?
Yes sir.

207: When did that take place, and where?
In 1839.

208: At what place?
Well that was at Far West. I mean, – yes, we were in Far West. We held a meeting there at that time, and I only spend a few hours there at that time, but during the time was there a meeting was held and I was chosen and recived by ordination there.

209: What time in the year 1839 was that?
That was in April.

210: Was that the meeting at which these parties you were named have named were present?
Yes sir.

211: Was Joseph Smith present?
No sir.

212: Was Hyrum Smith present?
No sir.

213: Neither Josepg or Hyrum Smith were present you say?
No sir they were not there.

214: Was Edward Partridge present?
No sir he was not there.

215: Was there a revelation received calling you to the apostleship?
Yes sir.

216: Where is that revelation?
It is in there.

217: Where is it?
It is recorded in the book of doctrine and covenants.

218: Where abouts in the book of covenants is it?
Well I can’t tell you the section or page, but it is in there.

219: Well was that revelation received by the church and voted upon? Was it ever submitted to the church for approval?
I cannot say.

220: Well what is your best recollection as to that?
I cannot say for I was abroad at the time it was given.

221: It could not have been or become a part of the church faith unless it had been first submitted to the church for its approval, could it Mr Woodruf?
Well in order to answer that question I will say that when ever a revelation was given by the prophet Joseph to the church, it was accepted and received by the church as a general principle, – It was generally received as it came from the prophet.

222: And it was not a part of the church law until it was accepted by the church? Is that not also true?
No sir it is not true. That is as I said before. These revelations when they were given were always accepted by the church, and it was not the practice when revelations were given by the prophet for them to be presented to the church for its reception before they became the law and rule of the church. Joseph was looked upon and believed to be a prophet, seer and revelator, and his revelations were invariably accepted by the church without question when presented to the church.

223: But were they not required to be presented to the church for the churches acceptance?
No sir.

224: Is that not the law of the church and church at that time?
I do not recollect of any law or rule of the church that required that.

225: Don’t you know the law of the church that all things should be done by common consent? Don’t you know that law, and was not that the law at that time, that all things should be done by common consent within the church?
Yes sir in some things it was, in the matter of the transaction of temporal business, and in the quoroms, etc it was.

226: Was that not the law of the church that in all affairs pertaining to what should or would be the law of the church that course was to be pursued, the matter was to be submitted to the body for its sanction?
I have no recollection of any revelation given to that effect, and yet it might have been.

227: Is it not a fact that all the revelations that were published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants in the 1835 edition were so submitted to the church and accepted by the church, and formally voted upon?
I think there were times at the conferences and other places where the books were all presented to the church. I think that was done, but as to the date and time I could not say.

228: What books do you refer to?
I think the Bible and Book of Mormon and book of Doctrine and Covenants have been presented to the church.

229: Well were not the revelations that are contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, presented to the church, and accepted by the church upon a vote both of all the quorums of the church, and of the members present at a conference before they were ever published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants at all?
Not to my knowledge.

230: Could they put a revelation in the book of Doctrine and Covenants without the sanction of the church, and have it legally done?
When those revelations were first published and printed they [they] were taken from the manuscript that contained them, or upon which they have been written with the day and date of their reception by the prophet, and how far the church was called on to sanction them I don’t know.

231: Were they not presented to the General assembly first?
I do not know.

232: Have you not read the history of it in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, where they are presented?
That may have been done so, but I was not present, and I do not know of course, only what I have read about it or heard about it. As I was not present I cannot say of my own knowledge what was done, and what I have heard or read about it I suppose is immaterial.

233: For the purpose of refreshing your recollection I will read to you from section forty nine, there is only one paragraph in it, it is on page one hundred and seventy nine in Exhibit E, from which I have heretofore read, and which is the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, as follows, “Revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer, given July 1830. Behold I say unto you that you shall let your time be devoted to the studying of the scriptures, and to preaching, and to confirming the church at Colesville; until after you shall go to the west to hold the next conference and then it shall be made known what you shall do. And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.” Now that is a revelation to Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and David Whitmer?
So it states.

234: Well that was the law on that matter at that time was it not,- the law of common consent? At the time the book of Covenants was received was that not the law?
Oh of course the book of covenants was received and accepted.

235: I will now read from paragraph four, section fifty one of the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, on page one hundred and eighty one, as follows, – “Thou shalt not leave this place until after the conference and my servant Joseph shall be appointed to preside over the conference by the voice of it, and what he saith to thee though shalt tell. And again thou shalt take they brother Hiram Page between thee and him alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from the stone are not of me, and that satan deceiveth him, for behold these things have not been appointed until him, neither shall anything be appointed to any of this church, contrary to the church covenants, for all things must be done in order and by common consent in the church by prayer of faith.” Now that is the paragraph I referred to, and I will ask you now if the church could bound by anything unless it had first been presented to the church for it’s approval?
They accepted it. The revelations were accepted by the church. Of course there has been times as before remarked when all these books were presented to the conferences.

236: Well would the church be bound by it as church law until they had accepted it?
Well I can’t answer that exactly.

237: You are the president to the church, and you ought to be able to answer a simple little question like that?
Of course as I have said before, from the day of the foundation of this church up to the day of the death of the prophet Joseph Smith, whenever he gave a revelation to the church it was accepted by the church before it was presented to any general assembly, because he gave revelations frequently and they were accepted by the people, not in the nature of a formal acceptance, but by reason of the fact that they came to the people and the church as a revelation received from the Lord through the prophet, seer and revelator, whose office it was to receive the commandments of God and deliver them to his chosen people. and of course revelations so received were published in the book of doctrine and covenants.

238: They were not accepted by the people before they knew what they were accepting?
No sir.

239: All the revelations given to Joseph Smith before his death, were at one time or another presented for adoption?
Yes sir, either in book form or some other form.

240: Either in bok form or manuscript form?
Yes sir, in either of the two forms.

241: But the church would not be bound by anything until it had been so presented to and adopted by them would it?
What is that?

242: I say the church would not be bound by anything until it had been presented to and adopted by them? Would it?
I can’t say as to that.

243: Don’t you know that has been the practice of the church ever since its organization in 1830 or ’29,-that everything must be presented to the church in some form or other for its adoption, before the church can be regularly bound by it?
As I said before whenever revelations are given by the church or to the church I should say, -when they are given by the church and printed and delivered to the people, they are accepted by the people. The people have accepted it when that has been done.

244: Well now Mr. Woodruf I insist upon the answer to that question
 

245: Well you haven’t answered it yet? The question is this, -Has it not been the practice of the church from the time of its organization down to the present time, and practiced by you since you have been president of this church here, to present everything concerning the doctrine of the church to the church for its adoption, before the church would be bound by it?
Well of course. That is a principle of the church.

246: Well sir, I thought so, and that is the principle you went on when you presented the manifesto here for adoption?
Yes sir, of course.

247: That is the fact is it not?
Certainly.

248: And that is the principle on or under which the church was governed prior to 1846, – that everything was presented in some form or other for adoption?
Yes sir.

249: Presented to the church for adoption?
Yes sir.

250: And if not presented to the church for adoption and if not adopted by the church, the church would not be bound by it, as a church?
What is that?

251: I say if it is not presented to the church and adopted by the church, the church would not be bound by it as a church? Is that not true?
Well of course these things depend on circumstances, as I said before. As I said before there has been counsel given and business done, and revelations that have been received, and as a matter of course all the works had to be presented to the church at times.

252: Is counsel the same as church law?
No sir.

253: Well in my question I am trying to confine you to the church law and nothing else?
Yes sir, I understand.

254: Well from your answer I would infer that you do not understand. Well now has it not been the practice of the church, universally, before anything was or became church law, that the church could be bound as a church by, that is it must be presented to the church for adoption, -to the membership of the church for their acceptance or adoption, in some form or other, and at some time?
All our business, -all our business that comes before us must come up before our conferences that are held twice a year. All the business of the church we present to the church at these times, but of course we transact business between these times.

255: You don’t make church law between these times do you?
No sir, I think not.

256: You don’t make church law or doctrine between those dates do you?
No sir. I think not.

257: Well do you or do you not?
No sir.

258: Now why wouldn’t you answer my question before this Mr. Woodruff?
I did answer it as soon as I understood it.

259: Is it not true that before anything can be binding upon the church as church law, it must first be presented to the church for adoption, and has that not been invariably the rule since the organization of the church? Now please answer that question squarely and plainly?
Well as I said to you in the first place, a great many things were done years before I was in the church, and all those early revelations were accepted by the people as given before they were ever presented to the church, but as to the matter of dividing these things up perhaps I am not qualified to say. You see in the earliest days I was not a member of the church, and I cannot say just as to how things were done then, but that is my understanding.

260: I don’t care anything about the division. What I am getting at is the fact, and is it not true that before anything can be accepted as church law, it must first be presented to the church, and be accepted by the church?
The church has accepted at all our conferences everything that has been brought before them ,-it has accepted all that has been brought before it.

261: And if the church refused to accept what was brought before them, -say a revelation, then it would not be binding upon the church as church law?
Well if the whole church rejected it it wouldn’t.

262: Well if the church to which it was presented at a general conference, that embraced a large part of the church, or a majority of the church, should reject it, in that case it would not be binding upon the church as a law of the church? Is that not the fact Mr. Woodruf?
No of course it would not. If it was rejected it would not be.

263: Then the church as the right to reject or approve a revelations? That is the fact is it not
Yes sir, any man independent of the action of the church has the right to reject or accept it as he sees fit That is a right that any man has.

264: And a church has a right to say whether they will or will not be bound by it, -that whether they will accept or reject a revelation?
Yes sir.

265: Can any body saddle a revelation on the church without its consent?
No sir.

266: Then before a revelation can be accepted by the church as a law it must be in some form or other presented to the church, ad accepted by the church, adopted by the church, before it becomes a law binding on the church? Is that not true Mr Woodruf?
Yes sir, I guess so.

267: That has been true ever since the time you became connected with the church, so far s you are acquainted?
Yes sir, so long as I have been with the church, that is the fact.’

268: Since you have been connected with the church that has been the rule as I understand it, -is that not the fact?
I can’t say what it was before I joined the church.

269: I don’t care, and I am not asking you about what was the practice before you joined the church. I am only asking you about what has been the law, the rule and practice since you became connected with the church?
Well there has been revelations received by the pole, revelations as I said before, revelations that were given by the prophet and were accepted by the people, before they were accepted in the Conferences. Now that is the only question or difference between you and me on that matter, – you insist that they have all been presented to the conferences or assemblies of the people an accepted by the in that capacity and in that way before they became a law binding on the church, and I say that there have been revelations given through the prophet, that have been accepted and acted upon by the people before they were every accepted formally in the conferences nor assemblies. Of course they have been presented to the Conferences and accepted or projected as the case might be.

270: Did any of them prove contrary to former revelations that were accepted in that way?
No sir.

271: Now you were in Nauvoo in 18040 you say?
Yes sir.

272: You were?
Yes sir, I was in Nauvoo in the spring of 1840. I was in Nauvoo at that time

273: All the revelations that were received up to 1840, up to 1841, were presented to the church in Nauvoo, Illinois, and by the church accepted were they not and afterwards. doctrine and covenants, were they not, and were published in that form by the church?
Yes sir, but they were published before 1841.

274: What were published before 1841?
The revelations were.

275: But I refer to the ones received between the time of the former publication and 1841, between that time, and the time of the conference of 1841?
I do not know. I cannot say as to that.

276: You were a member of the church at that time?
Yes sir, but I was not in Kirtland at that time. I was a broad during the greater part of that period.

277: Well I mean at Nauvoo, I am not talking about what took place at Kirtland, I mean at Nauvoo?
Well I was not at Nauvoo either, well yes I was too in Nauvoo in 1841, or for a period of time in 1841.

278: Don’t you remember the revelation of 1841 being presented to the conference at Nauvoo in 1841?
What is the date of it?

279: It is what is called the revelation of 1841, January 19th 1841?
Well sir, I could not tell you.

280: It was on the building of the temple at Nauvoo, and the Nauvoo house, and such subjects as that?
Yes sir.

281: And speaking with reference to the quorum of twelve, and such things as that?
Yes sir.

282: Now that was presented in 1841 to the Conference, and accepted by the church was it not?
I could not say, for I hardly think I was at that conference.

283: Well don’t you know you were mentioned in the revelation, yourself personally, was mentioned in the revelation.
Well I was mentioned personally in the revelation, but I was not there personally for I was a long way from Nauvoo at that time. I was two thousand miles from Nauvoo at that time.

284: That was in 1841?
Well when that revelation was given it was before 1841.

285: No sir it was not. It was given the 19th of January 1841, that is the date it was given. You were there at the April Conference in 1841?
I would like to look at the book before I answer.

286: And is that not in all subsequent editions of the book of doctrine and covenants after 1841?
No sir I do not think I was present at that conference, but of course the authorities of the church, all of them, I think were presented in this revelation, but I was called to this office before this revelation was given.

287: You say you were called to that office before the revelation was given?
Yes sir.

288: Where were you at the time that revelation was given?
I could not tell where I was without referring to my records or journal, but it does not from memory appear to me that I was at that Conference.

289: Well you recognize that as one of the revelations accepted by the church?
Yes sir I do.

290: And it was accepted by the church prior to 1844, accepted before that time was it not?
Yes sir.

291: Now Mr. Woodruff I want to call your attention to section one hundred and twenty four in this book of Doctrine and Covenants, Exhibit A, being the edition of 1890, on page four hundred and eighty nine, the same being the edition published by the Utah Mormon church, and to save time, for I presume you are familiar with them, I will not ask you to read them or the others to which I will call your attention, but will ask that the reporter extend them in his transcript of your evidence when preparing the transcript of your evidence when preparing the evidence if there is no objection?
 

292: I want to next call to your attention section one hundred and two of Exhibit A, being the revelation given on Fishing River, Missouri, June 22nd 1834, on page three hundred and seventy seven of Exhibit A, is in section one hundred and seventy five instead of one hundred and two?
 

293: Were you present when that revelation was given?
I was.

294: And you recognize that as being the law of the church, and adopted by the church?
Yes sir.

295: That was adopted prior to 1844 was it not?
That was, what?

296: That was adopted, and was the law of the church prior to 1844 was it not,-that revelation I mean that was given on Fishing River?
Yes sir.

297: I wish to call your attention now to section one hundred and six of Exhibit A, being the revelation given at Far West, Missouri, July 8th 1938, on tithing, I have made a mistake for the section I refer to is section one hundred and nineteen in Exhibit A, on page four hundred and eighteen. The sections are not numbered the same in these books, and is the cause of this confusion?
The sections as far as their numbering goes do not change I think in any book.

298: Well they do not come in the same place,-they are different here. The revelation I refer to is the revelation given at Far West, Missouri, on July 8th 1838 on the question of tithing and surplus property? The revelation referred to is in the words and figures following, to wit,- Section 119 Revelation given through Joseph the Prophet, at Far West, Missouri., July 8th, in answer to the question, O Lord, show unto they servants how much thou requirest of the properties of the people for a tithing? I Verily thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put in the hands of the bishop of thy church of Zion. 2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion, and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my church. 3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. 4 And after that, those that have been tithed, shall pay one tenth of their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them for ever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. 5 Verily, I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather to the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worth to abide among you. 6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me that my statues and judgements shall be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you; 7 And this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion. Even so Amen.
 

299: Do you recollect that revelation?
I recollect reading it in the book of doctrine and covenants,

300: That was part of the church law prior to 1844?
I suppose so.

301: It was recognized and adopted by the church was it not?
I think so.

302: You stated in your examination in chief the other day Mr. Woodruff that the church practiced the ordinance of baptism for the dead in Nauvoo, before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

303: In what years was that practiced, that ordinance of baptism for the dead?
Well I think in 1841, – I think it commenced in 1841, – 1841 or ‘2. I couldn’t say when, but it was either 1841 or 1842.

304: Do you remember the revelation, – the order rather that stopped the practice of it prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
There was no order that ever I knew anything about to stop the practice. Nothing of the kind that I ever heard anything about, and it was continued up to the time of his death I think so far as there was opportunity or occasion to practice it.

305: Well was there not an order given through the prophet Joseph Smith, stopping the ordinance of baptism for the dead until after the completion of the temple there at Nauvoo?
Not that I remember of. The first baptism that was done in the church there, Joseph Smith himself went into the Mississipi river and baptized one hundred one evening, and there was a number of others that baptized quite a number, and not having a recorder to keep a record of these things, he ordered the recording of everything, and that was the commencement of it, but after that they had a font.

306: Well now after the baptism there in the Mississippi river by Joseph Smith, that to the effect that that cereminy, – baptism for the dead, – should cease, until the completion of the temple?
Well I don’t recollect it sir.

307: Do you say you don’t recollect anything about it?
If there was such an order or direction issued I do not recollect it.

308: Would you say there was not?
No sir, I would not say that. I would not say there was not, for the reason that I don’t remember whether there was or not.

309: If there was such an order given through the prophet Joseph Smith, that would be the law of the church, then wouldn’t it?
Well of course it would have been carried out I suppose, but I have no recollection of an order of that kind being given, for I remember that baptism for the dead was carried on there up to the time that Joseph died.

310: Do you recollect any baptism for the dead after 1843?
Where?

311: Do you recollect any ceremony of baptism for the dead in Nauvoo after the year 1843?
Yes sir. During the year 1843?

312: Yes sir, during the year 1843?
I do not recollect now, I do not recollect any special occurence of that kind, but I supposed they always baptized for the dead there in the font as long as they had a chance. Now that is my view to it, but I don’t remember any particular instance where it was done, but I suppose they did.

313: Yo say that is your view of it?
Yes sir.

314: That is your view of it, but you don’t know that they did it?
Well I will tell you just this much. I can’t tell the date of it, but I baptized me in the font myself, and saw others do the same thing before we left there, but as to the dates of course I could not say without referring to my minutes.

315: You say that was done in the font there?
Yes sir.

316: Well the font was not ready in 1843 was it, – is it not a fact Mr Woodruf that the font was not ready in 1843 for baptisms?
I don’t know sir. History of course will give an account of that. I know the fact sir, but as to the date I could not say from memory. Now if you gentlemen have any interest in searching these principles and particulars out, those last letters that Joseph Smith wrote just prior to his death, – these two last letters dwelt extensively on the question of these ordinances, the ordinance of baptism for the dead, etc. but with regard to days and dates, I can not say for the reason that I cannot remember. I do not mean to say that I can’t remember anything about it for that is not the fact. The principle I remember all right, but I cannot remember days and dates.

317: The letters you spoke of in the last preceding interrogatory were written in 1842, were they not?
I do not know.

318: Well what is your best recollection as to that?
I could not say with any degree of certainty when it was, I would have to see them in the books to tell. I cannot remember when they were written but they are in the books and the books of course speak for themselves.

319: Are you sure they are there?
Yes sir, I am pretty sure they are, – at least I think they are if I am not greatly mistaken, you say they were written in 1842, but it appears to me they were later than that, however, I don’t know.

320: The dates in the book are September first 1842 and September 6th 1842.
Well they are in the last parts of the books, and I thought they must be later than that. They are speaking of the baptism for the dead, and doctrines like that kind.

321: I will ask you if those are the two letters you refer to, the one one page two hundred and twenty of the book of doctrine and covenants, section one hundred and nineteen, – it is page four hundred and forty eight, section one hundred and twenty seven and one hundred and twenty eight in Exhibit A, – here it is Mr. Woodruf in one of your own publications (handing witness Exhibit A) probably you can tell better by that than the other book?
(witness examines the section referred to and says) it is in sections one hundred and twenty seven and eight that I was alluding to. Those are the letters.

322: Now what are the dates of those letters?
Well the revelation I referred to is the one here where he is treating of the redemption of the dead, and this is given September 6th ‘1842, and the other is September first 1842.

323: That is the dates you referred to?
I see they are, but I thought it was later than that.

324: You were in Nauvoo on that date, – September first 1842, and September 6th 1842?
Well sir those are questions which I could not answer you unless I had time to examinae my records or journals, I would have to examine my journal before I could answer that question. I had been away a great deal from the church in those years, and at that time I could not tell you whether I was there or not, but i know I was not there at the time of the death of the prophet.

325: What time after you removed to Nauvoo, were you one of the editors of, and interested in the publication of the Times and Seasons?
Well I could not tell you that either from memory.

326: Well that was in 1846 was it not?
Perhaps it might have been.

327: Was it in 1844?
Oh no I was wrong about that. It was before the death of Joseph Smith, and we was slain in 1844. He was killed in 1844 and it was before that that I was connected with the Times and Seasons.

328: That paper was published by yourself and John Taylor?
Yes sir.

329: Were you assisting John Taylor in the editorship of that publication?
Yes sir.

330: He was the editor after Joseph Smith was killed?
Yes, perhaps so, but I do not know for I was not there at that time. I was engaged in the work in the eastern lands at the time.

331: At what time was that?
That was at the time of the death of Joseph. I was in the eastern country at that time.

332: Where were you at the time that Joseph Smith was killed?
I was in the City of Boston.

333: How long had you been there?
In Massachusetts?

334: Yes sir, in that country, or state?
Well I was there several weeks. I don’t know how many days or weeks I was in the east. I could tell by reference to my journals, but cannot state it now from memory.

335: Were you there on a mission?
Yes sir.

336: What time did you start on your mission?
Well I could not tell you that either.

337: About what time was it that you started on the mission?
I couldn’t tell you the date, but it was i the spring before his death, -that is the spring before the death of Joseph.

338: Was it after April conference of 1844?
I think it was.

339: You attended the April conference in Nauvoo in 1844 then?
I think I was.

340: Was there any revelation presented to that conference at that time that you know of?
Not that I recollect, -that is the conference of 1844?

341: Yes sir?
Not that I recollect of.

342: Well you would recollect it if any such a thing had happened?
Well I could not say that I would.

343: If it had been presented, -?
I will say this much however, that very seldom revelations were ever presented to the church in the form of revelations were ever presented to the church in the form of a revelation. It has not been a practice at these conference to present revelations

344: If there had been one presented to the quorom of twelve at that conference, would you recollect that?
Well I cannot say.

345: Well what is your best judgement about it?
I cannot say as to that.

346: Is it your best judgement that you would or would not?
It is a thing that has very seldom ever been done in that way, -that is the presentation of revelations as revelations to the conference has very seldom been done.

347: Well I am not speaking of the quorom of twelve and the presentation of revelations to the quorom of twelve?
Well that is what I say, – it is something that has very seldom been done in our conferences or quoroms that way. Now there is a great many things that you might ask me that from my memory alone I could not answer you and tell you all about them at all.

348: You were not present at the regular conference prior to Joseph Smith’s death?
prior to his death, – did you say prior to his death?

349: Yes sir?
yes sir, I was at some of them.

350: You were not present at the conference in 1842?
I think you asked me that question before.

351: No sir I asked you about the conference of 1844 and the one of 1841 I think?
I was in England in ’40 and returned in 1841, but I don’t know what the date of my return was.

352: Well now that time when you returned, how long did you remain in Nauvoo, before you returned, – I mean how long did you remain in Nauvoo before you left again?
I could not say. I really cannot tell you these things from memory.

353: After you returned Nauvoo England were you at a conference held there, before you left again?
Well I cannot answer that question either.

354: You don’t know?
No sir, for I trusted all these things to my pen. I kept regular diaries or records of my doing, and I cannot answer these questions without reference to them. I trusted yo my pen in all my business in that way, and of course in my memory regarding a great many of those things I am not positive.

355: So that you have no recollection now, – that is no distinct recollection of attending any conference after you returned from England, until in the spring of 1844, – at the April conference in 1844? have you?
No sir, but I think I attended some conferences, – one or two in the mean time, but I cannot state the date.

356: Now in your direct examination the other day you spoke of annointings and washings, and baptisms, and other ordinances that you participated in at Nauvoo prior to Joseph Smith’s death?
Yes sir.

357: Whereabouts did those take place?
In Nauvoo.

358: At what building in Nauvoo, if any?
Well the baptisms were in the font I think – of course in Joseph Smith’s store, – that is the store he occupied there was a room in the store building, and we met there frequently on matters of that kind in connection with church affairs.

359: Was it in Joseph Smith’s store that your washings and annointings were had?
Yes sir, these endowments were given in that store.

360: The endowments were given in that store?
Yes sir.

361: At what place in it?
Well, – in what way?

362: I mean what room?
Well some ordinances were performed in the lower room, and some were performed in the upper room of the store building.

363: You say some part of the ordinances were performed in the lower, and some part in the upper room?
Yes sir.

364: Was there any part of them performed at any other place?
At any other place?

365: Yes sir, – that is in any other house?
Instructions were given, – counsels were given in other places, but I do not recollect any ordinances being performed except what was performed in the temple.

366: Then do you say that the annointings of persons and washings did not occur at any other place that at that building, so far as you know?
I do not recollect. There was meetings held in the masonic hall. We held a good many meetings in the hall called the “Masonic Hall”. It was built by our people, and the meetings were held there, but I do not recollect of any of the ordinances being performed at that place.

367: Was a part of the endowment ordinances administered in the palace of Joseph Smith, and the rest of them in the Masonic Hall?
There was meetings held in the Masonic Hall, –

368: Well were a part of them performed in his residence?
In his store?

369: No, in his residence?
No sir.

370: They were not?
No sir, not to my knowledge.

371: Well if they had been carried on there, do you think you would have known it?
I think so. Yes sir.

372: Now in your direct examination the other day your attention was called to paragraph thirtynine on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A, being the book of doctrine and covenants of the 1890 edition, published by your church here in Salt Lake City, as identifying the ordinance there. Now how are you able to tell that the ordinances mentioned in that section are the ordinance that you say you performed there in Nauvoo?
What is the meaning of that section?

373: Well I will read it, – “Therefore verity I say unto you that your annointings and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statues and judgements for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor and endowments of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my hold house which my people are always commanded to build unto my hold name”. Now sir do you say that the ordinance administered there in the Masonic Hall, – partly in the Masonic Hall at Nauvoo and partly at other places were the ordinances spoken of in this revelation?
Well the baptisms for the dead were administered in the first place in the river, and then in the font in the temple that was built for that purpose. Of course they were administered in different places according to the different ordinances.

374: You had a special order, – a special command for administering then in the river did you not?
Well there was a revelation given to Joseph Smith concerning baptism for the dead.

375: That is the fact?
Yes sir.

376: Thee was a special revelation in relation to baptism for the dead?
Yes sir.

377: Well did it not command that the ordinance of the baptism for the dead should be performed in the temple, and no where else?
No sir.

378: It did not?
No sir.

379: And you swear to that?
No sir. Not when this revelation was first given concerning the dead.

380: And that you swear to?
Yes sir. Of course when you have a temple the order of God has always been, – or at least has been supposed to be in our day, that when there is a temple the ordinance must be administered in it, but when there is no temple it may be administered outside of the temple.

381: Then you say the order was to administer it outside of the temple of the river until the temple was completed?
Yes sir.

382: Where did that order come from?
That was the order of the prophet Joseph.

383: Was permission given by Joseph, or by the Lord either for these other ordinances to be performed outside of the temple,-for instance the ordinances of anointing or washing?
Yes sir they have been done outside of the temple.

384: Well was there an order or authority from the Lord or the prophet either for that?
Yes sir. 385 (XXXXXXXX out) 386 (XXXXXXXX out rest not readable. New line started) 386 Well will you give me the revelation permitting or authorizing that practice?
No sir, I couldn’t do it.

387: Can you cite me to your authority for that practice?
I want to understand this one thing,-Joseph Smith was a prophet, seer and revelator, and was so acknowledged by the saints, and whatever he said or counseled in these things, or in these matters was accepted.

388: Was he higher than the law?
Greater than the law that God has revealed through Joseph Smith?

389: Yes sir?
No sir, but he was the medium through which the law was revealed.

390: How was the prophet to give the word of God?
How was the prophet to give the word of God. He was the prophet through which the word of God was revealed to all man kind.

391: Well after the law had been revealed to him, them was he, the prophet, higher and greater than the law so revealed to him?
I do not understand what you mean?

392: I mean that after the law had been revealed, was he not then subject to the law the same as any other person?
He was the law giver himself.

393: Well was he not subject to the law he gave himself?
I suppose he was.

394: You suppose he was,-as a matter of fact wasn’t he?
Yes sir.

395: You do not mean to say that he was the law maker?
He was the law giver to the church, because he was the prophet, seer and revelator, and all the laws that came to the church cam through his mouth, therefore you might call him the law giver,-I know I do.

396: That is he received the laws from God and communicated them to you, or rather to the church?
Yes sir.
No sir, I do not say that, but I do say he governed and controlled all these things.

398: After a law had been revealed from the Lord, was it possible in your opinion for the law to change that law by revealing something that was contrary to his law previously reveal a certain and contrary doctrine,-would reveal a certain thing to Joseph Smith in 1841, and then reveal a contrary doctrine in 1842?
No sir I don’t know that I would,-but as I say, or have said before with regard to all your questionings on these things,- prophet himself stood at the head, and received counsel from the Lord, and he dictated to the church in regard to these things, and revealed matters and things to the church as he was moved upon by the power of the Holy Spirit.

399: To refresh your recollection I will read paragraph thirty seven “And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house that you have built unto my name?
Well that is all right.

400: Do you say sir that these washings were acceptable unto the Lord.
Yes sir.

401: Yes do?
Yes sir, we think so.

402: Were they performed in a house that was built unto the Lord?
Yes sir.

403: They were?
We think so.

404: Was the Masonic Temple a house built for the Lord?
No sir.

405: Please explain then how it comes that they were acceptable unto the Lord, if it was not a house built unto the Lord?
Well I didn’t say there were any washings in the Masonic Temple, but there was meetings held in the Masonic Temple.

406: It was just a store room was it not?
No sir, it was a hall built above the store room.

407: Where that was performed?
No sir, we do not understand each other. We are talking about two different things. There were certain ordinances performed in the store there for there was not a temple built at that time. It was just as it was in this city, for there was a great many ordinances performed there at that time the same as there has been here, for there was not a temple built at the time, and they were performed out side of a temple for that reason. When there is no temple it is impossible to perform these ordinances in a temple, – for the reason that there is no temple in which to perform them. It was the way it was here before there was a proper places built expressly for that purpose, – rooms were set apart and dedicated to that purpose.

408: Dedicated for what use?
Dedicated to the Lord for that purpose.

409: Now do you claim that these washings and annointings performed there under these circumstances, were the washings and annointings referred to in paragrapg thirty seven that I have just read. I will read paragraph thirty nine on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A, again. It was read to you the other day of your direct examination, and I will call your attention to it again. It is as follows, – “Therefore, verily, I say unto you, that you annointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statues and judgements for the beginning of revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name”. Now I will ask you again if you claim that the washings and annointings performed under the circumstances you have just stated, are the washings and annointings referred to in the paragraph I have just read?
Well now I don’t recollect just how that reads, but there are certain things referred to there as I understand it in that paragraph, –

410: I am just asking you with reference to the washings and annointings, – I am just calling your attention at the time to them, and to nothing else?
Yes sir.

411: They re the same?
Yes sir, – so we understand it.

412: Now do you say those are the ordinances that were performed there? Do you say that the ordinances that were preformed there were the ordinance referred to in that paragraph on washings and annointings?
A portion of them are, – we have always had permission, –

413: Well now, did you not state in your examination in chief that those are the identical annointings that you received there? Did you not state that to Mr Hall when he was examining you the other day?
What is that?

414: That the annointings and washings referred to here in paragraph thirty nine of this revelation on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A, of the defendants, were the washings and annointings you received in Nauvoo?
Well it is as I said, there are different washings performed in these ordinances, and some of them were performed there.

415: Well do you say that the ordinances of washing and annointing that were preformed there, were the ones referred to in this section or paragraph?
Some of them might be.

416: Now I will read you paragraph forty of this same revelation on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A, – “And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein, unto my people”. Now do you claim that the ordinances referred to in the preceding paragraph were being performed there, before there was any house erected unto the Lord?
I will say they were being performed before we had any house, when there was no house erected for that purpose there was rooms or buildings taken and dedicated to the Lord for the performance of the ordinances. There was a time in the migration of the church from one place to another when of necessity there could not be any house specially erected for that purpose. So it was at Nauvoo, and so it was here in the early days.

417: But the revelation says the house must be built in which the Lord will reveal his ordinances?
Yes sir.

418: Now sir were they revealed and administered outside of that house?
Those ordinances were revealed at Kirtland, – the ordinances of the church were revealed at Kirtland, and made manifest to the church there, but then they were in a different form perhaps.

419: In what respect were they different?
Well we had a temple there, but at Nauvoo we had no temple at that time.

420: What ordinance was revealed in Kirtland and what ordinance will I find it in?
What ordinance will I find it in?

421: What ordinance was revealed at Kirtland and what revelation will I find it in?
It was, – I don’t recollect what pare of the book it was in, but it was given in ’36.

422: That was the ordinance on washing the feet, and that alone was it not?
Yes sir, that is the one I have special reference to but there were others besides that too.

423: Don’t you know that in the revelation of 1836, there was no ordinance excepting that of washing the feet revealed?
Well I now there was more than that. I know, –

424: And the annointing with oil?
Yes sir.

425: And those were the ordinances that were performed in the temple at Kirtland, – washing the feet and annointing with oil?
Yes sir.

426: Is that the ordinance that has been taught in this revelation?
No sir, it is not the same ordinance.

427: Then why do you say these ordinances were revealed in Kirtland?
I say those ordinances on endowments were given and taught in Kirtland.

428: Would you be kind enough to give me the section you have just been reading? (Witness hands counsel asking the question the book marked Exhibit “A”, defts)?
These ordinances were adopted or performed in reference to washing the feet.

429: Is that an endowment ordinance?
Yes sir, it is.

430: Is that the endowment ordinance referred to in section thirty nine?
In section thirty nine?

431: In paragraph thirty nine I should have said, – that paragraph there?
No sir I don’t think it is.

432: Well then why do you say the ordinance of washing and annointings and baptisms for the dead, that were revealed here in 1841 were revealed and practiced at Kirtland?
I did not say that.

433: Well if you did not say that I would like to know what you did say?
I said there were ordinances revealed at Kirtland.

434: These were not revealed though?
Yes sir, – No sir, – they were not practiced.

435: Were they revealed at the time of the giving of the revelation in 1841?
What date is given there?

436: Well never mind the date, – were they known to the church prior to the giving of the revelation of 1841?
No sir.

437: They were not known to the church until the time they were made known in 1841?
They were not known to the church before the time they were revealed.

438: And these ordinances or endowments revealed in that revelation were to be conferred or practiced in a house built unto the Lord were they not? Is that not the fact Mr Woodruf?
Well that revelation was given before the temple was built was it not?

439: It was given in 1841?
Well that was before the temple was built. There was no temple at Nauvoo then, – never was a completed one.

440: But this revelation says don’t it that they were to be revealed in a house built unto the name of the Lord, – it says “that these ordinances might be revealed, which had been hid since before the world was?
I don’t know about that.

441: Read paragraph forty of that same section and see if that is not so?
“Therefore I say unto you that your annointings and your washings; “I am reading the one before it too, – “and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgements, for the beginning of revelation and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name. And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein, unto my people.

442: What do you say to that?
Yes sir that’s it.

443: Now do you claim that those were to be revealed, or where revealed before the temple was built, do you?
What?

444: The ordinance mentioned in section thirty nine?
I don’t claim that they were revealed before the date given there.

445: Well that was in 1841, and the temple was not built them?
No sir.

446: Now were these ordinance revealed in 1841 before this temple was built?
I do not know that I can say postively in regard to that?

447: Now then is this not true Mr Woodruf that that ordinance could not have been revealed at that time, for it says that it will not be revealed until there is a house or temple built in which to practice the ordinance or endowment, and the fact is that at that time there was no such an house of temple built?
Well I will say this gentlemen, – Joseph Smith was killed before that house was built or completed, and these revelations were given by Joseph Smith before his death. Now there are two facts about which there can be no manner of a dispute or question.

448: What revelations?
They were delivered before his death. That is a fact, and it is also a fact that these ordinances were revealed before his death, and also practiced before his death in precisely the same manner that they have been administered since his death.

449: Where is the revelation revealing the ordinance in annointing, washing and baptism for the dead, as spoken of in paragraph thirty nine on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A in the revelation of 1841?
There is no revelation in existance or print that gives these revelations, – those ordinances to the public that I know of.

450: There is no revelation you say in existance in print that you know of that gives those ordinances to the public?
No sir, – not that I am aware of.

451: Is there one in manuscript to your knowledge, – is there one now in manuscript, or was there ever one in manuscript to your knowledge?
Joseph Smith revealed them before his death, and taught them himself before his death.

452: I asked you if there was nay revelation to your knowledge in manuscript that revealed these ordinances referred to in the revelation of 1841, and revealed likewise the manner in which it or they were to be administered?
Well these ordinances were given, – they have been given, and practiced too, – whether they were published or not. They were given and practiced and carried out by the prophet. They were carried out by his instructions and given to the church, – or given to the elders of the church.

453: The question is whether there was a revelation to that effect or not, and if so do you know anything about such a revelation. That is the question Mr Woodruf?
It was all a revelation so far as that matter is concerned.

454: Well will you say that there was ever a revelation reduced to writing at any time, or at any place, from the time of the foundation of the church, up to the present day, revealing the washings and annointings referred to in paragraph thirty nine of this revelation and if so give me the revelation, the date of the revelation, and where it was given, or the book wherein I can find it?
They are not published, – the ordinances revealing these things are not published, – they have never been printed.

455: Were they in manuscript, – were they ever in manuscript, or are they now in manuscript?
Yes sir they have been in manuscript.

456: They have been reduced to writting?
Yes sir.

457: Were they ever presented to the church?
No sir not to the body of the church.

458: They were not presented to the church?
No sir, except to the ones received these ordinances or endowments. They were presented in that way.

459: Did you ever hear them read from the manuscript?
I heard I have heard them read, or parts of them.

460: Did you ever read them your self from the manuscript?
Well I can’t say. What do you mean? I do not understand what you mean, – in what way?

461: I asked you if you had ever read these ordinances from the original manuscript?
Well I don’t know that I ever read these ordinances as they were given by the prophet in the original maniscript. I can’t say that I did that. I may have done so, but if I ever did I have forgotten it, or don’t recollect so that I can say with positive assurance as to that.

462: Did you ever see the original manuscript that contained them?
I do not recollect that either, I will say just this to this company of men assembled here, those ordinances were not given, –

463: Of course that is not responsive to my question, and I object to your saying anything about it. I want you to answer my questions Mr Woodruf, and if you cannot do so, why simply say you can’t. What you were going to say is not responsive to my question?
I know it, but I want to say it nevertheless, – Those ordinances that were given in connection with the conferring of these endowments were given by instruction that is not public to the world, – in other words as the ordinances were administered, the manner and form of doing it is not made to the world, no more so than the ordinances of the Masonic or any other secret orders ordinances or endowments are made public to the world. Now of course with reference to the ordinance of baptism that has been known to ever body that has been at all acquainted with the manner of baptism, for there was nothing secret about that. Baptism for the dead is an ordinance that was publicly practiced there at Nauvoo before the death of the prophet, and it is one that is well known and is one also of the ordinances referred to in that revelation a part of which I have read here.

464: Well now in your direct examination the other day, – Well I will move the court to exclude that answer from the record on the ground that it is not responsive to the question asked the witness. Now in your direct examination the other day by Mr Hall, you were asked to read section forty four, paragraph three of the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants for the purpose of showing that certain things therein mentioned were not to be shown or given to the world?
Yes sir.

465: You recollect that?
Yes sir. I recollect about that.

466: I will ask you now if the things that were spoken of in that revelation were not to be revealed unto the church?
They were taught to the church, – that is they were taught to individuals in the church, as they received these ordinances. When they received the ordinances, they were taught certain things, and and these were amongst the one so taught.

467: They were presented to the church for its acceptance as a body, – or as a church?
No sir.

468: They were not?
I think not.

469: You say they were not?
I say I think they were not.

470: You say you think they were not?
Yes sir.

471: Mr Woodruf don’t you know that of a general conference of the church held in Kirtland in 1835 that very revelation was presented to the church, – was presented and passed every quorom in he church, and was then presented to the full church, or the body of the church in conference assembled and was accepted by the church after a vote was taken thereon?
The principles were given there at that time, and were accepted by the church. Those revelations on the endowments or ordinances were accepted there at that time, but there was nothing said about baptism, and I don’t think that any of the endowments were given there at that time, –

472: Then there was no such a thing as endowments then from, – up to 1835 or ’37?
To ’37?

473: Yes sir?
Well now of course these revelations on the endowments wee presented to, – I believe they were presented for the conferences; but I cannot say as to that, for I was not present but that is my understanding about it. 474 (Mistakenly written as 473)

473: Now what endowments do you refer to, – those that are mentioned or spoken of in paragraph three in section forty four of the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
That speaks of the ordinances of the church, but it does not five the ceremonies to be preformed under these ordinances, – they are not revealed, that is the ceremonies attending the performance of the ordinances are not revealed, – that is the idea I wanted to convey.

475: Well did you say that that revelation, – well let me call you attention again to paragraph three, section forty four, book of doctrine and covenants. You remember that Mr Hall would let you read but two lines of it?
Yes sir I remember, but if you want me to read the whole of it I say I can’t do so without my glasses (witness gets his glasses). I don’t see it. Some of you gentlemen will have to read it for me.

476: Just read the entire paragraph please?
I can’t do it. Will you read it for me (speaking to Mr Nutall). Mr Nutall reads the praragraph referred to as follows, – (the paragraph referred to is attached on the margin of this page: 50 and made a part thereof.

477: Now I will ask you Mr Woodruf if these things spoken of in this section just read to you are referred, – refer to annointings washings and baptism that are referred to in paragraph thirty nine of the revelation of 1841?
I don’t know that they do.

478: Does it not refer to things that preceded it in the same paragraph i which the language is found?
What language do you refer to?

479: “These things, : “show these things”?
I do not believe that I heard that paragraph correctly, – let me see it, – I believe I can read it with a little trouble, – (Witness hereupon reads paragrapg) “And show these things, -”

480: Read the whole of it, – the whole of that paragraph, -?
Again it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hears of the children of men altogether for my names glory; wherefore I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you, to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For behold the mystery of Godliness, how great is it? for behold I am endless, and the punishment, for endless is my name, wherefore eternal punishment is God’s punishment; endless punishment is God’s punishment; wherefore I command you to repent, and keep the commandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jr., in my name, and it is by my almighty power that you have received the, therefore I command you to repent, repent lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore, how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not. Yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent, but if they would not repent they must suffer all to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit, and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink, nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men; wherefore, I command you to repent, lest I humble you by my almighty power, and tht you confess you sins least you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my spirit. And I command you that you teach naught but repentance; and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me for they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore they must not know these things lest they perish; learn of me and listen to my words; walk in the meekness of my spirit and you shall have peace in me; I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of my Father, and I do his will”.

480: Now does that part of the paragraph refer to these things,-the words”show these things”,-does that refer to the anointings and washings and baptisms referred to in paragraph thirty nine which you have read here?
Well I don’t know that I can say it refers to that?

481: Well there is nothing said in the section you friend read to you and which you have just read about washing and anointings or baptisms is there?
What is that?

482: In the paragraph which you have read, and this gentleman read to you also, there is nothing said about washing or anointings or baptisms is there?
No sir.

483: You did not read anything about that did you?
No sir, there is nothing said about that

484: Now I want to read paragraph fifteen of section fifteen in Exhibit F, on page one hundred and thirty two, being in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, that you attention was called to here-to-fore? You were asked to read this by Mr. Hall, and I will read it to you again so as to refresh you memory in regard to its contents,-“And now I say unto you, keep these things from going abroad into the world until it is expedient in me, that ye may accomplish this work in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of your enemies, that they may not know your works until you have accomplished the thing which I have commanded you; that when they shall know it they may consider these things, for when the Lord shall appear he shall be terrible unto them, that fear may seize upon them, and they shall stand afar off and tremble; and all nations shall be afraid because of the terror of the Lord and the power of his might, even so. Amen”. Now do you understand from that section fifteen, paragraph fifteen that the things referred to were not to be revealed to the church.
Well I understand only what it says there.

485: It uses the word “world”, does that include the church?
No sir, but says there in connection with that,-what is the beginning of that?

486: It says “and now I say unto you keep these things from going abroad unto the world until it is expedient in me, that ye may accomplish this work in the eyes of my people”?
What is it treating upon?

487: It is revelation given March 7th 1831 and the first lines are, “Hearken, O ye, my people of my church, for verily I say unto you that these things were spoken unto you for your profit and learning”,-No that is the wrong revelation,-the date is all right, but the revelation referred to whom kingdom has been given: hearken ye, and give ear unto him who laid the foundation of the earth; who made the all to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit, and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink, nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men; wherefore, I command you to repent, lest I humble you by my almighty power, and that you confess your sins leat you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my spirit. And I command you that you teach naught but repentance; and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me for they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore they must not know these things lest they perish; learn of me and listen to my words; walk in the meekness of my sprit and you shall have peace in me; I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of my Father, and I do his will”.
 

480: How does that part of the paragraph refer to these things, – the words “show these things”, – does that refer to the annointings and washings and baptisims referred to in paragraph thirty nine which you have read here?
Well I don’t know that I can say it refers to that?

481: Well there is nothing said in the section your friend read to you and which you have just read about washings and annointings or baptisms is there?
What is that?

482: In the paragraph which you have read, and this gentlemen read to you also, there is nothing said about washings and annointings or baptisms is there?
No sir.

483: You did not read anything about that did you?
No sir, there is nothing said about that.

484: Now I wan to read paragraph fifteen of section fifteen in Exhibit E, on page one hundred and thirty two, being in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, that you attention was called to here-to-fore? You were asked to read this by Mr Hall, and I will read it to you again so as to refresh your memory in regard to its contents, – “And now I say unto you, keep these things from going abroad into the world until it is expedient in me, that ye may accomplish this work in the eyes of the people, an din the eyes of your enemies, that they may not know your works until you have accomplished the thing which I have commanded you; that when they shall know it they may consider these things, for when the Lord shall appear he shall be terrible unto them, that fear may seize upon them, and they shall stand afar off and tremble; and all nations shall be afraid because of the terror of the Lord and the power of his might, even so, Amen”. Now do you understand from that section fifteen, paragraph fifteen that the things referred to were not to be revealed to the church.
Well I understand only what it says there.

485: It uses the word “world”, does it include the church?
No sir, but it says there in connection with that, – what is the beginning of that?

486: It says “and now I say into you keep these things from going abroad unto the world until it is expedient in me, that you may accomplish this work in the eyes of my people”?
What is it treating upon?

487: It is a revelation given March 7th 1831 and the first lines are, “Hearken, O ye, my people of my church, for verily I say unto you that these things were spoken unto you for your profit and learning”, – No that is the wrong revelation, – the date is all right, but the revelation referred to begins in this manner, – Hearken, O ye people of my church to whom kingdom as been given; hearken ye, and give ear unto him who laid the foundation of the earth; who made the heavens and all the hosts thereof”?
Well sir of course you will see from these revelations that the Lord gave commandments and principals, and such things that were not revealed to the world until such timrs. That is a principle that has been manifest in the dealings of God with men to a greater or lesser degree in all ages. There were or are certain revelations that were given to the church, and to the whole world, – every body that chose to receive them, and certain other revelations that were given to the church only, and certain revelations were given to the church that the church was to keep until a certain time when they should be made manifest to the world. That was the way it was in the days of the prophet, and was in the time of Christ.

488: Then this injunction that the things spoken of in this revelation should not be published to the world is the fact, but thee is or was no injunction that they should not be published to the church?
Well now in regard to that I will say that there was things given to Joseph Smith or through Joseph Smith, that were revealed to him, that he kept to himself, and there was other things given to Joseph Smith in the way of revelation that he did reveal to certain individuals in the church, and which he did not reveal to the bulk or body of the church.

489: But he did not reveal anything to the church that he was prohibited from revealing to the church?
No sir, unless God required it not to be revealed, – in other words he only revealed that to the church which God directed him to reveal to the church.

490: Now I want to refresh your recollection by reading a part of paragraph six of section one hundred on page two hundred and fifteen of the 1836 edition of the book of doctrine and Covenants. I will read the whole paragraph so that you can see the connection. “And for this cause that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel his everlasting covenant, reasoning in simplicity, to prepare the weak for those things which are coming on the earth; and for the Lord’s errand in the day when the weak shall confound the wise, and the little one become a strong nation, and two shall put the or tens of thousands of flight; and by the weak things of the earth the Lord should thresh the nations by the power of his Spirit. And for this cause these commandments were given; they were commanded to be kept from the world in the day they were given, but now are commanded to go forth unto all flesh. And this according to the mind and will of the Lord, who ruleth over all flesh; and unto him that repenteth and sanctifieth himself before the Lord, shall be given eternal life”. Now that don’t refer to keeping them from the church does it?
No it don’t appear that way.

491: Sr does not command that they shall be kept from the church?
No sir.

492: Now your attention was called to the epistle of Matthew, seventeenth chapter and ninth and thirteenth verses, – the ninth verse of the thirteenth chapter and the tenth verse also, where it says that Jesus did not teach certain thing to the world, but refers to them as being taught to the persons within the kingdom but not to those out of the kingdom. Did you understand the world referred to there, included the church too?
No sir, and if it was not in that language I would not think it did.

493: Do you in the second letter to the Corinthians, fourth verse of the twelfth chapter, – do you recollect that quotation that was read to you?
No sir.

494: It was in the letter to the second Corinthians, the second letter to the Corinthians what is referred to.
 

495: You don’t recollect that, – is that what you desire to be understood as saying?
Yes sir, I have read the bible and a good many other books also, but I can’t remember everything that is in them.

496: Now I will read the fourth verse of the twelth chapter od second Corinthians, – “how that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter”. Do you understand that as teaching there shall be a law of the church that the church as a church shall not know?
I do not know myself that that has any reference to the church. I am sure I do not know.

497: Well don’t you know it does not have any reference to the church?
I suppose.

498: If you were expounding that fourth verse how would you do it?
Well let me read it and I will tell you something about that possibly. I would like to know what you are talking about.

499: Well I will read it, – “How that he was caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter”. I will read from the beginning of the chapter, – “It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I cannot tell, or whether out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven and I knew such a man (whether in the body or out of the body I cannot tell; God knoweth) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter”. Now do you understand that as referring to the church?
I do not know that it has any reference to the church. I do not know that it has anything to do with the church in particular. That was with reference to a circumstance that occured in the days of Christ or the days of the apostles.

500: Does that refer to any law of the church that the church should not know?
I do not understand that it does particularly. Of course there was things manifestly that the church was not to know, – that they were not to reveal to the church, or were not to be revealed to the church, – but not to be revealed to the world. Now you know just about s much about it as I do, for these things are recorded in the days of the history of Christ, and what they mean is largely a matter of construction, for it is over these things amongst others that the Christian world has been at war, so to speak, for in numbers of years, – over the construction to be placed upon these matters. Of course as I said they are recorded in the histories of the days of Christ, and the days of the apostles, and I don’t know that it has any particular reference to us as a church.

501: Now what office did you hold in the church in the days of Joseph Smith, – say during the year 1842?
I was an apostle.

502: You were in Nauvoo during the year 1842, or nearly all the time during the year?
Yes sir. Well now I will say in answer to that question that I cannot tell where I was without referring to my journals.

503: Well, you were there a part of the time at least, were you not?
I think so.

504: Now I will ask you what the law of the church, and the rules of the church on marriage were, in 1842?
Well the rules of the church were the same as they had been so far as I know, – That is with reference to the common marriage in the church in the common ordinary marriage of the church, or in the church, there was no change up to that time that I know anything about.

505: Were there any un-common ones then? You say there were or was no change in the “common marriage” law, was there any un-common ones at that time?
Well I say that because at that time Joseph Smith had revealed to me the patriarchal order of marriage, which had been revealed to him, and he practiced it afterwards. He practiced it at that time, and of course it was different from the other common form of marriage.

506: No you say that Joseph Smith revealed to you the patriarchal order of marriage at that time?
Yes sir, some time about then.

507: That was the same as the plural marriage system?
Yes sir.

508: When was it revealed?
Well sir it was revealed to him in a very early day.

509: How do you know that?
Because of his testimony.

510: When did he testify to it?
Well sir he testified to it a year before his death.

511: And that was in 1842 you say?
What?

512: The year before his death?
No no, it was quite a time before his death that he revealed it.

513: U to 1842 Mr Woodruf, – in the very last of the year 1842, was there any law or regulation or rule of the church that permitted any man to have more wives than one, or any other form of marriage authoritive in the church, excepting that provided for in the book of doctrine and covenants, or the 1835 edition?
Well Joseph Smith received a revelation from God at a very age of the church which never was revealed to the church during his life, – never revealed either openly or privately to the church as a body, but were revealed to individuals members of the church. Now that is according to his testimony, and of course that is all I know about it. There was nothing printed that was revealed in that way, and nothing published up to a certain time that that revelation was given, and the whole thing was kept a secret excepting so far as it was revealed to individuals of the church. There was nothing published up to a certain time that that revelation on the patriarchal order of marriage was given, and I don’t remember what the date of it was, but I know what law was revealed to Joseph Smith in so far as his testimony goes to that effect, and that was a long time before it was ever published to the church.

514: Now Mr Woodruf you have made a very long answer and still you have not answered my question. My question is, – was there up to the very last of the year 1842 any rule or law of the church that permitted any man to have more than one wife, or any other form of marriage authoritive in the church excepting that provided for in the bok of doctrine and covenants of the edition of 1835?
There was no law given to the church as a church, or as a body, but there was a rule or revelation given to the prophet Joseph Smith, which he practiced himself, if the testimony of those who are still living regarding it is true.

515: How do you know Mr Woodruf of your own knowledge that there was any law revealed to Joseph Smith, contrary to the law of marriage as set forth in the book of doctrine and covenants of the 1835 edition?
I do not know only as I said before from his testimony and that of others.

516: Have you a copy of his testimony?
No sir, I don’t know that I have here, or any where for that matter, but I heard Joseph Smith teach a great many things that never were written down.

517: Did the church in Nauvoo, or any considerable number of them, – any number of the church, considerable or other wise, – in 1841 or 1842, teach or practice polygamy in any form whatever?
Yes sir they did.

518: They did?
Yes sir.

519: To your knowledge?
Well now when you come to that, I can only say that I have heard him teach, for I have been present with him on these occasions, and heard him teach it.

520: Well did he tach it to you in 1842, – did you hear of it in 1842 or prior to that time?
Well I can’t say as to dates. I cannot state as to dates, with regard to these things, and in a great many of them I am at sea when you come to talk of dates, for I am a man who has written all these things down, – that is all the material points in my career I have written down. I have kept a journal or history of my life, and I have lived by my pen for a great many years, and have trusted to it to record these things, and when it comes to memory, I can’t swear postively to any of those things you know for that reason.

521: Well you were an apostle in 1842?
Yes sir.

522: Now if there had been any rule, or law, or precept, or teaching by the prophet Joseph Smith, you would have known of it, wouldn’t you?
I might have known it, and I might not know it. I undoubtedly at that time knew of it, but I couldn’t say from memory as to it.

523: You would have been teaching it to the church wouldn’t you?
No sir.

524: You would not?
No sir.

525: Well if Joseph Smith had been teaching it to the members of the church, you would have known it?
I know this much, – that he taught it to certain individuals, but he did not teach it openly to the church.

526: Do you say that he taught it to individuals in 1841 or 1842 either?
No sir. I cannot give you the dates.

527: Well not is it not a fact that you know he did not Mr. Woodruf?
No sir I do not know he did not because I cannot tell the dates these were, but he did teach it to individuals a good while before his death.

528: You cannot tell when it was, or the date when it was that Joseph Smith taught this doctrine of plural marriage to individuals, the patriarchaial order of marriage as you called it?
No sir, I cannot at this time recall the exact dates, but it was quite a while before his death that he taught it.

529: Did you ever hear of Dr John C. Bennett’s secret wife system?
Yes sir, I heard of that.

530: Was Joseph Smith teaching it at that time?
It was not a system that was accepted by the church.

531: What system was not accepted by the church?
Bennett’s system was not accepted by the church.

532: Well at that time was Joseph Smith teaching any system of plural marriage?
I could not say as to the date.

533: You recollect John C. Bennett’s system of secret marriage, or “secret wife system” as it was called?
Yes sir.

534: Well now can’t you recollect whether or not Joseph Smith at that time, – that is at the time that John C. Bennett’s was teaching his secret wife system, – whether or not at that time Joseph Smith was teaching any system of plural marriage?
I say he was not teaching it publicly. He never did teach it publicly in his life time.

536: Or was any other elder in the church preaching it privately to them, to you knowledge?
There was no one teaching it only under his direction. He taught the principle to certain individuals, but as to the date she did these things I haven’t it now to my mind.

537: You say he taught it to individiuals?
Yes sir, he taught it to individuals privately. He taught it to individuals and he had quite a number of women sealed or married to him, and they, or some of them are living in this city to-day, and they were others that have died.

538: Did you ever see any women sealed to him?
No sir.

539: You never saw any woman sealed to him you say?
No sir.

540: Then Mr Woodruf how do you know there were any women sealed to him?
From testimony to that effect.

541: Were you present?
No sir.

542: Then why do you testify when we are asking you for your own knowledhe, and not for what you heard, we are asking you about this matter for the purpose of eliciting what you know of your own knowledge, and not for hearsay testimony as to what others have told you, or what you have heard?
Well there is no doubt about that, for I have heard him time and again teach the principles of the patriarchial order of marriage.

543: Well now to refresh your recollection and to show that there was nothing of that king taught in 1842 I will read to you a certain article to which I find your hand attached?
Well I would like to hear it.

544: You identified this book (handing witness a book) the other day as the Times and Seasons?
Yes sir.

545: It was a paper with which you were connected as a publisher?
Yes sir, I published the Times and Seasons or assisted in it. I know what you refer to, and I would like to have the date of that letter.

546: It was in October 1842?
Please read the letter.

547: This is the letter which I read to Mrs Young, – Please look at that book Mr Woodruf and say whether or not that is a copy of the Times and Seasons published at Nauvoo at the time this purports to have been published?
Well of course you know that when I see the Times and Season I suppose it would be a copy. Yes sir I think that is it. We published it there at time of his death, and I suppose that is it, – yes sir I suppose that is the same book.

548: Well sir that is it, and it is one of the original books too just as it was issued, – it has never been to the binder even?
I think that is it without a doubt.

549: Well I meant to read this article or letter found on page nine hundred and ninety thirty nine?
Give us the date.

550: October 1st 1842. It is as follows, – “We, the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we no of no other rule, or system, of marriage, than the one published from the book of doctrine and covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J.C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place, nor never did”. That is signed by S. Bennett, George Miller, Alpheus Cutler, Reynolds Cahoon, Wilson Law, W. Woodruf, N.K. Whitney, Alfred Petty, Elias Higbee, Jojn Taylor, E. Robinson and Aaron Johnson.” What do you say to that?
Well sir that is correct for we never did acknowledge it up to that time

551: You never did acknowledge it up to that time?
No sir, nor at any other time up to the death of the prophet. It was called spiritual wife business, and it was got up by Bennett, and it was nothing that was acknowledged by Joseph Smith at all, or by the church. That was an invention of Bennett’s that was not acknowledged or countenenced either by the church or Joseph Smith.

552: You signed that manifesto?
The one you have just read?

553: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

554: Now you say that this spiritual wife business was something that was concocted and gotten up by John C. Bennett, and that it was no acknowledged either by Joseph Smith or the church?
Yes sir.

555: Was there any other rule acknowledged by the church?
Nothing that was made public, and I don’t know that at that time I was fully made acquainted with it.

556: If there had been any other rule in the church relative to the matter of marriage, other than that set forth in the bank of doctrine and covenants of the 1835 edition, you were not familiar or acquainted with it, or you would not have signed that letter?
No of course I did not know of any at that time, and if I had I do not know of it now.

557: Now here is another certificate that I want to call your attention to, following the one I have just read on the same page, and in the same column. It is as follows, – “We the undersigned members of the ladies relief society and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practiced in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, save the one contained in the book of doctrine and covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J.C. Bennet’s secret wife system, “is a disclosure of his own make”. That is signed by the following persons, – Emma Smith, President . Elizabeth Whitney, Counselor. Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor. Eliza R. Snow, Secretary. Mary C. Miller, Louis Cutler, Thirza Cahoon, Ann Hunter, Jane Law, Sopia R. Marks, Polly Z. Johnson, Abigal Works, Catherine Petty, Sarah Highbee, Phebe Woodruf, Lenora Taylor, Sara Hillman, Rosanna Marks, and Angeline Robinson”.
 

558: And the name of Emma Smith also?
Yes sir.

559: Who was the wife of Joseph Smith the president of the church?
Yes sir.

560: And she was also the President of the society?
Yes sir.

561: And Elizabeth Ann Whitney, who was the wife of N.K. Whitney was she not?
Yes sir, I think so.

562: And Sara M. Cleveland, a counsellor to the president of the Society?
Yes sir, so it states there.

563: And Eliza R. Snow the Secretary of the Society, – you know her do you not?
Yes sir.

564: You knew all these ladies whose names I have read here, did you not?
I believe so.

565: Now could any such an order of marriage have existed in the church at that time without the knowledge of the men who signed the certificate to which I called your attention a little while ago, or of the ladies who signed the certificate I have last read, and whose names I also read to you?
What is that?

566: I say could any order or rule or practice of marriage have existed in the church different from the rule or order prescribed in the book of doctrine and covenants at that time different in any respect from the rules laid down in the book of doctrine and covenants at that time in force or use, which was the edition of 1835 I believe, without the knowledge of the men and women who signed these certificates?
Not publicly these could not have been.

567: Could there have been privately?
There might have been privately.

568: To their knowledge?
NO sir, not to their knowledge.

569: Then you say that up to the first day of October 1842, there was no such a system taugh or practiced openly, or secretly to your knowledge?
No sir. Not to my knowledge up to that time. 570 (Written as 670)

569: Then when you say in your direct examination that Joseph Smith taught and practiced it in 1842, ?
Did I say 1841 (???). If I said that I did not intend to say it.

571: If you said that you meant a date subsequent to this time to the time of these certificates?
Well as to dates I say it goes at a date subsequent to his death, – that is at a date subsequent to the death of Joseph Smith, but as to the exact dates as I have stated before I cannot say.

572: Did you not say you heard him teach it?
Well I did hear him teach. He certainly taught it before his death.

573: There did you hear him teach it?
I heard him teach it, – he taught it to the quorom of twelve apostles, and he taught it to other individuals as they bear testimony. I know he taught it to us but of course, –

574: Now what time did he teach it to the twelve apostles, – what is the first date that you can fix Mr Woodruf, if you can fix any date, – that he taught it to them?
Well he taught it to members of the twelve personally according to their testimony.

575: Well I am not asking you for their testimony Mr Woodruf, – I am asking you for your own personal knowledge?
Well it was in 1844 that he taught me and others. I know he taught me and of course as to the rest I have the testimony of others for that, but that of course I do not know of my own knowledge, but they were reliable truthful men and and what they told me was the fact beyond doubt.

576: What have you by which you can fix the date as being in 1844?
Well in his address to the quorom of twelve apostles, when he visited us, he would teach that.

577: How often would that occur?
Oh frequently for we were with him, – I don’t know how many months, – but probably as much as six months, – of course I cannot tell the dates without referring to certain records, but it was nearly six months, and he spoke of it frequently. I could tell the dates by reference to certain records I have, but from memory I cannot.

578: Were these addresses he delivered to the quorom published?
No sir, they were not published.

579: Were all the quorom present?
Yes sir, I think they were all present. Well I say they were all present. But I don’t know that they were all there, but they were nearly all there.

580: Was Joseph Smith at that time teaching the quorom on the order of patriarchial marriage?
Well he taught it to us as a principle amongst other things.

581: Did he teach, or do you refer to the Abramhamic restoration?
What is that?

582: Do you understand or did you understand that Joseph was teaching you the “Abrahamic Restoration”?
He was teaching us the same principle that Brigham practiced or taught afterwards. Is that what you want to know?

583: Yes sir?
Yes sir, it was the same.

584: What was that?
It was what was termed the Abramhamic principle of marriage, or the patriarchial system of marriage.

585: Did Abraham practice the plural order of marriage?
Well I was not with him, and I do not know.

586: Well from the teachings of the bible what do you say as to that?
I consider it so.

587: Did he have more wives than one?
I think he did.

588: You think he did?
Yes sir.

589: Can you name them?
Well I think that it is represented there that Hagar was his wife, and that Sarah was also his wife, – Sarah was his wife first and then he took Hagar.

590: Are you willing to swear that it is represented in the bible that Hagar was Abraham’s wife?
I think that is the way it is represented.

591: Are you willing to swear that in any place in the bibble it is represented that Hagar was the wife of Abraham, – whether it is so stated in the bible in any place?
Well my view of it is that she was his wife, – that she belonged to him as his wife, and we know that he had posterity by her. He had a some by her, and you can call it what you please.

592: Well my question is what does the bible call it Mr Woodruf?
I don’t recollect.

593: Don’t it call her the bond woman?
It might, and probably does call her that.

594: is that what you mean by a wife?
Well I consider that if a man has a woman married to him, that she is his wife, and you can call it a bond woman or what you please, – but I consider that if she lives with him in the relation of a wife, and he has posterity by her that she is his wife, it matters not what her previous condition of servitude or other condition may have been. Now that would be my view of it.

595: Do you think he was married to Hagar rightly?
Well rightly or not I could not say. It is not for me to pass on that, anything I might say would merely be my opinion, but I will say that that Abraham was a good man, and he would hardly take her without he had a right to her, or liberty from the Lord to take her.

596: Well now is it not a fact that all the right he had to her, and all the marriage ceremony there was, was simply and solely the giving of Gagar to Abraham by his wife Sarah?
What was the patriarchial order of marriage and I do not know what the ceremony was, for there is not much published about it.

597: Does the bible not teach that Sarah called it wrong after the, – after she done it, – does not the bible teach that she repented and thought she had done wrong?
Well it seems that Sarah had her convictions about it, and was, or had some trouble apparently in regard to the matter. That is what I gather from my reading in regard to that transaction.

598: Well let me refresh your recollection by reading the firth verse of the sixteenth chapter of Genesis, – “And Sarah said unto Abraham, my wrong be upon thee; I have given my maid unto they bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes; the Lord judge between me and thee”. You recognize that as coming from the bible?
Yes sir, from the reading of it I should say it was. I think I have read that myself.

599: Now I will read to you the twelth verse of the twenty first chapter of Genesis, – “And God said unto Abraham, let it not be grievous in they sight because of the lad, and because of they bond woman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice for in Isaac shall they seed be called”. Do you recognize that?
Yes sir.

600: Do you know what Sarah had said unto Abraham before that?
I would only know from the reading of the bible.

601: Well do you know from the reading of the bible what she said unto him?
No sir, I say I could tell what she said by reading the bible, but at this time, and without reading it to refresh my recollection I would not know, and could not say what it was she said to him.

602: Well don’t you know that Sarah had told Abraham to cast out the bond woman?
Yes sir, I think she did.

603: That was Sarah’s advice to Abraham?
Yes sir.

604: And the Lord approves it?
Perhaps so.

605: Then does this teach plurality of wives in Abraham’s day?
Well the principle descended from that time, and after Abraham’s day they took more wives than one and it descended to us from that.

606: Did Isaac have more wives than one?, and if so give me the names of them?
Well Jacob did.

607: Do you say that Jacob was Abram’s son?
No sir, not his son but the principle descended from Abraham, – that is the first we see of it, and it descended from Abram in that way.

608: Did Isaac have more than one wife?
We do not know.

609: If Isaac had more than one wife be kind enough to state who they were?
I say that Jacob had more than one wife.

610: Well was Jacob Abram’s son, – the President of a church, and here saying that Jacob was Abram’s son?
I did not say so sir, – I said that Jacob was Isaac’s son. Jacob was Isaac’s son and he was Abram’s grand son.

611: Well that is different?
There was any difference at all between us on that question Mr Kelley.

612: Well now you say, – Is it not a fact that according to the bible Hagar was only a bond woman?
Well of course you have to take what the bible says on that point, and that is what it says on that subject.

613: Can you now give me that, – the name of any other wife that Abram had beside Sarai?
Well of course Hagar is the only one besides Sarai that he represented, –

614: Well now she is represented not as a wife, but as a bond woman isn’t she?
Well of course he, – she is represented as a bond woman, but then he took her as a wife, and raise posterity by her, – he raised a child by her.

615: is not Keturah called his wife?
I don’t know that she is.

616: Well now is it not a fact, and true, when your attention is called to it, that Keturah was also Abram’s wife?
I think so.

617: Well is it not a fact according to the bible, that Keturah was Abram’s wife?
Yes sir, I believe it is.

618: And he married her three years after the death of Sarai? Did not he do that according to the account that is given of it in the bible?
Yes sir.

619: Well what conclusion would you draw from that Mr Woodruf?
I would draw the conclusion that it is as it is stated there in the bible of course.

620: Well does it not show Mr Woodruf that Abram was not a polygamist, – but on the contrary was a monogamist?
Well I can’t say that it does for it depends on other things to a very great extent.

621: Depends on what?
It depends on the judgement of men or people with regard to it.

622: Well from a bible stand point would not be true?
Well that would probably be your judgement, but I have always looked upon Hagar in the sense of a wife, and I do that because he took her and live with her in the sense of a wife.

623: Then when Joseph Smith was teaching about the Abramhamic covenant, he could not have been teaching plurality of wives?
I don’t know whether he was teaching that alone or not. That was simply an illustration, for the principle of plural marriage was revealed to him.

624: Well now when he was teaching the twelve apostles as you say he did about the Abrahaic covenant, could be have been teaching the doctrine of a plurality of wives, when the record of that covenant shows that the Lord was displeased with that kind of business?
Abram has been referred to always, – that is for a long time of course, as being, –

625: It is a false basis however, it is not, taking the bible theory to say he was a polygamist?
Who?

626: Abram?
Yes sir he has been accounted such.

627: Well that is a false theory taking the bible itself for it, is it not?
Well I don’t look at it so.

628: You would not call a bond woman a wife would you?
Yes sir, under some circumstances I would.

629: What would be the circumstances under which you would call a bond woman a wife?
Well that would depend on whether she was received as a wife or not.

630: The second wives of such men as had plural wives who belonged to your church here in Utah, – at the present time, – or at any time in the past, who have belonged to your church here in Utah, – were not called bond woman were they?
No sir.

631: You did not look upon them as bond women?
No sir.

632: You looked upon them as wives?
Yes sir.

633: You believe in the book of Mormon don’t you Mr Woodruf?
Certainly.

634: And your church also lelieves in the book of Mormon, – the church here in Utah of which at the present time you are the President?
Yes sir.

636: Well let me read to you from the Book of Mormon, = Exhibit B, on page one hundred and thirty two, chapter two, – “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord”. Have I read that correctly?
Yes sir, the passage has been correctly quoted.

637: Well do you count that as a comdemnation or approval of polygamy
You have not read the whole of it?

638: Yes sir I connected with it that you have not read. There is something connected with it upon that subject that you have not read.
 

639: Well what I read was paragraph twenty four, and now I will read paragraph twenty five, which is as follows, – “Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph”. What do you say to that?
Well there is many matters connected with that that would have to be read and construed in connection with it.

640: Well that is the full sentence Mr Woodruf that I have read to you?
Please let me look at that (taking exhibit B).

641: I read to you the full sentence, – paragraphs twenty four and twenty five?
I think it all aught to be read in connection, –

642: Have you read it?
Yes sir, many a time.

643: Well now from the reading do you say that the Lord approved or condemned the practice of polygamy in David and Solomon.
Well he condemned these men for the course they pursued in that matter. He seems to have condemned them there, or to have condemned the course they pursued in that matter.

644: Now the twenty sixth verse is this, – “Wherefore I the Lord God will not suffere that this people shall do like unto them of old”.
Yes sir.

645: What does the world “old” refer to there? Does it refer to David and Solomon?
It seems to refer to them.

646: It goes on in the twenty seventh verse and says, – Wherefore my brethern hear me, and kearken to the world of the Lord; for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and concubines he shall have none”?
Yes sir.

647: I have read that correctly?
Yes sir, that is correct.

648: That is the law as it was laid down in the days of Davivd and Solomon?
Well it seems to apply to them.

649: Well don’t it apply to them?
Yes sir. It seemed to be the law of God to them, but read on, – read the next sentence.

650: Well the sentence which I have just read is that they should have but one wife, and no concubines?
Yes sir.

651: Well the next verse which is verse twenty eight on the same page and in the same chapter is, – “For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me. Thus saith the Lord God of Hosts”. I will read on the balance of the chapter, – “Wherefore the people shall keep my commandments saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For I will saith the Lord of Hosts raise up see unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken ynto these things. For behold I, the Lord have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem; yea and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, – which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people, because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms like them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts. And now behold my brethern, ye know that these commandments were given to our Father Lehi; wherefore ye have known them before, and ye have come under great condemnation; for ye have done these things have come under great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye aught not to have done. Behold ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethern. You have broken the hears of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children because of your bad example before them, and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds”. Now I have read the whole of it, and I do not think there is much consolation in it for you. Now I will ask you if more than one wife, and having concubines would be a whoredom, or whoredoms under this chapter?
Well I don’t know about that what I would say would be my opinion merely, but as far as it goes I will say that it would be in my opinion from the way it is versed there.

652: Well now we’ll go through the next paragraph or verse, – “Wherefore this people shall keep my commandments saith the Lord of Hosts or cursed be the land for their sakes”. Now the thirtieth paragraph is, – “For if I will saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things”. Now what is meant by that?
It means that the patriarchial order of marriage was practiced among them, but if the Lord said he would raise up see unto his people he would command them to that effect.

653: Well now did the Lord at this time want to raise a righteous seed?
Probably.

654: And he commanded them to do it by one wife, did he not?
Yes sir I understand it so.

655: And is that not what the book says and means, when it says that he will command them if he wants them to raise up seed.
Yes sir.

656: That he will command them to raise it up by one wife?
Yes sir. That is my understanding of what it says there, but you must remember that Joseph Smith claimed that he was commanded by the Lord, –

657: Well that is not answering my question. I did not ask you anything about what Joseph Smith claimed, and I move to strike the answer from the record on the ground that it is not responsive to the question asked the witness.
Well that is what he claimed, – that he had a revelation from God commanding these things.

658: Well now if I understand you correctly you said that the Times & Seasons was the church paper of the church during the term of its existence?
The church paper?

659: Yes sir?
Yes sir for a large part of the time it was published by the church, but it was not regarded and was not a revelation to the church.

660: Now I don’t mean that, – I simply asked up if it was not published by the church?
Yes sir.

661: And you were connected with its publication for some time?
Yes sir. I was connected with the business part of it, – I looked after its temporal affairs you might say. John Taylor was its editor.

662: He was one of the twelve apostles?
Yes sir.

663: John Taylor was?
Yes sir.

664: In 1844?
Yes sir.

665: I want to read to you now from the article in the Times & Seasons of the fifteenth day of November 1844, on page seven hundred and fifteen, and I will read the whole paragraph to you Mr. Woodruf
 

666: That is a copy of the Times & Season Mr. Woodruf?
It says so.

667: Well is it?
Of course I suppose it is.

668: Well do you know whether it is or not?
It looks to me to be a copy of it. It looks like it. It seems to me to be a copy I have no doubt in the world but what it is a copy of the Times & Seasons.

669: I will read it to you, The saints of the last days have witnessed the outgoings and incomings of so many apostates that nothing but truth has any effect upon them. In the present instance after the sham quotations of Sidney and his clique, from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, to skulk off under the “dreadful splendor” of “spiritual wifery” which is brought under the account as graciously as if the law of the land allowed a man a plurality of wives, is fiendish, and like the rest of Sidney’s revelations just because he wanted “to go to Pittsburg and live”. Woe to the man or men who will thus willfully lie to injure an innocent people. The law of the land, and the rules of the church, do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once, but if any man’s wife die, he has the right to marry another, and to be sealed to both for eternity; to the living and the dead. There is no law of God or man against it. This is all the spiritual wife system that ever was tolerated in the church, and they know it”. Now that is dated November fifteenth 1844?
Yes sir.

670: Do you recognize that?
How is that signed up?

671: What is that?
Who signed that, is that communication signed and if so by whom?

672: Well do you recognize that?
I don’t remember anything about it, but if I knew who it was signed by I could possibly. I might remember something about it.

673: That is signed an “Old man of Israel”.
There is no name given.

674: That is the only name that is given, “An old Man of Israel”. That is the only signature?
I don’t remember anything about it at all.

675: Do you remember that name, “An Old Man of Israel”?
No sir.

676: You don’t?
No sir I don’t remember anything about it at all. There is nothing strange about that though, for there was a great deal published in that publication at that time that I was connected with that I did not know anything about. I can’t at this time, fifty years after remember everything that as published in that publication.

677: I will ask you if you recollect this editorial comment by John Taylor, who was at that time one of the twelve apostles with yourself, under the head of “Union and Peace at Nauvoo”, well I will not read the whole of it, for that follows has no reference to the communication of “An Old Man of Israel”, but it is further down, where it is said editorially, “For the communication of an ‘An Old Man of Israel’, and the letter of elder Addison Pratt from the islands of the Pacific ocean, we bespeak a hearty welcome. They are genuine”. Now do you recall that?
No sir, but I would like to look at that a moment.

678: You read the Times and Seasons at that time did you not?
(Witness takes the book referred to) Yes sir. (after examination of the book referred to as the Times and Seasons in his hand, and answers) I was looking to see if there was any signatures to that.

679: Well is there any signature to it?
There is no signature to either of them that I recognize.

680: Well now I will repeat my question again, and ask you if you did not read the Times and Seasons at that time?
I do not know sir”. I do not know sir whether I did or not.

681: You were not connected with it at that time?
No sir that was after I left it.

682: Well you were a subscriber to it?
Yes sir.

683: And have a copy of it for that year?
Yes sir, I should have but I don’t know that I have postively.

684: Now this was the church paper at that time, – that is the Times and Seasons was the church paper at that time, – in that year, – 1844?
It was published by the church.

685: And published by an apostle in the church too, wasn’t it?
Yes sir, so long as John Taylor was editor of it it was.

686: Well one of the apostles in the church held the editorship of that publication from long before the time of the death of Joseph Smith up to the time that its publication was discontinued, didn’t he?
Well I don’t know, but I suppose it is likely that such was the case. The paper shows for itself, and I cannot answer as to that sir. I know that I left the work of the paper some time before it was discontinued. I think I left the paper some time before the death of Joseph Smith.

687: You think that you left the paper before the death of Joseph Smith, – that is the Times & Seasons?
Yes sir, I think I did. I am quite postive I did, however the paper will show for itself when the time was that I left it.

688: I will ask you Mr Woodruf if the doctrine about which you have been testifying, prior to this time, was not simply and solely the doctrine of sealing?
The doctrine of sealing?

689: Yes sir, and was that not the doctrine that was taught to you by Joseph Smith, and that doctrine alone?
Well you might call it sealing because all persons are or were sealed. When I took a plurality of wives they were sealed to me, so you can call it what you please.

690: Will you answer my question Mr. Woodruf?
I have tried to do so.

691: No sir, you appear to be attempting to evade the answer, – I will ask you again if it is not a fact that what Joseph Smith taught was sealing, and not a plurality of wives?
No sir.

692: Didn’t he teach it as sealing?
No sir, – at least he did not in my hearing.

693: Did not he teach this and this only, – that if a man married and his wife died, he was entitled to take another wife, and that he could be sealed to each wife, – to the first wife for time and eternity, and the second wife for time, – is that not it, – it that not what he taught? Is that not the teaching of Joseph Smith up yo the time of his death and that only?
No sir. He taught the plurality of wives.

694: Didn’t he teach this that a man could be sealed simply to his own wife?
Yes sir.

695: Do you say it is?
Yes sir. That he could be sealed simply to his own wife?

696: Yes sir?
I don’t think it is sir. That is the doctrine that is there. That revelation of course is on the plurality of wives. to his own wife, – his first wife, – but that did not prevent other wives from being sealed to him. There is nothing in that revelation on plural marriage that deprives a man from the right of having his wife sealed to him.

697: Were you taught in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith that in order for a man to be exalted in the hereafter, that he must have more wives than one?
What is that?

698: I asked you if Joseph Smith had ever taught you at Nauvoo or any where else during his life time, that in order for a man to be exalted in the hereafter he must have more than one wife.
I don’t know that I ever heard him make use of that expression, or use that form of expression.

699: Were you taught in Nauvoo or at where else by Joseph Smith at any time, that a woman could not be exalted in the hereafter unless she was married?
Unless she was married?

700: Yes sir.
No sir, I don’t know that I heard him teach that doctrine particularly. There is the revelation and it speaks for itself if you wish to know what he taught. That is the revelation he taught and you can see it, – it speaks for itself.

701: What is that revelation?
I can’t repeat that revelation but it is in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and it speaks for itself so it is not necessary for me to state its contents, even if I could do so.

702: Does that revelation contain the teachings of Joseph Smith, or does it teach the same things in reference to the doctrine of plural marriage that Joseph Smith taught. Is that what you mean to be understood as saying Mr. Woodruf?
Yes sir that is the revelation, and the principles of that revelation were taught to me.

703: By whom in the first instance?
By Joseph Smith.

704: Where is the original of that revelation if you know?
I can’t say. No sir. I do not know where it is.

705: Did you ever see it?
No sir I don’t know that I ever did.

706: You don’t know that you ever saw the original of that revelation?
No sir, but I do not believe that I ever did see it.

707: Did you ever see a copy of it during the life of Joseph Smith?
The original?

708: Yes sir?
I could not say whether I did or not.

709: Well I will repeat the question, – Did you ever see a copy of it during his life time?
I say I cannot say whether I ever did or not, – that is the original. There was a copy of the original made, and I don’t know that I ever saw that during his life time. The original I never saw.

710: Well now Mr. Woodruf don’t you know you never read that revelation during his life time at all?
Well the principle of it I did.

711: Don’t you know right well that you never read it in any shape or form during the life time of Joseph Smith?
I say I don’t know, for I have read a great many things in my time that I cannot say from memory whether I ever read them or not. I can’t remember everything I have read in the past.

712: Well now as important a thing as that revelation on polygamy, you would certainly remember whether or not you had ever read that during the life time of Joseph?
I don’t know that I would.

713: You would certainly remember something about the time you had read it, and the first of your having read it?
I cannot remember if I did.

714: Did you ever see a manuscript copy of it during his life time?
During the life time of Joseph the Prophet?

715: Yes sir?
I don’t know.

716: Have you ever seen one since?
I do not know that sir.

717: Did you ever see the one that came here to Utah, and purported to be a copy of the original?
I don’t think I did. I could not say, for I may have seen it, however I do not recollect.

718: Has the church of which you are the President, got that in its possession, – that copy which purported or claimed to be a copy of the original?
I do not know. I cannot say for I am not the custodian of the documents or papers of the church. They are in the hands of another party.

719: They are not in your possession or under your control?
No sir another party has control and custody of them.

720: Well who holds, or has control of these documents?
They are in the possession of various parties, the historian of the church ahs them more or less, – he has the control and possession of all that pertains to the keeping of the records of the church.

721: Who is the local custodian of the original manuscripts or copies of revelations in your church? The historian or some body else?
Well I presume they are in various places. The historian I suppose has a portion of them, – that is the historian had access to the records. He has the records that pertain to these things or has access to it, and from that the church history has been written more or less.

722: Does the presiding Bishop hold any of them?
I don’t think he does.

723: Does he have any of them?
He has certain papers or records of course that belong to his office.

724: Does the church secretary hold them?
I think not.

725: Does the librarian hold them?
The what?

726: The librarian, – the Church Librarian?
He may have some of them, but I don’t know.

727: That is all you know about that?
Yes sir.

728: Do you know Mr Woodruf who holds the original revelations that have been promulgated to the church here in Utah?
There has been many revelations given to the church here, –

729: Well if there has been but one, do you know who holds the original manuscript of that, – or do you hold it?
Well it has been published, –

730: I am not asking you about that, – I am asking you if you hold the original of that revelation?
I don’t know whether I have it in my possession now or not, but I have had it, – that is certain.

731: Do you hold the original of the revelations that were promulgated through Brigham Young?
No sir.

732: Or through John Taylor?
No sir.

733: Or through any President of the church since the death of Joseph Smith?
No sir. Well Brigham Young and John Taylor were the main Presidents of the church, – you might say, the only one’s since the death of Joseph, and they had had their own records, and their own documents. I published their revelations, – that is what I have received, they have all been given to the world.

734: But you don’t know anything about the original manuscript of the revelations received by Brigham Young or John Taylor?
No sir.

735: Were you present here in Salt Lake City in August 1852 at the Conference?
In 1852?

736: Yes sir?
At what time, – what was there special at that time

737: It was at the time that this revelation on polygamy was presented to the church by Brigham Young? That is the time it was presented to the church at that conference in 1852 in August, for adoption?
Well sir I could not say whether I was or bit, but I think it is altogether probable that I was.

738: Do you recollect the fact of that revelation being presented to a conference here in Salt Lake City by Brigham Young, being presented to the church for its adoption by the people?
I do not recollect.

739: Do you recollect that at the time of that presentation there was a statement made by Brigham Young, that it was a copy of a revelation given by Joseph Smith, that Emma Smith had burned the original, and that he had a copy, and he was the only man on earth that knew anything about it from the time it was given, to the time he was presenting it to the conference, or words to that effect?
How is that?

740: I asked you the question if you recollect that at the time that Brigham Young presented that alleged revelation to the conference, that he made a statement that it was a copy of the original and that the original had been burned by Emma Smith, and that he was the only man who had a copy of it, and there was no on earth knew anything about the copy he had but himself, or words to that effect?
I do not remember. I don’t remember from memory.

741: You were here in 1852?
Yes sir, I was here in 1852.

742: And you traveled south with Present Young in 1852?
Yes sir, and I probably was at that conference.

743: You were at that conference?
I think I was, but these are things that I cannot remember very well.

744: Do you remember Brigham Young making that statement that he had kept that revelation under lock and key, a strong lock and key, and nobody knew anything about it except himself? Or that no one knew it was in existence but himself?
No sir, I do not recollect hearing him make that remark.

745: You don’t recollect anything about that at all?
No sir, if he said that in my hearing I have forgotten it.

746: Well, did he present a copy of it to the church?
I do not recollect.

747: Do you recollect a sermon preached by Orson Pratt on the forenoon of that day, on which it was presented, in which he stated that a revelation would be presented that afternoon, and that a certain revelation would be presented that day in the afternoon and speaking of it as a revelation which taught new ground that had never been taught or spoken of before. Don’t you recollect that?
I have no recollection and do not remember his sermon. I have no recollection at all about his sermon or anything that he said at all.

748: Don’t you remember in that sermon that he said he was to break up new ground on which he had never spoken before?
No sir, I don’t remember anything about it.

749: What do you say to that Mr Woodruf?
I say that I can’t remember anything about it. Those are things that happened away nearly forty years ago, and I can’t remember things that were done on certain specific days, for I cannot remember what was said or done by this or that party.

750: Well sir I will not confine you to a certain day? I will confine you to that conference that was held in August 1852?
I am speaking of that conference.

751: I refer now to certain matters that were said and done at that conference?
Of course if I had these dates before me, and the transactions that occured there, if I was present at the time of course it might refresh my memory on that point. If I had known that these things would be required of me of course I could have refreshed my memory on them, for I could have looked up and screarched through my journals and seen what was going on at these times, but to attempt to off hand answer concerning these matters from my memory solely I cannot undertake to do so.

752: You have read the sermon of Brigham Young as published in the Journal of Discourses have you not?
I have read some of them.

753: have you got them?
They are in our libraries I suppose.

754: They are considered correct as published are they not?
I think so.

755: They are published by your church, and are correct?
Yes sir they are published by our church, and they are correct I suppose in so far as he had a chance to correct them. Every man has to correct his own discourses, or should do so if he has a chance.

756: Who was your official reporter?
Well sir we have had a good many of them? Watts was a reporter here for a while. I don’t know the number of them we had, but we had quite a number of them. Watts was here for quite a while. I don’t know what all their names were.

757: Well sermons that were reported by G.D. Watts were considered as reported correctly, were they not?
Well so far as the speakers had the opportunity of correcting them, they were.

758: That is they were taken down by the reporter at the time they were delivered, and copied by him, and them presented to the speaker for him to correct them?
I suppose so. That has been the order generally.

759: So that when they were found in the Journal of Discourses they are suppose to be correct are they not, – when they are found in the Journal of Discourses they are taken to be correct are they not?
I suppose so, as a general thing.

760: You know your own sermons were correct as they appeared in the Journal of Discourses?
I know some of them were published there, but I have not read them for a good while.

761: Well as published they are correct are they not Mr Woodruf?
Well I suppose they are. They are where we have a chance to correct them. Sometimes we don’t have that chance, but as a general thing we calculate to correct them our selves.

762: Then Mr Woodruf on the 15th day of November 1844, there was no marriage ceremony governed the church as a church, except the one published in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants? Is that not the fact Mr Woodruf?
Not that I know of.

763: That was the only law on the question of marriage that was in the church?
That was all the law on the question of marriage that was given to the body of the people. Of course as I have said before, and as others also have said, as I understand it, there were marriages that were performed by the prophet.

764: Now I will ask you Mr Woodruf, I will ask you why the church of which you are the President, —in the publication of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, —in the edition of 1876 for instance, —eliminated from that section, —from that book I should say, the section on marriage as found in the 1835 edition, and in all the editions of the book of doctrine and covenants published up to the 1878 edition, and inserted in lieu of that section on marriage the revelation on polygamy dated July 12th 1843?
I don’t know who published that, or how it was done. It was done by the authority of whoever presided over the church I suppose.

765: Who was the President of the church in 1876?
Brigham Young was the President then. I think it was President Young at that time, or was he dead.

766: In 1877 he died?
Yes sir, I think it was President Young

767: Now can you tell why the section on marriage that had always been, in the book of doctrine and covenants up to that time, or up to that date was eliminated from it, and the other inserted in lieu of it?
I cannot.

768: You can’t state why that was done?
No sir I do not think I can give any answer to that question. It was done as I have stated under the direction of President Young, or under his administration, and I cannot state why it was done.

769: Was it not done because one was in conflict with the other?
I don’t know that I can state why it was done, but I have heard representations that the doctrine as put into the book of doctrine and covenants, —formerly the old doctrine as put into it, —that is into the book of doctrine and covenants, —by Oliver Cowdery, and was represented as being contrary to the wishes of Joseph Smith, but I couldn’t swear that that was the fact.

770: When did you hear about that?
Well I can’t say, but it was a good many years ago.

771: Was it during the life time of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith?
No sir.

772: I mean did you hear that during the life time of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith?
No sir.

773: Don’t you know it was in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and Covenants, and that after it was published, it was during the life time of Joseph Smith presented to the church on several different occasions, and was adopted as a book to be the law and rule of the church with that in it?
No sir, I don’t know it for I was not present.

774: Were you present at the conference of 1837 in the temple at Kirtland?
No sir, —yes sir I was in 1837.

775: You were present in 1837?
Yes sir, but I wasn’t in 1835 I don’t think. I don’t know though as to 1835 and ’36

776: I mean at the time Joseph Smith placed the three books one upon the other, the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and presented them to the church to be voted upon?
That was not in ’37.

777: To be voted upon as containing the laws of the church? Now do you say that was not in ’37, —
That was in ’37, —No I don’t think that was in 1837

778: Well when was it?
It was in 1835 I think. I think it was in the winter of 1835. I think it was then, but of course I can tell by looking at the book I think.

779: That was the time you think it was done?
Yes sir, but I was not there. That is simply my understanding of it.

780: But the book if it had been published and bound, and presented in the temple at Kirtland in 1835 and afterwards, that was when the books, first I will ask you if you remember his placing the books in that way, and presenting them to the church for adoption?
What way.

781: Placing the books on top of each other in the manner I have indicated, and presenting them to the church for its acceptance?
I do not remember for the reason that I was not present. I was absent at that time.

782: I refer to the circumstance of his doing so at the temple in Kirtland?
No sir, for I say I was not present at that time, but I have heard it stated he did so.

783: Do you not remember his doing the same thing afterwards at Nauvoo, Illinois?
No sir I do not.

784: You do not?
No sir.

785: Did you not usually act as clerk at the meetings at Nauvoo when you were present, that is take notes of what occurred at these meetings?
Oh no sir.

786: You did not?
No sir I did not act as clerk. I was not the reporter at all at these meetings, so to speak, but I usually took notes briefly of the sermons and whoever spoke of the sermons of Joseph Smith, and whoever spoke. I took brief notes of these things as a usual thing, but I did not act as clerk or reporter.

768: You did not act as a clerk?
No sir.

787: Do you remember of a meeting in the Bowery not very long before the death of Joseph Smith, a meeting in the Bowery at Nauvoo, not very long before the death of Joseph Smith?
I cannot say.

788: Do you remember anything about that?
Before answering that question I would want to know the date of it. If I had the date possibly I might remember it if there was such a meeting, and you would tell me something of the circumstances that occurred there. The year and the date in the is what I want to know.

789: Well it was in the early part of 1844 or the last of 1843 probably it was in the early part of 1844, at the time when he brought his son to the stand with him?
No sir I never saw that day I never saw the time when he did that, and have no knowledge of it.

790: Do you testify that you never at any time saw him bring his son to the stand with him?
I never did.

791: You never did on any occasion?
I never did.

792: You have no recollection of that whatever?
No sir, I will say that there never was such a thing done when I was present, and I speak that was for the reason that if there had been such a thing occurred when I was present, I would have remembered it.

793: Do you say that you never saw his son come to the meetings with him?
No sir.

794: You never recollect seeing his son there with him at all?
No sir, I do not. I don’t remember of ever seeing young Joseph come there with him.

795: At no time?
No sir, I never saw him bring his son there with him in my life.

796: You knew is son, – the one you have designated as “young Joseph?”
Yes sir, I knew his son. I saw him many a time.

797: There at Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

798: You did?
Certainly.

799: Now sir you say you were baptized in 1832?
Yes sir, No sir it was in 1833.

800: Well then in 1833, – Now I will ask you if you were baptized a second time in Nauvoo?
No that I know of.

801: I mean were you baptized for yourself?
I do not recollect.

802: Were you baptized after you came here to Salt Lake City?
Yes sir, Oh yes sir, we were baptized after we came here as pioneers. Yes sir we were all baptized, – as pioneers after we came here. It was an ordinance that was repeated several times after we came here as pioneers into a new land, for we all felt as though it would be right and proper for us to go and be baptized, and so we were all baptized, – the presidenty of the church, the twelve apostles, the pioneer camps, – we were all baptized for the reason as I have stated, that we felt that it was proper and right that we should e baptized.

803: What covenant were you baptized into the first time you were baptized in 1833?
I was baptized for the remission of sins, but I was not baptized into any covenant whowever, in particular, – only I was baptized as all were who joined, the church for the remission of sins, as the ordinance is subscribed in the revelations.

804: You were baptized in the gospel covenant, were you not?
In 1833?

805: Yes sir?
We were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by a man having authority as we understood it from Jesus Christ to baptize.

806: Well was not that baptism under the gospel Covenant?
There was nothing said about the gospel or a covenant in any of the baptisms. There has been and is of course a proper baptism for the living, and one for the dead, and when I was first baptized I was baptized for myself.

807: Well is that baptism one of the gospel ordinances?
Certainly it is.

808: What was it for then?
It was for the remission of sins.

809: And you obeyed that upon the hearing of the preaching of the word?
Yes sir.

810: You did?
I did.

811: Was it a new covenant you were baptized in as spoken of in the seventh chapter of Hebrews by Paul?
There was nothing said about any covenants, – It was just the testimony of the person baptized to the effect of believing the gospel, and upon the confession of that belief the person is led into the water, and baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost by one having the commission of Jesus Christ to perform baptisms, and he would emerse the one to be baptized in the water, and say “I baptize you in the name of the Father the Sone and the Holy Ghost, Amen”. Now that was all there was to it.

812: Is not the gospel the new covenant in contra-distinction to the old covenant in force under Moses, – or the Mosaic law?
I suppose it is, for the law of Moses and the gospel as taught by Jesus Christ are different one from another. One worked under a different dispensation from the other.

813: Now I want to read for the purpose of refreshing you recollection section forty seven of Exhibit “E”, it is to be found on page one hundred and seventy eight, and the portion of the section I shall read is para graph one. The exhibit referred to as Exhibit “E” is the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, and the revelation was given in April 1830. It is a follows, – “Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing, and this is a new and everlasting covenant; even that which was from the beginning, – Therefore although a man should be baptized an hundred times, it availeth him nothing; for you cannot enter in at the straight gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works; for it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up until me; even as in days of old. Wherefore enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God, Amen.” Now I have read the whole of that section for there is only one paragraph in it. Now you recognize that as teaching that the gospel covenant was the new covenant?
I have no objection to answering the question, or to the law laid down there, for it is a new and everlasting cobenant, a covenant that God has made in these last days, by sending a prophet, seer and revelator who has delivered the gospel as it was in the days of Christ and the apostles, and I view that s being what is termed the covenants for the generations since the days of Paul and apostles that is referred to there.

814: Then you view this as being a new covenant?
Yes sir.

815: And you were baptized after that revelation and into tis new covenant at first?
Yes sir. I told you how I was baptized, and I considered it a new covenant.

816: Now when you came to Salt Lake had you broken your covenant so that you had to be re-baptized?
No sir, not that I know of.

817: You had not broken the covCnant into which you were originally baptized?
Not that I am aware of, but let me say that there is not commandment that I know of, nor any law that I know of which says that a man shall not be re-baptized.

818: Now was not Brigham Young, and all the twelve apostles, and all President Youngs counsellors, all the elders of the church, and all other persons members of the church, – re-baptized after coming to Salt Lake into, – ?
Into what?

819: Both men and women, were they not re-baptized?
Well you said “re-baptized into some thing”, and I want to know what it was.

820: Well I asked you whether or not they were all baptized?
Yes sir.

821: What was the occasion of that action?
Well we were all baptized as pioneers, – we were all re-baptized as pioneers.

822: Well were not the ladies baptized also?
No sir, for there were no ladies with us.

823: Well when they came here were they not baptized?
Not that I know of.

824: Do you say that the women have not been re-baptized sine you came west?
They may have been afterwards, but not at that time for there was none with us.

825: You have been baptized hundreds of times I might say, but it was for the dead.
 

826: Well I am not talking about baptism for the dead now? I mean for yourself?
No sir, I don’t know that I have.

827: Were you not re-baptized in the reformation?
Well I could not say.

828: What is your best impression with reference to that?
I cannot say, – perhaps I was.

829: A great majority of the church were re-baptized during the reformation. Were they not?
Perhaps they were.

830: Now is not this revelation on the question of marriage introduced in the book of doctrine and covenants in the place of the original section on marriage, called a new covenant?
What is that?

831: Is not this revelation I say which has been inserted in the book of doctrine and covenants in lieu of the original revelation on marriage as it appears in the edition of 2835 of the Doctrine and covenants, – is that not called a new covenant?
It may be called that. I think it is or was called a new covenant.

832: And was it not that covenant in to which you were baptized, -into that new covenant?
No sir.

833: Was it not by reason of that revelation you were re-baptized?
No sir.

834: It was not, – do you swear it was not?
It was not.

835: Is that the new covenant spoken of in section forty seven of Exhibit M, the edition of 1835 of the book of doctrine and covenants?
 

836: Do you refer to the same thing?
I would like to hear your question again, for I do not comprehend your question.

837: Well is the new covenant referred to in section forty seven of the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants?
What does it say about it?

838: Is it the same as the new covenant mentioned in the revelation on polygamy in the 1876 edit on of the book of doctrine and covenants as published by the Utah Church of which you are the present time the head or president?
I cannot answer that question.

839: Well I have read the firs one to you, – the whole revelation for there is only one section in it, and I read it to you, and now I will read this to you?
You are speaking of the new covenant on the patriarchial order of marriage?

840: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

841: Well I will read the one in the 1876 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, being the revelation on polygamy, paragraph three.
 

842: “Therefore prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you, for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same”. Now do you say that that refers to the same covenant?
No sir, I do not say so. I would like to hear the other one read.

843: Do you want me to read the other one?
Yes sir, for you have them so mixed that I do not know which is which.

844: This is in the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is a revelation given in April 1830, as I before stated I will read it to you again, “Behold I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing, and this is a new and everlasting covenant; even that which was from the beginning, Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times, it availeth them nothing, for you cannot enter in at the straight gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works; for ir is because of your dead works, that I have caused this last covenant, and this church to be built up unto me; even as in days of old. Wherefore enter ye in at the gate as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God, Amen”. What do you say to that?
I have said or if I have not, I will say it now, it don’t make any difference how many times a man is baptized, if it is not done by authority from God, for there is no man that ever breathed the breath of life from Father Adam down to today, who had power to go forth and baptize the children of men except by the authority of God.

845: You were baptized by legal authority in 1835?
Yes sir.

846: Then why the necessity of being rebaptized in 1849 or 1850?
I do not say there was any necessity. I could not say there was any necessity. We simply wanted to renew our covenants, and none of us had killed anybody or committed adultery or stole anything or broken any law that I knew of, but we simply felt that we wanted to renew our covenants. Not that was the way it was, and as I have already stated I was not an am not now aware of any law that prohibited us from being rebaptized if we saw for to be rebaptized.

847: This revelation I have read given in 1830, was the new and everlasting law, the new and everlasting covenant I should say?
Well that was the covenant that was established in the organization of this church, and which revealed the priesthood to the children of men,

848: You understand it was a new and everlasting covenant?
Yes sir. It was a new covenant in the last days, because it referred to the establishing of the church and the priesthood.

849: Well what I am asking you about Mr. President is whether it was the new and everlasting covenant in 1830 when it was given?
Well I view it so, and there is a reason for it of course.

850: Well if it was the new and everlasting covenant, how could it be that it was not revealed until thirteen years after that time and then called the new and everlasting covenant?
Well that is called a new and everlasting covenant in that case because of the law of marriage under which it was given. That is as I view it but of course I do not know, but that is my opinion.

851: Well it is not the covenant that is spoken of in the other?
Well I don’t know whether it is or not, but I should judge it is not.

852: But the other had already been revealed in 1830?
Yes sir, and there is a reason given for it, and why. There is a covenant, a revelation perhaps that is not considered in the other.

853: And for that reason you were rebaptized when you came to Salt Lake is that not true?
No sir, not at all, not with regard to that covenant.

854: Then why were you rebaptized?
As I said before we were rebaptized because we felt like doing it, renewing our covenant before the Lord. It was not done because we felt that we had to do it, but because we felt disposed to do so, simply because we felt disposed to go and do it.

855: Well now I will read from section sixty five, paragraph two, page one hundred and ninety one of the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants. I will read all of paragraph two, as follows, – “And they have done unto the son of man even as they listed and he has taken his power on the right hand of his glory, and now reigheith in the heavens and will reign till he descends on the earth to put all enemies under his feet; which time is nigh at hand; I the Lord God have spoken it; but the hour and the day no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes; where fore I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except them which I reserved unto myself, hold men, that ye know not of; where-fore I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning, and that which I have promised I have so fulfilled, and the nations of the earth shall bow it to, and if not of themselves they shall come down, for that which is now exalted of itself shall be laid low of power; wherefore I give unto you a commandment, that ye go among the people and say unto them like unto mine apostles of old, whose name was Peter; believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on earth, and is to come the beginning and the end; repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins; and who so doeth this, shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of this church. Now that is from a revelation given to Sidney Rigdon, Parley Pratt, and Lemon Copley, given March 1831?
 

856: What does that section indicate? That section shows that the everlasting covenant was revealed in 1831 does it not?
 

857: Well Mr President, as a fact, I will ask you if that revelation doe snot show that the ever lasting covenant was not revealed prior to 1831?
I am willing to answer the gentlemen if he wishes me to do so. That amount of it is that the new and everlasting covenant that was from the beginning and will always be, is a covenant that the God of heaven made in the early days with the early priesthood, and any man that reveiced the gospel, received the gospel with that priesthood, and it is an eternal covenant descending from one generation to another, and will continue as long as the Lord has a priesthood on earth, and whatever covenant they have in that other revelation I have nothing to say about it.

858: Have you any other new and everlasting covenant, outside of that spoken in section sixty five which I have read to you?
An answer that I, have nothing to say about that.

859: If there is wouldn’t it be a contradiction of the law?
 

860: Could there be two new and everlasting covenants at the same time?
 

861: Could there be two new and everlasting covenants at the same time and one abrogating all former covenants?
I have nothing to say about it.

862: Do you decline to answer the question?
Well with regard to what he said in that covenant on the patriarchal order of marriage, it is a covenant connected with the law of marriage as represented in the first covenant.

863: Is it the same one as is referred to in the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
I have nothing to say about it. There is the word of the Lord, and I am not going to contradict it.

864: You say you do not feel disposed to contradict the word of the Lord?
No sir, I would not be presumptuous enough to do that.

865: Then if this is a contradiction, then if that is a new one it is a change of the one spoken of in section sixty five of the 1835 edition of the book of covenants?
 

866: Is it not? There must be a change in there too, must there not?
If you knew everything that is meant in that law, or by that law, and what the Lord meant by it, you could answer it, and so could I, but I don’t, and I do not think you do either, nor do I think that any man does so that he can explain it. Of course it is a different principle, and of course it is connected there with the new and everlasting covenant.

867: Well now when there was a change in the law there aught to be a change in the priesthood shouldn’t there? In the new testament that is taught. It is taught in the Hebrew letter is it not?
Well all I will say is that if it is in there it is correct.

868: Well if that is true, if it is true that there is a change in the law, there must of necessity be a change in the priesthood must there not?
How is that?

869: I say if there is a change in the law there must of necessity be a change in the priesthood? Is that not true?
I don’t know, that is if it is a law from God. I don’t know. If you have a priesthood from man and a priesthood from God, of course there is a change.

870: Well was Paul talking of a priesthood from man or a priesthood from God?
Paul?

871: Yes sir?
He was talking of a pristhood from God, of course.

872: Now I want to read the sixth paragraph of this section–section one hundred and thirty-two, in the book introduced as exhibit A by the defendants. It is on page four hundred and sixty four, it is as follows: “And as pertaining to the new and everlating covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth the fulness therof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.” I will also read the seventh verse of the same section: “And verily, I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these — all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations that are not made and entered into, and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise of him who is anointed, both as well for time and eternity, and that too, most holy by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine annointed, whom I have appointed to hold this power, (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of the priesthood are conferred) are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.” Now, does this abolish the new covenant that was referred to in the revelations of 1831?
Well, there is three glories, celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. These are the three glories, and this is also in the revelations of God in the last days, and whatever is said in that new and everlasting covenant belongs to the celetial glories, when you come to explain it, and if you could understand these things of course there would be no mystery connected with it.

873: Well now, was the new and everlating covenant referred to in the revelation of 1831 able to raise them to the celestial, or highest glory?
Probably, and it would be understood if all the law of God was there.

874: Does not the section I have read to you, Mr. Woodruff, teach that all the contracts entered into by parties who are not obligated or do not believe in the section I have read to you, upon their death end–marriage contracts as well as all others?
Yes, sir.

875: That is a fact? That is your belief?
Yes sir, that is what it says.

876: Were you present when Brigham Young was made President of the church?
Yes sir, I think I was.

877: What time was that?
Well, I think it was in Winter Quarters. I think it was when we were in Winter Quarters, and it was 1847, if I mistake not.

878: It was when you were in winter quarters?
Yes sir.

879: And that was in 1847 you say, – that is the time when Brigham Young was selected or elected to the Presidency of the Church?
Yes sir. It was either late in 1847 or the spring of 1848. I think however it was in 1847, but I could not say postively, for I can’t remember the dates.

880: What was his position prior to that time, – that is the position that Brigham Young occupied in the church prior to that time?
President of the twelve apostles.

881: How many of the twelve apostles united their fortunes with the church that came west?
There was all that was in the church I believe but William Smith. I think that William Smith was east at the time of the migration from Nauvoo.

882: Well he never came west with the church?
No sir.

883: And John E. Page didn’t either, – is that not a fact?
Well he was not in the church then, – that is he was not one of the twelve apostles.

884: Was he not one of the apostles at that time?
I think not.

885: Do you say he was not one of the twelve apostles at the time?
I said I thought he was not, but I would not say postively as to that, for I might be mistaken about that.

886: Was not Lyman Wight a member of the twelve at that time?
Well I don’t know. Those are all matters you know that in our travels up here, – well I could not answer these questions unless I had time to look the matters up. If I had time to look over papers and books I could tell you a good deal more about these things, but I cannot do so unless I do that. I cannot remember as an independant act of my memory with sufficient accuracy to state these facts as positive facts, but I think that Lyman Wight was in the church at the time we were there. We came here in 1847 first, and this conference at which Brigham Young was elected President was held on our return from here as pioneers, and I think it was held at winter quarters.

887: Did you have more than nine of the twelve apostles there at that conference at which Brigham Young was selected as the President of the church?
I could not say.

888: Well do you know?
I do not know whether there was nine apostles or more than that number there or not.

889: Well now don’t you know that at the time you were there in win-quarters you only had nine apostles present with you, and that Lyman Wight, John E. Page and William Smith were the other three?
Well sir I do not know. I don’t know from memory, – whether they were in the church at that time I could not say, for my memory on these things is not as good as it might be therefore I cannot remember. My memory does not serve me to answer that question postively.

890: You do not say that there was any more than that nine there do you?
No sir, I can’t say how many were there, and to do so I would have to look that matter up.

891: Can you give the names of the ones that were there?
That is a matter I would also have to look up, for I could not tell you from memory.

892: Well let me repeat them over to you? Heber C. Kimball, Parley Pratt, Orson Hyde, – Orson Hyde was there was not he?
Yes sir.

893: William Smith?
He was one of the apostles, but he was not there at that time.

894: John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruf, Williard Richards, George A. Smith and David Patten?
No sir, David Patten. He was not there at that time for he was dead.

895: David Patten you saw was dead at that time?
Yes sir.

896: Well who was put in his place?
I do not recollect who was put in his place.

897: Well you recognize John E. Page as one of the twelve?
Yes sir.

898: And William Smith and Lyman Wight?
Yes sir, but they were not there at that time.

899: Was John E. Page there?
No sir. Neither John E. Page, William B. Smith or Lyman Wight were there, and they were afterwards cut off from the church I believe, – I think it was afterwards, – but at all events they were cut off from the church. I do not know from memory that they were not there at that time, but it is my recollection that they were not there.

900: They were members of the quorom of twelve at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

901: Did you say that they were cut off from the church?
Yes sir. John E. Page withdrew from the church, and took a company with him, the same as Strang and others did.

902: They were not cut off from the church but withdrew on account of the practice of polygamy, – is that not the fact Mr. Woodruf?
No sir.

903: They did not?
No sir, they did not, for William Smith practiced polygamy himself.

904: Do you know that?
Yes sir.

905: How do you know it?
I know it from the testimony of several people, and the testimony of one of his wives who is now living here in the territory.

906: That is the way you know it?
Yes sir, I know it.

907: Well are you willing to swear that he practiced it, – swear to it of your own knowledge?
Well I could not swear to it in that way but I believe it to be a fact and you will have testimony produced here before you are through with this matter. There is no doubt about it, for I have known several women who were his wives, at least they said they were, and I believe it for I know, or did at that time know something of his circumstances.

908: Well you can’t know that of your own knowledge?
Well I never saw a woman sealed to him. I never saw that, but you know a man can know many a thing and give testimony to it, and know it is true that he did not see, – that he does not absolutely know personally.

909: Well now at the time of the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, did not the authority for the office of the Presidency, – did not the authority of the church fall upon the twelve apostles?
 

910: Yes sir, as a quorom?
At the death of Joseph Smith of course the direction of affairs of the church fell upon the quorom of twelve, – the elders of the church, – as the highest quorom in the church.

911: What was it fell upon the quorom?
The duty and obligation of leading the church, Joseph Smith had ordained the twelve apostles and given the directions before his death.

912: At the time of his death they were the highest quorom in authority in the church were they not?
Yes sir.

913: Had Joseph Smith at this time, – at the time of his death, -appoin ted any man to take authority in his place, to your knowledge?
No sir.

914: He had not?
No sir, -no one but the twelve apostles.

915: Did he do that?
Yes sir.

917: When did he do that?
At the last meeting we ever had with him this world.

918: What did he appoint them to do?
To take his place as the bearer of the kingdom.

919: Well did they afterwards take his place?
Yes sir.

920: In what way?
Why they led the church afterwards as hey were directed to do.

921: And have they been leading it since?
Yes sir.

922: They have held it ever since, -is that your position?
Yes sir.

923: And are they leading it now?
Yes sir.

924: Are the twelve still leading in Joseph’s place?
No sir. The twelve governed and controlled the church until the organization of the first Presidency, and upon the organization of the first Presidency the authority became vested in it. That was the method that was pursoed then and has been since that time.

925: Well what is it?
That when the President is dead or passes away, it devolves on the twelve apostles to govern the church until such time as another President can be elected. That is the method that has been pursued.

926: Where did you get that authority to act in that manner?
From Joseph Smith, at the very last interview we had with him. He gave that authority in the lats interview that was had with him, in the world.

927: Well what did he say when he gave that authority?
Well he said he was soon going away, and he said “God Almighty has revealed until me, and sealed unto me every authority and power and key belonging to this dispensation, that he ever gave to any man upon earth, and I have sealed these powers and principles upon your heads as the servants of the twelve apostles”, and he went on and said, “now you have to round up your shoulders, and bear off this kingdom, and if you don’t do it you will be damned”. Now that is substantially what he said, and about as much authority as we had. And I think the Spirit of the Lord has manifested himself in the church since that time.

928: And that was the way that was done?
Yes sir.

929: That is the manner in which the authority was conferred upon the twelve?
Yes sir.

930: Now did he confer that authority upon nay single individual?
No sir, it was upon the twelve apostles.

931: And they were to bear the burden?
Yes sir. He has taught us the order of the priesthood, and given us to understand all the revelations.

932: Did he appoint any one of the twelve to receive revelations and act as the President of the church?
Yes sir.

933: Who?
Brigham Young.

934: To act as President, prophet seer and revelator?
President Brigham Young was the President of the twelve apostles, and upon his shoulders rested this power, and of course he was ordained by Joseph by virtue of the Holy authority of the Church of God, and he was in due time chosen by the church as its President.

935: Chosen as President of the Church?
Yes sir.

936: Was not Thomas B. Marsh the President of the church before him?
Yes sir, but he was not eligible.

937: Why not?
Because he apostatized.

938: Did he not hold all the rights and authority that belonged or pertained to the Presidency of the twelve?
Yes sir he did at one time, but did not at the time of the death of Joseph Smith.

939: Did he while Joseph Smith lived?
No sir. Not while he lived. That is he occupied that position when he was first ordained into the quorum of twelve. He was the oldest man, and occupied that position as long as he remained faithful in it.

940: He had all the power as long as he was faithful, but you say he apostatized?
Yes sir.

941: He held all the keys as long as he was President of the twelve?
I suppose so.

942: You say you suppose so?
Yes sir.

943: Do you know?
I have answered the question.

944: Don’t you know that the revelation so states the fact,-that he held all the keys while he was Presiden of the twelve?
Probably it does. I cannot say positively that it does, but that is my impression.

945: Now did Joseph Smith select or point out any of the twelve to be a prophet, seer and revelator, to the church?
Well he called,-

946: Well now just answer that question,-did he point out either one of them to be a prophet, seer and revelator to the church?
He did not take that distinction that I know of at that time as applying to any one there.

947: Did he at any time?
Only as we gather from his teachings, and he always taught that the President or Oldest man in the quorum of twelve would be the President of the quorum of twelve, and in the absence of the first Presidency of the church or the President of the church they were the next in authority and were to preside over the church; and you will find that in all the revelations as well as the books of the church.

948: What books?
The book of doctrine and covenants, the book of Mormon and the bible.

949: You said it was in the revelation of the church?
Yes sir.

950: Please mention one revelation in which we find that doctrine?
What is that? 951 I asked you to mention one revelation in which we can find that doctrine,-the doctrine that in the absence of the President the President of the quorum of the twelve is to exercise authority in the church?
Well I can’t point it out to you unless I have time to search it out.

952: Well sir I will give you from this time until to-morrow at noon,-from the time you get off the witness stand until to-morrow afternoon when we meet here to do so. Will you agree after you leave the witness stand to find it and come back here tomorrow at,-well at the time we convene here, and present that revelation?
I don’t think it will take that long sir. If you will take book of doctrine and Covenants, and turn to the organization of the church, and if it is published there, as I think it still is, you will find it,-the twelve apostles were equal in authority with the first Presidency of the church.

953: Well that is not the question?
It is the question of showing that the President of the quorum of twelve would be the President of the quorum of twelve would be the President of the church in the event of the President of the church dying?
Well sir you read the revelation there on the organization of the church and you will see it.

955: Will you be kind enough to point out the revelation in any book of doctrine and covenants printed since the year 1830, on which it is taught that the President of the Quorom of Twelve, would become the President of the church, – would succeed to the office of the First Presidency of the church, upon the death of the First President?
There has been a great many revelations given since 1830.

956: I know that, but I simply ask you to point to one of them which says that upon the death of the President of the church, the right to the succession to the office devolves upon the President of the Quorom of Twelve. I will give you from the beginning of the year 1844 up to the very time of the death of Joseph Smith on the 27th day of June 1844, – I mean from the first of the year of 1830 up to the very day of the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, to produce a revelation to that effect, either from any of the books of doctrine and Covenants published during that period, or which have been published since that time, that advance such a doctrine or rule as that? I will give you full latitude you see to do so if you can?
Well I say any body can turn to the revelation on the organization of the church and see for themselves what the revelation says.

957: Well I have never been able to find the one you refer to, and I have never been able to find any one who did, therefore I ask you for the information as to where it can be found? How do you say Mr Woodruf that there is any such a revelation in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, given to Joseph Smith, or to any body else, between 1830 and 1844, – the 27th day of June 1844, – down to that date, that teaches that upon the death of the President of the church, that the President of the twelve apostles succeeds to the Presidency of the church. Now sir that is the question I ask you and if you have ever seen such a revelation I would like you to state where it can be found, giving me the book and the page?
Well you will find it in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, if you will give me the one on the, – (witness hereupon takes a book). Here it is, – section one hundred and seven on page three hundred and eighty three in this book of doctrine and covenants.

958: What is the date of it?
1835, – that is the date of the revelation.

959: What time in 1835?
The date of the revelation is March 28th 1835. Now in speaking of the organization of the church it says, – it states in order, the order of the high priesthood of the church, and states what it is and whom it rests upon.

960: Well go on and read the part of the revelation that says that the President of the twelve apostles shall be the President of the church?
It don’t say that?

961: It does not state that?
No sir.

962: Well I thought not?
Well but it says, –

963: Well now never mind, – you have answered my question Mr Woodruf and that is sufficient. Well now is there in that book or any other book of doctrine and Covenants published between 1830 and the 27th day of June 1844, – one word in that revelation or any other revelation which says that in case the President of the church dies the Presidency shall descend to the President of the council of twelve? If there is I will give you time to find it for I am curious to know if it is there, and if you will undertake to find it you can have your own time to do so Mr Woodruf?
Well if you can find anything else than that in the order of these revelations as they are given in this book than that I don’t understand the question, that is all. I cannot see what else they mean, although they do not come out and state the fact as you state it in your question. It states here that the twelve shall have equal authority with the President of the church, and I cannot see what else that means other than that is the event of the death of the President the Presiding officer of that quorom shall have authority when confirmed by the church, to act in his place. It says, – “The presiding high priest, chosen by the body and ordained to that office, and upheld by the faith, confidence and prayer, etc.” Now that is what that says, and when the President dies some body has bot to lead the church, and there is no one that I can see to do it but the presiding officer of the highest quorom of the church. For it is evident that when the President dies somebody has to lead the church.

964: Well I will admit that?
Yes sir, that cannot be denied.

965: Well but was not the authority conferred by Joseph Smith, upon the whole twelve to lead the church?
Well they are to be appointed, – the three Presidents from the twelve apostles, and they were to be upheld and sustained by the authority of the people. They have always done that upon the death of every President the church has ever had. I don’t know of any other authority higher or plainer than that sir.

966: The twelve are simply the second quorom in authority are they not, – they are not the highest quorom in authority in the church?
Yes sir, – there is the quorom on the Presidency.

967: The twelve then are the second quorom in authority?
Yes sir.

968: And that is the quorom you referred to is it not?
In what way?

969: That is the quorom the revelation you have referred, – or read referred to, is it not?
Yes sir. It is the second quorom when the Presidency is living, but when the presidency dies, it becomes as a matter of necessity the first quorom.

970: The first Presidency has to be called by revelation does it not?
Yes sir.

971: Always?
The first Presidency is called by revelation.

972: Would it be the first Presidency unless it was called by revelation?
Well you can read that revelation for yourself and see what it says. What you are asking for now is simply my opinion and that I presume would not be competent.

973: Well I want your opinion as to that, – you are the President of the church, and presumably were called in that way, therefore your opinion might be of weight?
They are equal in authority to the first Presidency, and when the first Presidency dies there is no revelation given to any other quorom, the authority to lead the church but them.

974: I will read you from section fourteen, in exhibit E, page on hundred and twenty five, revelation given February 1831, the first and second paragraphs, – “Oh hearken ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you; for behold verily, verily I say unto you that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you, to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. And this ye shall know assuredly that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. 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; that you may not be deceived; that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you, before, to teach those revelations which you received, and shall receive through him whom I have appointed”. What do you say to that?
Well the twelve apostles ware called and ordained by the direction of Joseph Smith and under his hand, and the President of the twelve apostles was ordained to that position.

975: Were they all appointed as Presidents by Joseph Smith?
As Presidents?

976: Yes sir?
No sir I don’t know that they were.

977: You don’t know that they were?
No sir.

978: Do you know that they were not?
I know that they were appointed as apostles or members of the quorum of twelve.

979: Were they all appointed prophets, seers and revelators by Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

980: They were?
Yes sir.

981: You know that?
I do.

982: All appointed, -every one of them?
Yes sir, he called them all.

983: To receive revelations for the church?
The entire number of the apostles, -the twelve apostles, were sealed, -had these gifts sealed upon them by Joseph Smith before his death.

984: What gifts?
The gifts as prophets, seers and revelators.

985: Were they to receive revelations for the church?
Yes sir.

986: They were endowed or authorized to receive revelations for the church?
Yes sir. in their time.

987: The same as in stated in this revelation I have just read?
Yes sir.

988: You said they were authorized to receive revelations in their time? What did yon mean by that?
When they were called upon or would be called upon to govern the church, they were then to receive revelations, but they had a right to receive revelations themselves at any time, the same as any other member of the church. The power to receive revelations to be an authority and rule on the church was conferred upon them in the event of their being called to the Presidency of the church.

989:
What purpose?

990: To receive revelations for the church?
I have not said that. I did not state that he was to set any one apart for that purpose. The whole twelve were set apart for that purpose by Joseph.

991: Well did he set any one apart individually?
No sir.

992: He did not set any one particular person apart for that purpose?
No sir, not individually in that respect.

993: Did he not set a part the seventy two?
No sir not in that capacity. Of course the seventy were ordained in the position they occupied but the same gifts were not conferred upon them that were conferred upon the twelve to be exercised in the event of a certain contingency arising.

994: What was that contingency?
In the event of their being called to the Presidency of the church.

995: You say the quorom of seventy was ordained?
Yes sir, all the authorities in the church were ordained.

996: Now did he not set them apart as a third quorom in the church?
No sir, I don’t think he did, – that is the twelve apostles, –

997: Are you willing to swear that he did not?
No sir I am not willing to sear he did not but there is a difference in those quoroms.

998: Were or are they recognized in the revelation as the third quorom in the church?
I don’t know. There is the high priests and the seventies, – and of course it is an office of the high priesthood.

999: Were they not recognized as holding the same authority as the twelve?
No sir.

1000: An equal authority?
No sir. There were seventy in their decisions.

1001: The seventys have equal authority with the twelve? Is that what you say?
If they all agree upon any point they have the same authority, – that is they have equal authority with the twelve in any decision on a question that is submitted to them, but they cannot control the twelve in any way, nor the President of the church.

1002: They have equal authority when they all agree?
Yes sir, upon any given question.

1003: And the twelve must all agree before they are equal to the Presidency? Is that not a fact?
I do not know.

1004: Well what is your best impression upon that?
I do not recollect what the revelation says upon that point.

1005: You do not claim that if nine of the apostles were to claim a certain thing was right, and there of them were to claim it was wrong, that their decision would be equal to that of the Presidency?
Of course they would have to agree, – that is providing, – to say the twelve apostles if they were all in apostleship, – of course they would have to agree.

1006: Now suppose the, – all of the twelve, and the Presidency should be removed at the same time, would the seventy in that case be appointed and have the same authority as the Presidency?
Well that would be a question for consideration. That is a thing that has never happened, and I cannot say what would be done in that case. That would be a thing to consider when such a condition of facts would come to pass. The seventy in that case would be the highest body in authority in the church.

1007: The seventy holds equal authority with the twelve do they not?
In their office and in the performance of their specific functions they do. When they take up any case to decide, and when they agree or are all untied upon it, of course their decision is equal to that of the twelve. It is the same as the decision of the twelve in that event.

1008: Well they hold in their office, when they take up any case to decide, and agree upon it, they hold equal authority with the twelve?
Yes sir, in that matter they would.

1009: You said the other day in your examination by Mr Hall that the endowments you received in Nauvoo were the same that you received here in Salt Lake City?
Well what we received this, – we were taught the same principles. As far as we had the priveledge of entering into these ordinances in Nauvoo, they were the same as were given here. We were taught these principles, all of them, there. We were taught the principles of the endowments there at Nauvoo. were the same as the endowments taught here, they were identical.

1010: You did not receive them just as you did our here?
Yes sir, substantially the same.

1011: You did not receive them in the same manner, in the same formula did you?
Well of course at first when it comes to that we did not, but we did after the temple was done. We did then I have repeatedly told you that they were substantially the same, for Joseph Smith taught us all the principles before his death.

1012: Did he teach the formula of conferring the endowments that was practiced here after the migration from Nauvoo?
Yes sir, he taught the ordinances and formula, the ceremonies, all of them identically the same as they were taught here, that is so far as they could be practiced.

1013: Now did Joseph Smith teach them outside of the temple?
Yes sir.

1014: Now here is a book I want to be marked as exhibit “D” (the book referred to it marked exhibit “D”). I will hand you this pamphlet marked exhibit “D” Mr. Woodruff, and ask you to examine pages one, two, three and four, five, six, seven and eight, thereof, and say whether that formula, all of it, is the same formula, that was taught you in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith for receiving the endowments, or conferring the endowments?
Do you want me to read it?

1015: Well you can look at that and see, satisfy yourself if it is the same thing?
Well I certainly would have to have time to look over these things, for I could not give you answer to something covering half a dozen pages of a pamphlet like that, without looking it over and reading it. (Witness hereupon examines the pages of the pamphlet marked exhibit “D”, regarding which he is examined, and answers) What do you want me to do with this?

1016: I want you to tell me whether that is the ceremony or formula that was taught by Joseph Smtih in Nauvoo in giving the endowments.
I can’t tell you without I have time to read it, and I haven’t time to read it here. As far as I see here, here is something I don’t comprehend.

1017: What is it you do not comprehend?
There are some plates here that I do not comprehend.

1018: Joseph Smith did not present any such a thing to you as that did he?
As what?

1019: As those plates represent?
No sir, and we never had any such plates as that, not that ever I saw. I don’t know anything about them, I know we never had any such as some of them.

1020: You never saw anything like them in Joseph Smith’s day, nothing like that?
No sir, not in his day, nor since.

1021: You swear to that do you?
Yes sir, so far as my knowledge goes I do. I don’t know anything about these plates, that is only those.

1022: That is the representation of the division of a room, that is all is it not?
Well no. A devils apron is not a room, but it is a very strange looking thing to me.

1023: It appears that in that representation there was a devil?
That seem to be the way this is gotten up.

1024: Did Joseph Smith have a devil in his?
Well there was of course a representation of an evil spirit in it, but there was no clothing like that in it.

1025: Now did you ever see such a thing in Joseph Smith’s day?
Not in that kind of a dress I never did.

1026: Then you do not recognize that as a dress, nor the figures?
 
No sir.

1027: You do not?
Well the figures I don’t. I can’t say as to the ceremonies. I can’t say whether I would recognize them or not for I haven’t had any time to read the whole thing. It will take time to read this so that I can answer the question.

1028: Can’t you look over that and answer the question as to whether or not that is the formula prescribed and followed out in the conferring of endowments as represented there?
No sir I cannot. You see you have a whole book here, and it will take time to go through and read it before I can answer intelligently. I cannot say what things here represented mean, for it is something I am unfamiliar with. I know what it is something that I am not acquainted with as having any part in the endowments.

1029: Well you know nothing of that kind in Joseph Smith’s day? Is that not a fact?
Yes sir, nor in any other day for that matter. There is nothing here sir, that I recognize.

1030: That is all
 

1031: In your cross examination Mr. Woodruff, you were asked the question if you considered the command to raise up righteous seed as spoken of in the book of Mormon, to be the one wife system?
No sir, I did not.

1032: You did not?
No sir, I do not. It refers to a plurality of wives, because it refers to David and Solomon. That is what it undoubtedly refers to as it speaks of David and Solomon as well as others.

1033: State to the reporter what kind of marriage law,-or what kind of marriage law you think would be good in case there would be a commandment given to raise up seed unto the Lord?
I don’t know but that that is true about a number of the questions that have been asked me. There has been many a thing asked me that I do not know anything about,-which the Lord alone knows. Now in regard to that question different men would have different opinions about it, and as far as I am concerned, as long as he was referring to the patriarchal order of marriage, referring to David and Solomon, and various other men, of course he forbid every person to do so, and then he states that if he would raise up righteous seed, he would command his people to do so. Now that is the view I would have of it.

1034: You were asked to give us your opinion as to whether he would command this people to observe the principle of one wife only, or plural wives? Now stat to the reporter what you understand about that?
 

1035: Answer the question?
What is the question?

1036: You were asked to give it as your opinion, as to whether or not he would command this people to observe the principle of having only one wife, or of having plural wives?
Well I understand as far as my views are concerned in regard to that subject, why of course he was threating upon the subject of plurality of wives in teaching the people there in those lands of America, and he refers to Solomon and David, and he forbid their practicing it there and he said if he would raise up seed unto himself, he would command his people, and of course there was hardly any commandment any where wherein a man should be commanded to go and marry one wife, – that is one woman, – that I know of.
I think myself that in answering a question like that it is a matter that depends very largely on the personal judgement of the person who is required to make the answer, and in that respect it is like a good many other things. In other words it is a matter of opinion very lagrely. Now that is all you have to say to me gentlemen, or is there something else?

1037: Well Mr Woodruf that is not quite straight yet?
Is that question answered yet, or is it not? I am getting a little anxious to be away from here, as I have a good deal of important business that demands my attention.

1038: Well the question I intended to ask you, – and I do not know whether I did put it exactly straight or not, was if he should command his people, would he command them to observe the one wife system, or the plural wife system?
Would be the plurality of wives of course.
My opinion is that it would be the plural wife system. Now that is my opinion.

1039: In your cross examination you were asked if Hagar was Abraham’s bond-woman, and not his wife? Now state to the reporter whether this woman Hagar, was a bond woman by marriage, or whether she was a bond-woman as a servant of the family?
I was not there gentlemen, and of course I cannot say, but I would gather from the reading that she was a bond-woman by nationality, or a servant. I would judge that, but of course that is a great many things in connection with these matters that a person at this age of the world cannot state positively, with reference to occurrences at that time.

1040: I will get you to state to the reporter whether you know that that revelation was presented, or rather given on Fishing River in 1834, was ever presented to a conference or general assembly for acceptance by the church?
I don’t think it was presented to the church. It was never presented to the church at any time that I have any knowledge of. There is no history to the effect that it was presented to the church, and my recollection does not serve me to say whether it was or not.

1041: Do you know that any of the revelations that were printed in the different editions of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, after the 1835 edition, were ever presented to the church, and adopted by the church, before the death of Joseph Smith.
Well I have no recollection of their ever having been presented to the church.

1042: State to the reporter if the revelation concerning the war of the rebellion, the war between the north and the south, given in 1832, the revelation concerning the one mighty and string given in 1832, the revelation given in 1838 concerning tithing, the revelation given in 1838 concerning the name of the church, were considered or were accepted, any of them, by the church, or were accepted by the church any time prior to the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, as true revelations, and as a part of the law of the church?
Yes sir, they were accepted. They were accepted the same as the other revelation were accepted. They were accepted as principles of truth.

1043: Were they acted on by the quorums?
Oh, they never were presented that I know of before the conferences. In fact all that has been said here about revelations being presented to the church is just this way. There has been very few that I ever heard of or seen that were presented that way, that is formally to the conferences, and I have been in the church very near sixty years. I have been in the church I may say sixty years, and I never have seen them presented only in one or two instances. I think in 1835 the books were presented in the conference there concerning these revelations as doctrine to the church, and I think they have been presented to one conference there; but as revelations that have been given to Joseph Smith, or which have come through him, they have never been presented for reception or rejection as a general thing before the church, to my recollection.

1044: Now I want to ask you one more question Mr. Woodruff?
All right sir.

1045: I will ask you what time this Book of Mormon was printed and published?
It has been printed and published a good many times. Do you mean the first time?

1046: Yes sir, when it first printed and published to the world?
Well that is a matter of guess you know as well as I do, for I was in the eastern country at that time, a miller attending a mill at the time that book was first printed. It was printed and published to the world before I ever heard of it at all.

1047: Was it not in 1829 of 1830 that was done?
I think it was.

1048: Now my friend Hall here got you to make a guess in regards to what the Lord would do, in case he commanded his people in reference to marriage, as to whether it would be a command to take one wife, or more than one, and he got you to say in your judgement he would command you to take two?
That was with reference to what was said here in connection with King Solomon and David, etc.

1049: Now to refresh your recollection and show you that he got you to guess wrong I will read to you paragraph seven of section thirteen, from the revelation given in February 1831, where the Lord does speak on that question?
Very well, read it.

1050: “And again I say, thou shalt not kill, but he that killeth shall die. Thou shalt not steal, and he that stealeth and will not repent shall be cast out. Thou shalt not lie, he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out. Thou shalt love they wife with all they heart, and shall cleave unto here none else; and he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit, and if he repent not he shall be cast out. Thou shalt not commit adultery, and he that committeth adultery and repenteth not shall be cast out; but he that commiteth adultery and repenteth 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.” Now does that teach a plurality of wives?
No sir.

1051: Now sir I will read from section sixty five, paragraph three, page one hundred and ninety two, from the edition of 1835, as follows, “And again I say unto you that whoso forbiddeth to marry, is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation, and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made”. What do you say to that? Does that teach a plurality of wives?
No sir.

1052: Now I have read you two revelations where the lord has spoken on the question of marriage since the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon? Ain’t that so Mr. Woodruff?
That is so.

1053: And neither time that he has spoken of has he said that a man should or could have more wives than one, is that not the fact?
All of these revelations are given to the children of men, with reference to these principles, the principle of marriage etc, and it is something that is connected with the whole human family, and it is opposed to whoredoms and abominations of that kind, and if the Lord gave us, as is stated there in the book of Mormon, – if the Lord raised up seed unto himself he would command his people, but he does not say that at all, – he does not say that he would command in that event, but of course we believe in the revelation which Joseph Smith received on that subject the latest revelation he received, which referred directly to the matter of the patriarchial order of marriage, and believing in it, or course we practiced it.

1054: Now in answer to one of Mr Hall’s questions, you spoke about a “seer”, – about “the seer” as being a book containg the doctrine of your church?
I did not say that postively. I said it was presented there, and some of them may know about it. There may be some of the brethern here in the city who will know more about that than I do, – but I think I am correct when I say that all the books were presented to one conference here, and I think the object of presenting them was with reference to the “Seer” which was represented as being revelations from the book of Abraham. It was represented to come from that book, and there was a whole lot of important things in it, but it was only a small book any way.

1055: Now do you mean “the Seer”, or “The Pearl of Great Prince”?
Ain’t they both one?

1056: No sir they are not, and I don’t want to mislead you?
Well then if there are not one and the same I don’t know which one it was. The one I refer to was only a small book any way, that did not amount to much from point of size.

1057: Well the Seer is a publication by Washington Pratt?
Well then I think it must have been the Pearl of Great Price. I must have been mistaken, but then I am subject to these lapses of memory.

1058: So then the Pearl of Great price was made a part of the doctrine of the church?
Well it was presented as the faith we believe. We believed in the principles of it, – that was the idea of it.

1059: Were there any ordinances in it that you practiced or conferred?
I don’t know that there was any ordinances in it at all.

1060: Well then it was just apart of the faith of the church, – that is the way you understand it?
Yes sir.