37 – Lorenzo Snow

1: What is your name?
Lorenzo Snow.

2: As I know more about this probably than you do Mr. Cabell, if you have no objections I will examine this witness. Where do you reside Mr. Snow?
At Brigham City.

3: Is that in Utah Territory?
Yes sir.

4: Where did you reside before removing to that place?
In Salt Lake City.

5: Where did you reside before you came here to Salt Lake City?
In Nauvoo, Illinois.

6: What church, if any, were you a member of at that time?
At the time I lived in Nauvoo?

7: Yes sir?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

8: I will ask you to state Mr. Snow if you knew who was the president of that church at Nauvoo at the time you lived there?
 

9: You may answer the question?
Joseph Smith.

10: I will ask you to state Mr. Snow, what office Joseph Smith held in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at Nauvoo Illinois, at the time that you lived there?
Well he was the president. He was recognized as the president of the church.

11: I will ask you Mr. Snow to read that affidavit, and see if you can identify it as an affidavit, executed or sworn to by you?
It is found on page two hundred and twenty two, and “plural marriage” seems to be the title of it. Shall I read it?

12: Yes sir you may read it? ground that it, is not identified as being part of any particular book, paper or periodical, and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and there is no issue in this case under which the same could by legally admitted.
 

13: Can you identify that as a copy of the affidavit you made?
Yes sir, as nearly as I can remember that is it.

14: Will you read it if you please?
I notice there is some words that are partially obliterated here apparently by the fastening to the opposite page. “Apostle Lorenzo Snow’s testimony. The following affidavit was made before J.C. Wright, Clerk of Box Elder County, Utah, August 28th 1869. It is as follows, – “In the month of April 1843, I returned from my European mission. A few days after after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith’s house, he said he wished to have some private talk with me and requested me to walk out with him. It was towards evening, and we walked a little distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the river. He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives. He said that the Lord had revealed him as wives, – that he foresaw the trouble that would follow and sought to turn away from the commandment, that an angel from heaven appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment. He further said that my sister Eliza R. now had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives, in which he told me many important things. I solemnly declare before God and the holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true. Signed, Lorenzo Snow.”

15: Will you state to the reporter Mr. Snow if you are the man that made that affidavit?
Yes sir. I am the man.

16: Were you the one that swore to it at that time?
I am the one that swore to it before Judge Wright of Box Elder County, at Brigham City.

17: Can you state to the reporter that that is exactly the statement you swore to at that time? immaterial and leading.
 

18: Answer the question?
Well yes, that is as near as I can remember it.

19: That is as near as you can remember it?
Yes sir. Of course I can’t swear exactly to ever word of it, but that is it in substance, precisely and exactly. I can swear to it in that way.

20: After reading that and refreshing your memory, can you state to the reporter that the statements made therein are true?
Most assuredly I can.

21: Will you state to the reporter Mr. Snow, what official position you hold, what official position you held in the church at Nauvoo, Illinois?
I was what was called a high priest.

22: You were an high priest?
Yes sir.

23: Will you state to the reporter Mr. Snow, if you were acquainted with the principle of plural marriage while you were living there at Nauvoo Illinois?
I was very intimately acquainted with the principle, so far as it, – so far I will say as it was to be understood by the church, and I was made familiar with it by the direct preaching or rather teaching of the prophet Joseph Smith.

24: Will you state to the reporter what difference there is, if any, in the principle of plural marriage, or as it is sometimes called, polygamy, as taught in the church at Nauvoo, Illinois, while you were there and the principle as it was taught in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints under the presidency of Brigham Young, after you came out here to the Salt Lake Valley?
It was precisely the same.

25: It was the same?
Yes sir, precisely, – there was no difference.

26: I will ask you Mr. Snow to state to the reporter what difference, if any, exists between the doctrines of the church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints as they were at Nauvoo, Illinois, while you were there, and the doctrines of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the territory of Utah, after removing here?
I know of no difference.

27: Will you state to the reporter Mr. Snow, whether or not you have been a member of the church, – how long have you been a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
About fifty-six years. I joined the church in Kirtland in June ’36.

28: And you have remained a member of the church ever since?
Yes sir.

29: I will ask you to state Mr. Snow, what difference there is, if any, in the doctrine of tithing, as taught in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints before the death of Joseph Smith, and as taught in the church in Utah at the present time?
I know of no difference.

30: I will ask you to state Mr. Snow what difference, if any, exists in regard to the teaching and practice of baptism for the dead, as taught and practiced in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints before the death of Joseph Smith, and as taught and practiced in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah territory at the present time?
The practice is the same.

31: Will you state to the reporter Mr Snow, what office you hold in the church at the present time?
President of the twelve apostles.

32: Have you been an officer of the church for several years?
Yes sir.

33: For how long have you been an officer of the church and if so, state the office or officers you have held in the church?
Well about fifty eight years.

34: Mr. Snow state what offices in the church you held and when you held them?
The first office I held was in Kirtland, – I think in the thirties, – it might have been in the latter part of ’36, – if not it was in the fore part of thirty I received the office of seventy, and directly afterwards, within a few days, two or three days, I was ordained to the office of high priest. That was in Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, and it was in the year ’39. It was in the fall of 1849 just about as I was leaving for my European mission.

35: Was that ’39 or 1849, – you said 1849 and I thought you were probably mistaken?
Yes sir, I mean to say ’39.

36: Go on now and state the rest of the offices you held, and when you were appointed to them?
Well in September, – let me see, – I think it was in February 12th in 1849. I wouldn’t be positive, but I think that was the date, – here in Salt Lake City I was ordained an apostle.

37: That is when you were ordained an apostle?
Yes sir, but my memory is not so very extraordinary on these matters, but I think I am right in reference to this latter matter.

38: Will you state to the reporter Mr. Snow, whether or not there was any talk among the members, or officers of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at Nauvoo, during the life-time of Joseph Smith about this principle of plural marriage, or what is commonly called polygamy?
Yes sir, there was some talk on that subject.

39: What kind of talk?
There was a good deal of talk upon the subject at that time, but it was not public. I have no recollection of the principle being taught publicly, but it was understood among the quorum of Twelve, of which I had a pretty good opportunity of learning, and amongst other parties who were officers of the church.

40: I believe that is all the questions I care to ask this witness. Cross examination by E.L. Kelley,
 

41: Mr Snow, what time did you state that you went off on your easter mission?
What time did I go?

42: Yes sir. What time did you state you went on that mission, – eastern or European mission?
The European mission?

43: Yes sir?
The English mission?

44: English or European, – whatever you choose to call it?
It was in the fall of ’39.

45: You were sent out to represent the doctrines of the church?
Yes sir. Well yes sir, I may say I was, but there is some qualification to that, for I was sent out to preach the first principles of the church. We were generally confined to first principles when we went on missions.

46: Your instructions, – were you confined to that when instructing members of the church?
No sir, no sir. It was for, – well you haven’t asked me the question.

47: Well what was the law of the church at that time with reference to marriage?
When I first went out?

48: Yes sir?
On the mission?

49: Yes sir?
I don’t know. There was no law in reference to marriage.

50: There was no law in reference to marriage?
No sir.

51: There was not?
No sir, not that I recollect of.

52: The church had not spoken on that question in any way to your knowledge?
In reference to plural marriage do you mean?

53: No sir, I mean what I say, – the law in reference to marriage?
I believe there was some instruction given that was embraced in the book of doctrine and covenants. That is all that I recollect of.

54: There was no law of the church upon the subject then?
No sir. Do you mean locally, – giving all the several authorities,

55: The law of the church is what I refer to?
The creed of the church do you mean?

56: Well did you have a creed?
Yes sir.

57: What was the creed?
You will find it in the book of doctrine and covenants I guess.

58: Is that the creed?
Yes sir, I suppose it was.

59: The creed was in the book of doctrine and covenants
That was in part. It was the creed governing the church at that time.

60: Did you teach when you went out at that time that a man could have more wives than one?
No sir.

61: You did not teach that doctrine at that time?
No sir.

62: It would have been contrary to the church articles or laws to have done so, wouldn’t it Mr. Snow?
It would be considered that a person touching such a principle at that time would be liable to experience the church discipline.

63: Did you marry persons when you were on your mission at that time?
That is the mission of 1839?

64: Yes sir.
No sir.

65: You performed no ceremonies of marriage?
No sir.

66: Do you know the ceremony for the performance of the marriage vow that was provided by the church at that time?
There was no special ceremony that I was aware of at that time.

67: There was none provided?
No sir.

68: What time did you return to Nauvoo from that European mission?
In the spring of 1843.

69: How early in the spring?
In April. About the middle of April.

70: How long after your return did you state it was who you had this conversation with Joseph Smith?
Well it might have been five or ten days.

71: Well which was it, five or ten days?
I presume it might not have been over ten days. No I don’t think it was over ten days. It was a short time after my return.

72: It was in the month of April then?
Yes sir, it was in April.

73: And at that time you stated that he told you that he had already taken your sister as a wife?
Yes sir, that was the statement he made to me in this private interview, that is related in that affidavit.

74: Did he say that she was taken as a wife and married to him, or did he say that she was sealed to him?
Sealed to him.

75: Sealed to him?
Yes sir.

76: How sealed to him?
For time and eternity.

77: Did he use the word “time” as well as “eternity”?
I think so, but I couldn’t say positively. That was distinctly understood you know. I believe, I would say that I solemnly believe so to the best of my knowledge, because that is a term that is generally used in the matter when the question of plural marriage is spoken of in reference to sealing “for time and eternity”. That is the way it is generally referred to you know, in speaking of the matter of plural marriage.

78: And that is the reason you state it now?
Yes sir and I believe he used it, for I solemnly believe he used these two words “time and eternity”.

79: You were not acquainted with the principle of sealing at that time?
No sir.

80: You were not?
No sir, for I have, – I had never heard of it before.

81: You were very soon after you arrived there then?
No sir.

82: How long after you arrived there was it that you saw the ceremony performed?
I never saw the ceremony performed in the days of Joseph.

83: You never did?
No sir, I never did.

84: Did you know anything about the principle in the days of Joseph?
What principle?

85: The principle of sealing?
No sir, only I knew there was such an ordinance, but I did not know any thing about the form or words used, or anything about it in that way.

86: Well didn’t Joseph tell you on this occasion that you had the conversation with him?
No sir.

87: Well what did he tell you?
He told me the principle of plural marriage for time and eternity was a revelation from God, and he was commanded to put it into practice, and that my sister had been sealed to him, and othes parties had been sealed to him.

88: He told you that your sister hae been sealed to him?
Yes sir.

89: For time and eternity?
Yes sir.

90: And that other parties had been sealed to him for time and eternity?
Yes sir, but he did not name any of them. He did not name any of them but my sister, Eliza R. Snow. Yes he did name some of them too, I remember that now.

91: Well he did tell you about sealing on this occasion?
Yes sir, he told me all about it, but as to the words used, or the ceremony I don’t know anything about it from what he told me then.

92: Did he tell you whether or not a man could be sealed to another man, and a man’s family?
No sir he said nothing about that.

93: Do you know whether or not that was the case from your knowledge?
This is the first time I ever heard of it.

94: Heard of what?
Of one man being sealed to another.

95: You never heard of a family being sealed to another family?
Yes sir, I have heard of it in this way, – I have heard of children being sealed to adults.

96: Did you ever hear of a man’s wife being sealed to him?
Yes sir.

97: You have heard of that?
Certainly I have heard of women being sealed to men, but of men being sealed to one another, I never heard of that until now.

98: Was it not common to seal a man’s wife to him, – that is was not the principle common after Joseph’s death and was it not practiced in the church at that time?
Certainly. Now do I understand you to ask me the question about a man being sealed to a man?

99: Yes sir?
In what way?

100: Sealed to one higher in authority, so the whole family would be his in eternity?
You ask me if I now know or ever did know anything about a man being sealed to a man, and I say no, I never knew or heard of such a thing as that.

101: This is the first time that you have learned that in the church there was such a principle as plural marriage, to be acceptable or to be accepted?
Well as you ask that question I say no. It is not the first time I have heard of the principle. I have heard of these principles before, but not exactly as you put your question.

102: When was the first time? Well about three days be- fore that time. There was a man by the name of Sherwood, an intimate friend of mine, and he was a great friend to Joseph Smith, an intimate friend to him in Kirtland, and there I became acquainted with his man Sherwood, and he came here to Salt Lake City, and became the President of the high priest’s quorum.
 

103: Well never mind that?
Well I want to tell you something about the man for he had something to do with this matter, and for that reason I want to tell you something about him.

104: Well I don’t want to hear it, for whatever he told you would be hearsay?
Well sir, I am getting old and you must let me be a little like a woman and give me a little latitude, and if you do that I will come out all right and tell you these things so you can understand them distinctly.

105: Well then go ahead, that is all right.
Well I had only returned to Nauvoo a few days, two or three, maybe four or five days, and I called on this gentleman Mr. Sherwood, and had quite a chat with him, and he asked me to step out to one side, and he said this.

106: Well I know it is, but the witness desires to tell his story in this own way. We object to it as hearsay but it seems he will tell it that way anyway.
Well this man Sherwood said to me “Lorenzo”, calling me by my name, he called me by my given name, and he said “Lorenzo I want to tell you something to prepare your mind”. He said, “I have no right to tell you this but I will do it to prepare your mind” and then he went on and explained these principles to me.

107: Then Joseph Smith was not the first person that explained those principles to you. That is the fact is it not?
No sir, he was not, not if you consider the other man as being an authority at all equal to Joseph Smith.

108: What time did you live in Kirtland, Ohio?
I was there in 1836.

109: Were you there at the time of the convening of the General Assembly?
No sir. It was a few months before. I was there in the spring and what you allude to by that meeting was probably in April. However I was not there at that time.

110: Look at that book and state if you ever saw it before?
I can’t say that I ever saw that one.

111: Or one like it, state the face in that connection?
It was printed in 1835 I see, but I can’t say whether I ever saw it before of not. I suppose however that I saw one similar to it.

112: Was that not an authorized work of the church at that time, when you belonged to it?
Well I would think so, but I would not swear to it. I would swear that I think it was from the fact that I see the witness here to their names published by F.J. Williams & Company at Kirtland, Ohio in 1835. I would imagine that that was recognized as a book published by the church.

113: Now you may look at section one hundred and one in the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir, that is the paragraph with reference to marriage?

114: Yes sir.
Yes sir, here it is.

115: Was that not the law and doctrine of the church upon the question of marriage?
Yes sir. It was at that time.

116: It was at that time?
Yes sir.

117: You stated a while ago that you didn’t know of any law?
No sir.

118: You did not?
No sir, I said it was probably in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

119: I understood you to say when you were examined, that you did not think the church had ever spoken upon the question of marriage?
Well I thought you had reference to the ceremony that was used, when two persons came together to get married, and I did not remember the ceremony, and I don’t think that embraces the ceremony at all. What is it anyway?

120: Well you ought to be acquainted with it. I think, – you were on a mission and you certainly ought to be acquainted with that?
Well I will ask you what it says, – you have looked it over.

121: Well you are the witness. Was there any special ceremony at that time?
At what time?

122: At the time you were with the church you speak of?
There might have been, but yet I don’t think they were particularly confined to any particular words. If that is what you refer to I would like you to read it so that it might bring it back to my memory. I am getting old and I don’t remember matters as well as I would like to.

123: I refer to the doctrine that a man could have more than one wife?
No sir, no sir, – I told you all the time that I didn’t remember the words.

124: Well I will ask you the question that I did before when you were out in 1839 were you instructed with reference to the law of marriage to teach plurality of wives, or monogamy?
No sir, I received no instructions to teach plural marriage.

125: You did not receive any instructions to teach a plurality of wives?
No sir.

126: Was not monogamy the law of the church at the time.
I was a bachelor and I never expected to be married at that time, and I never once heard of it until I heard of this plural marriage business. I will answer your questions directly and to the point, if you will make me acquainted with them, – or ask them so that I can understand you meaning clearly.

127: At that time you were acquainted with the revelations of Joseph Smith?
Not all of them.

128: Are you now acquainted with the revelations of Joseph Smith?
Not all of them.

129: You were sent out to preach the doctrine of the church?
Partially, – I was sent out to preach first principles.

130: You were instructed and authorized to preach first principles only?
Yes sir, at that time I was.

131: Who represented the doctrines of the church?
Joe Smith.

132: Who represented them in Great Britain?
I represented all that the circumstances required in the situation I was placed in at various times, and I represented the doctrine of the church so far as the first principles were concerned, – such as faith, baptism and the laying on of hands and where it required any special doctrine that was re- quired to be understood, I explained it as best I could, – I explained it as I understood it.

133: Now this doctrine of the church with reference to marriage you said at first you did not understand that there was any such a doctrine?
I said I did not understand there was any special ceremony.

134: You say now you said you did not understand there was any such a ceremony?
Yes sir.

135: Now sir, I will get you to read the second paragraph of section one hundred and one, on marriage, in the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
 

136: You may read it out aloud so that it may be incorporated in your testimony?
Do you want the entire section?

137: Yes sir, the entire section, – you may read it all if you so desire. We only care particularly for the second paragraph, but you may read he whole thing if you choose to do so, if it will assist you any?
Well I’ll read it all, – Section 101, Marriage. 1st paragraph, – According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by rules and ceremonies, therefore we believe that all marriages in this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting or feat prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder or priest not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married of being married by other authority. We believe it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. 2nd, – Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanks giving, and at the solemnization the persons to be married standing together, the man on the right and the woman on the left, shall be addressed by the person officiating as he shall be directed by the Holy Spirit, and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companions, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition: that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other and from all others during your lives”? Aan 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 he country and authority vested in him; “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth, and forever. Amen.” 3rd, – The clerk of every branch should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his branch. 4th, – All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is received into this church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have but one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent is unlawful and unjust. We believe that all persons who exercise control over their fellow beings, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.

138: Now how do you harmonize your statement that the church had not spoken on it, – that is on the question of marriage, – after reading that section?
I told you that there might have been something spoken on it, but I didn’t remember particularly what it was. I do not remember as to the precise words that were used when the woman stood up with the man to be married. I did not know there was any particularly necessity of strictly conforming to anything of that kind.

139: You were an elder of the church at that time?
Yes sir. I told you I was an elder of the church at that time.

140: They were authorized to perform the marriage ceremony?
Yes sir, I knew that, but I told you that I never married any one because I was a bachelor, and I did not believe in it so far as I was concerned. I suppose if I had been in the habit of marrying I would have remembered about it, although I can’t say that I would remember that it was absolutely necessary to adhere to any strict formula in performing the ceremony of marriage. I do not know that I would remember that it was abosolutely necessary to confine yourself abosolutely to any particular words in doing that, if the substance would be employed.

141: I will ask you to look at the revelation in section thirteen and read paragraph seven, Mr. Snow?
And again I say unto you, thou shalt not kill, but he that killeth shall die. Thou shalt not steal, and he that stealeth, and will not repent, shall be case out. Thou shalt not lie; and he that lieth and will not repent shall be case out. Thou shalt love they wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else; and he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, shall deny the faith, and shall not have the spirit, and if he repents not he shall be cast out. Thou shalt not commit adultery; but he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh, it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; but if he do it again he shall not be foregiven, but shall be cast out. Thou shalt not speak evil of they neighbor, nor do him any harm. Thou knowest my laws concerning these things are given in my scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out.”
I am willing the gentleman shall ask me any question he pleases, – I make no objection to it.

142: Do you recognize that as a doctrine of the church at the time you belonged to it?
Yes sir, it always has been and is today the doctrine of the church.

143: You recognize that as the doctrine of the church?
I do sir, entirely and fully.

144: Is that the doctrine that was taught by Brigham Young here in the Valley, and the church here after his time, upon the marriage question?
I don’t know whether it is or not.

145: You don’t know whether it is or not?
No sir, – just let me look at it again.

146: Well this is the point, – “Thou shalt love they wife with all they heart and shall cleave unto her and none else”?
Yes sir, that is right.

147: That doctrine was taught?
Yes sir.

148: It was taught here in the Valley by Brigham Young and the ones that succeeded him?
Yes sir, and I believe it fully and entirely. I endorse that absolutely.

149: And Brigham Young taught that too?
I believe he did, sir.

150: And the purported revelation taught it also?
Let me see. Read it again.

151: Thou shalt love they wife with all they heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else, and he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, etc.?
Yes sir.

152: And the purported revelation of 1848 is the same as that, – the polygamy revelation?
I think when a man has a dozen wives he can cleave to them all and love them all. 153 (Written as 133)

153: You have not answered my question Mr. Snow, – I asked you if the revelation of 1843 taught the same as that I have just read?
I apprehend there is no disagreement between the revelation of 1843 or 1844, – I mean the revelation of 1843, – I apprehend sir, that there is no disagreement or difference between them when they are explained in connection. I believe sir, that they are in harmony.

154: I will renew my question, – does the revelation of 1843 that was accepted by the church to which you now belong, in 1852, contain the same teaching on the question of marriage as is contained in these sections you have read?
Well sir, I will answer that question right directly by saying that I think it does. 155 (Written as 153)

154: I will read paragraph three from section sixty five in this connection, and it is in this same edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, being the 1835 edition? “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. And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; for behold the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth is ordained for the use of man, for good and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance, but it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another; wherefore the world lieth in sin; and woe be unto man that sheddeth blood or wasteth flesh, and hath no need”?
Yes sir.

156: You recognize that as the teaching of the original church?
Yes sir, I recognize that.

157: Was that the same as the teaching of the purported revelation of 1848?
One is more extensive than the other, but they don’t disagree.

158: Which is the more extensive of the two?
The last one.

159: Which one is that?
The one which allows a man to have a dozen wives if he sees fit.

160: It is considerably enlarged?
Yes sir, like it was in the days of Jacob when he had four or five wives.

161: You lived in Nauvoo in 1843 you say?
yes sir.

162: For how long?
Well I was there off and on, and was traveling from one place to another. I was traveling a good deal of the time from one place to another, but off and on I was there a part of the time. I was there most of the time I might say from 1843 until we moved to the Valley.

163: Were you there at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
No sir.

164: When did you first see the purported revelation on marriage?
Which one?

165: There was only one as I understand it, – I refer to the purported revelation, – the revelation purported to have been given in 1848 and present to the church here in Salt Lake City in 1852?
It was after, – well now I don’t remember when I did see it. I don’t recollect when I first saw it.

166: Was it after it was presented here by Brigham Young to the church?
I could not say.

167: Were you present at the time he presented here in the Tabernacle to the church or to the people?
What time was that?

168: In 1852?
No sir.

169: Where were you at that time?
I was in Italy I believe. I think I was either in Italy or in France.

170: You are positive you saw it before that time?
Yes sir.

171: You are positive you saw it before that time?
Yes sir.

172: Where did you see it?
I can’t remember. I can’t tell you for I don’t remember.

173: In what form had you seen it?
I cannot say.

174: Was it written or printed?
It was printed. I never saw the original if that is what you want to know.

175: Did you ever see it in any other form except in a printed form?
No sir.

176: Was it ever printed in any other form before it was printed here in the Journal of Discourses?
Well I can’t say positive, but I suppose it was.

177: Do you know whether it was or not?
No sir.

178: Did you ever see it before you saw it in the “Pearl of great price”?
I could not say.

179: You never saw it until after it was printed?
No sir.

180: Was it ever presented for the acceptance of the church at Nauvoo, – that is was it ever presented to the church for acceptance?
At Nauvoo?

181: Yes sir, – was it ever presented to the church there for its acceptance?
No sir, I do not think it was, still I could not say what was done there, for I belonged to the traveling ministry, and was away a good deal of the time.

182: Then it was not presented to the church according to your knowledge?
No sir, not to my knowledge. It might have been presented to the church and I not know it, for I was away so much of the time, but I hardly think it was done for the reason that I would have heard of it, but I have no recollection of hearing anything of the kind at all.

183: I refer to its presentation to the church while there at Nauvoo?
Yes sir, I understand. It might have been presented a dozen times, but if it was I have no knowledge of it.

184: Well I am asking you only for your knowledge, and you answer that it might have been a dozen times without your knowledge. Yes sir, that is true too, but it never was presented that I know anything about. It might have been presented time and again when I was absent and I not know anything about it.
 

185: After that revelation, – up to the time of that revelation to the church – and its acceptance by the church, what was the law of the church on marriage?
The same as you have read there.

186: In this book?
Yes sir. 187 (Number is missing)

186: The book I refer to is the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the law I refer to is section one hundred and one?
Yes sir.

188: That was the law of the church up to the time of this purported revelation to the church, and its acceptance by the church?
Yes sir.

189: And the man that violated this law in this book until the acceptance of the revelation by the church violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage?
Yes sir. He was cut off from the church. I think I should have been if I had.

190: What would be the condition of the man that would marry more than one person, prior to the giving of that revelation in 1843?
What would be the condition of a man that would do that?

191: Yes sir?
Why he would be cut off from the church.

192: Would not it have been adultery under these revelations I have just read?
Yes sir, I expect it would be.

193: You are one of the apostles in the church at the present time are you not, Mr. Snow?
Yes sir.

194: I will ask you to look at that book and state what it is, Mr. Snow?
It is the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

195: This book is an authority in your church at the present time, is it not Mr. Snow?
Yes sir.

196: In setion one hundred and thirty two here in Exhibit “E” (def’ts) I find a revelation here entitled “A revelation on the eternity of the marriage covenant, includung plurality of wives, given by Joseph Smith, the seer, in Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, July 12th 1843?
Yes sir.

197: That is the title of the revelation?
I think you have quoted it correctly.

198: You recognize that as one of the laws of the church at the present time?
Yes sir.

199: You are one of the principle officers of the church here now, are you not Mr. Snow?
Well I don’t know about that, –

200: Well I will ask you why it was that in this edition of Doctrine and Covenants, this article on marriage as you read it in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, and in all subsequent editions, was up to the time in all editions of the book of doctrine and Covenants, and at the time of this edition was taken out, and this revelation, or purported revelation put in its stead?
That is, I take it, you want to know why this principle of plural marriage was adopted instead of the principle of single marriage?

201: Yes sir, – why did you take the one out and put in the other?
I can’t tell, for I didn’t do it.

202: You can’t tell?
No sir.

203: Was it not because this taught, – or had changed the order of marriage in the church?
Well it is a fact that the order of marriage was changed, but whether that was the purpose of the substitution or not I do not know.

204: The order of marriage was changed, and the old order was eliminated, – is that not the fact?
Well it was changed or extended, as I told you before. It was changed from the one to the other.

205: It was changed from monogamy to polygamy was it not?
Yes sir. You might say it was if it suits you. It was extended from monogamy to polygahy.

206: Well I believe you state, -?
Well I want to explain, – I am willing to answer your questions, and I will answer them as well as I can, but I claim the privilege of answering them in my own language and in my own may as best I can, – that is my right and I claim it. I must have a little leeway, for my memory is not of the best at the present time, – it is not as good as it used to be some years ago. I am much older now than you imagine by looking at me, and in a few weeks, if I live, I will see seventy eight, and you will find if you live until seventy eoght that you will not have an extraordinary memory.

207: Well you are growing very old Mr. Snow, but then we had an apostle on the stand that was eighty a few days ago, – a few weeks ago I should say?
Well now this matter of plural marriage is not extended to everybody and was not. Everybody did not understand it at all. It is limited in its scope, and it is not everybody that was prepared to receive this doctrine. Everybody is not prepared to receive it, and the doctrine was made known to certain parties under certain conditions, so it was very limited in its scope.

208: Then it was the introduction of another system besides the original one?
Yes sir. You might call it such, for it was the extension from the principle of one wife to more than one wife.

209: Now than under your law, and under this revelation, would it prevent every man in the church from having more than one wife?
Would what? I don’t understand.

210: Would this polygamous revelation here, – would it prevent any man in the church from having more than one wife if he wanted to?
No sir.

211: Then it was extended to everybody that chose to avail themselves of its provisions was it not?
I said plural marriage, –

212: Please answer the question?
What is the question?

213: Under the operation of this law of plural marriage or this revelation, every man that wanted to do so, could have more than one wife?
No sir, for I think there was lots of them that oughtn’t to have one wife.

214: Well when you were a bachelor, one wife didn’t extend or include you, because you did not want it?
No sir, and you would not want it too, if you did not want her. 215 (This question and answer are missing)

216: That is the way you understand this polygamous revelation?
Yes sir, something in that way.

217: That is you state that if a person should be married or sealed by this revelation, according to your understanding, – that is, if they should be married according to the provisions of this polygamous revelation prior to the year 1848, that they would be violating the laws of the church and would be guilty of adultery?
Yes sir.

218: You state now that Joseph Smith, was sealed or married to your sister in April 1843, and this so-called revelation was given in July of 1843?
 
No sir.

219: What do you mean by that answer?
I mean sir that I did not make any such a statement.

220: What time did you say it was?
Well the time I said it was was all right.

221: At the time that he said he was sealed to your sister you were abroad preaching?
I never said anything of the kind.

222: And you said did you not, that you came back in the month of April 1843 from your European mission, and on your return, or a few days after your return he took you aside and told you of this alleged revelation and at the same time told you that he was sealed to your sister?
I never said he was sealed to my sister, – you were mistaken if you understood me to say that.

223: Well you said that he told you that he had taken your sister?
Yes sir.

224: Yes sir, and that is what you said he told you?
Yes sir, and that is what he did tell me.

225: That he had taken your sister?
Yes sir.

226: And she was sealed to him?
Yes sir, that is it exactly. Now you have got it, – she was sealed to him.

227: Now then according to your understanding of this new covenant the woman is sealed to the man, and not the man to the woman?
Yes sir, you are right now, and I am very happy that you have got right for once.

228: Well I am glad too that I am right at last, as you put it, so you see our joy is mutual?
Well yes sir that is right and I am glad of it, but if you think you can get into any of these things now you are mistaken, for you can’t do it. The whole thing has been stopped, and there is no more of it here now, so you can’t find out anything about the operation of this principle in this place, for the whole thing has been stopped.

229: Now you have stated that Joseph Smith took your sister for a wife when he had a wife already?
Yes sir.

230: Prior to the giving of this revelation?
Yes sir.

231: Well what kind of a position did it put your sister and Joseph Smith in?
It put them in a first rate, splendid position for time and eternity.

232: Was not that act simply sealing instead of marriage?
Well it was all the same.

233: Sealing for eternity, and marriage, are they all one and the same thing?
Well it is getting the female with the male the same as it is in the marriage ceremony.

234: I will ask you Mr. Snow, if you ever saw the letter of your sister Mrs. Snow to Daniel _______ of Kansas, stating that she was never the wife of Joseph Smith in the sense of being a plural wife?
 

235: You may answer that question?
I am not aware of that.

236: Do you say it was not true?
What she stated? 237 (This number is missing)

238: Yes sir?
I don’t know what she stated.

239: Well do you say that was not true?
I don’t know what was stated sir.

240: Well if she stated that was it true?
I don’t know what, –

241: Well if she stated that was it true, – answer the question if you please?
What?

242: Was she a wife to him in that manner?
I don’t know what she stated.

243: I am not asking you what she stated? I simply ask you if she stated in a letter to the party I have mentioned that she was not a wife to Joseph Smith in the sense of being a plural wife, did she state what was true or false? Counsel for the defendants objects to the queation asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to any of the issues in this case, and on the further ground that it is not cross examination.
Well now state that again.

244: Was she to your knowledge a wife to him?
A wife to him? Now, –

245: Yes sir, a wife to him.
Of course she was a wife to him.

246: In what way?
Having been sealed to him for time and eterniry.

247: How do you know that to be the fact?
Why I know it because he stated it to me.

248: He stated it to you?
Yes sir.

249: What was it he stated to you? That she had been sealed to him for time and eternity
 

250: And he stated that to you before the giving of the revelation.
Before it was published.

251: Was it not before it was given?
No sir.

252: You stated that he told you that in April 1843?
Yes sir, but that was not before it was given to him, – it was before it was published or made known to any great number through.

253: You stated that he stated that toy ou in April 1848
Yes sir, that is just exactly what I stated.

254: The revelation that I have read to you, – or the caption of which I have read to you from your own work said it was given July 12th 1848, did it not?
Given to whom?

255: Given to Joseph Smith?
Read that and see what it says.

256: I have read it once and that is what it says?
Read it again so that I can see what it says.

257: “Revelation on the eternity of the Marriage covenant, including plurality of wives. Given through Joseph the Seer in Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, July 27th 1843”. That is it?
Does it say it was not given to him before that time?

258: Do you say it was given to him before that time?
I say that he explained to me the principles of plural marriage distinctly and clearly, and told me that the Lord had revealed the principle, and had commanded him to enter into that practice, and that he had received a revelation to that effect. He said that he had demurred to doing so as he foresaw the trouble that would ensue, but that an angel of the Lord had appeared before him with a drawn sword commanding him to do so, and he could not go backward. It was in substance that that he told me, but of course I do not pretend to relate the exact language he used.

259: Well now then if it is a fact that he married your sister in April, or he had married her at the time he told you this in April, and the date of the revelation is given as July 12th of the same year, the date of the revelation is wrong?
No sir, not entirely.

260: This is not the time it was given?
That was the first time it was given to the public, but not the first time it was given to Joseph Smith.

261: What publicity was given to it in July 1843?
Well I think it was the people in Nauvoo.

262: Was it given to the people of Nauvoo on July 12th 1843?
I don’t know.

263: Do you, – you do not know that it was given to the people of Nauvoo on that date?
No sir.

264: Do you know that it was not given to them on that date?
Given by whom?

265: Given to the people of Nauvoo on that date, – published to the people there on that date, – given to them publicly?
I do not know for I was not there. I was not there I told you, – well I was, – 266 (Written as 256)

265: Have you not already testified that you never saw it until after it was in print?
Yes sir, that is what I said.

267: You have testified that you never saw it until the time that you saw it in print??
Yes sir, that is what I said, and I say it again.

268: And that was long after the time that you left Nauvoo?
Long after I left Nauvoo?

269: Yes sir, and while you were in France?
Le me see, – this was in 1843, – Oh, no, I never told you I was in France, – if you read what I said a dozen time there is no France about it.

270: What place were you sent to on a mission?
I was sent to Europe.

271: Well when were you sent to Europe on a mission?
I was sent to Europe in 1839, and I returned from Europe in 1843 as I told you before. I returned from Europe some time in April 1843, – in the latter part of April 1843 I think it was. It was about the middle of the month or thereabouts, and this private interview I spoke of having with Joseph Smith was about that time.

272: Where were you in 1852?
I think I was in Italy and France, and that is what I told and you got mixed up on it somewhat.

273: Well while there you stated you first saw this revelation, you thought.
No I don’t remember stating that, for I do not recollect when I first saw it. I recollect well enough when it was first taught to me by Joseph Smith, but I do not recollect when I first saw it, but it is possible that it was there, –

274: Were you a member of the church at an early date in Kirtland?
Yes sir.

275: When was that?
That was in ’36.

276: And that was your first connection with the church?
Yes sir.

277: Then to your knowledge this purported revelation o 1843 was never brought before the church for acceptance during the life-time of Joseph Smith?
No sir, it was never brought before the public in a public way by public proclamation or announcement. It was never brought before the public in any other way before the death of Joseph Smith, only as I have state it there.

278: Only as stated here?
Yes sir.

279: And that was the only way?
The only way I know anything about. It was taught privately.

280: Was it ever presented to the church for acceptance?
I do not know.

281: Do you say that it was?
No sir.

282: Do you say that it was not?
No sir.

283: Would a revelation as such, – or that which purported to be such, – that is to be a revelation, – binding upon the church unless it was accepted?
Yes sir, it would be to some.

284: I asked you Mr. Snow, if it would be binding upon the church until it had been accepted by the church?
Yes sir, it would be to those that chose to accept it as binding. The people had the most implicit and perfect confidence in Joseph Smith, and when he gave a revelation, whether it was accepted or not, it didn’t make any difference with some, for they had the most perfect confidence in him, so they would accept it and act upon it whether the church as a church had acted upon it by accepting it did not make any difference.

285: Would it be a part of the church laws until it had been accepted by the church?
That would depend on the circumstances.

286: That would depend on circumstances, you say?
Yes sir.

287: Well I would like you to explain what you mean by that answer?
I mean just what I said.

288: Well mention the circumstances, or the circumstance where a revelation would become a part of the church law, without acceptance on the part of the church?
Well take myself for example, – Joseph might give a revelation on certain important matters, and I not knowing the revelation, or what he had given it, it would not be binding on me even if it had been accepted as you put it, by the church: but if he gave a revelation and I knew that he gave it, it would be binding on me even before it was accepted by the church, – that is the way I feel about it.

289: Well now if he should have a revelation and it should not be presented to the church, would it be binding on the church, – that is the question, – not what you consider or feel yourself, – but would it be binding upon the church?
Well it would not be binding upon the church, for the church as a church would not know it if it was not presented formally to the church as a church, but it would be binding upon such as knew of it. Now if you will allow me to explain I would like to do so. If that revelation is presented to me, and there is a half a dozen men and women and it is presented to them, it would be a law to them, and be binding upon them, and any other part of the church that had knowledge, – distinct and definite knowledge of it, but I do not think it would be binding upon any other part of the church other than that which had knowledge of its existence. Do you understand that?

290: Well I think I do, – clearly too?
Well I am glad to hear it.

291: Well suppose these half dozen of men and women should receive a revelation under the circumstances you have indicated, and it should be contrary to the laws of the church as accepted by the church, – what would be the duty of the duty of this half dozen men and women in that case?
Well it would be rather unpleasant to them I think.

292: It would place them in an unpleasant position you say?
In my opinion it would.

293: Then a revelation must be received by the church before it is the law of the church?
Not always.

294: Do you say that is not always the case?
Yes sir.

295: Mention an instance where it would not be?
Well this instance we are talking about now, for there were several in Nauvoo that received that revelation and practiced it before it was ever received at all by the church.

296: Did not that make them violators of the law of the church?
No sir.

297: Why?
Because Joseph had a perfect authority to give revelations and the people were under obligations to receive them.

298: You state that as a fact?
I state that as my understanding of Joseph’s privilege and the people’s duty.

299: When Moses went up on the mount to receive the law in the wilderness, was he not commanded to present it to the church for acceptance, before it was binding upon the people?
 

300: Was not that the case?
Yes sir.

301: And the people had to answer?
Answer what?

302: Answer whether they would accept that law or not?
Well no, – I don’t know as they were forced to do that, I don’t know as they had to do that. Were they?

303: Well, I ask you that question?
Well, I told you I don’t know.

304: You are a preacher in this church here in Utah?
Yes sir.

305: And an apostle?
Yes sir.

306: And you don’t know whether it is a fact or is not a fact that the people were commanded to accept the law that Moses got on the mount, before it would be a law to them?
No sir, I do not know.

307: You are a preacher and an apostle in this church, and you do not know that?
No sir, – you are a lawyer, and yet you don’t know half as much as you ought to know.

308: Well I admit that. I do not make any pretentions of knowing any more than I do know?
You know this that we are having here is tit for tat, but if you want to go on I am willing, although I don’t think it is particularly interesting to the folks here.

309: Well that is all right, – I know I am not here for the purpose of interesting them? Did not the people have to answer as to whether they would accept or not, and was that not the rule in the bible times?
Well it was suppose they would answer.

310: Well is it not a fact that it was a rule in the church that if anybody should undertake to follow a principle that had not been accepted, and was not accepted as a principle and true doctrine of the church that they would be violators of the law of the church
Yes sir.

311: That is a fact?
Yes sir, but there are exceptions to every law, you know.

312: Who constituted the church at Nauvoo, if you know?
Joseph and the people.

313: Joseph and the people constituted the church while at Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

314: Well what else, – I mean at the time that they were at Nauvoo?
What sles beside Joseph and the people that were there?

315: Yes sir?
Well that was it.

316: By “the people” you refer to the members of the church throughout the world, as constituting the church?
Yes sir.

317: Then the members throughout the world and Joseph Smith constituted the church?
Yes sir.

318: Then could Joseph Smith receive a principle without the knowledge or consent of the body of the church, which was the people throughout the world, and without submitting it to them, – could he receive and practice it, and be in harmony with the law?
He couldn’t do it in reference to that in any other way. That is the only way he could do it.

319: Could he practice it without a violation of the law of the church?
It was just this way, and it seems to me to be a plain common sense proposition, that Joseph Smith could not receive a revelation, or principle as you express it, and the people all understood it at the time he received it. That is a self evident proposition that that could not me don.

320: Well are you through?
Yes sir.

321: Then I wish you would answer my question. Could he receive a revelation and act upon it, that was contrary in its teachings and provisions to the laws of the church to govern the church, with out a violation of those laws?
Yes sir, I see that distinctly and understand it, and I want you to understand it too.

322: Well just answer my question,-you can answer it yes or no?
What is the question?

323: Could Joseph Smith receive a revelation and act upon it that was contrary in its teachings and provisions to the laws of the church as accepted by the church at that time, without being at the same time in violation of the laws of the church?
Why he might do so. Joseph Smith and did, but I don’t consider he was violator of any of the laws of the church, for he was the law of the church. I never knew of the church rejecting a revelation he gave to them.

324: You mean that Joseph Smith might and did receive revelations,-what do you mean by that?
I mean that he might receive revelations and act on them, and did so receive them and act on them, and so did Moses and Christ and other prophets. They all received revelations, and call it presumption or what you choose they assumed the authority given them, and acted on them forthwith. They were not presumptuous enough to question the voice of the Lord when it came to them in the form of a commandment, neither was Joseph.

325: Well now you have not answered my question yet,-I asked you if Joseph Smith received a revelation that was a variance with the laws of the church as accepted by the church,-what would you be his position if acted up such a revelation without submitting it to the church?
Joseph might have received a revelation that was apparently perhaps,-perhaps it might apparently be in contradiction, and yet it does not come to my mind now what circumstances might arise. Now I see what you are after, and I wish to explain it so you may understand what I mean, and know all about it. Joseph Smith received a revelation in reference to plural marriage, and the church he thought in his wisdom was not properly prepared to receive that revelation,- 327 (Should be 326)

325: He thought the church was not properly prepared to receive that revelation, you say?
Yes sir.

327: How do you know he thought that?
Well he told me so.

328: He told you that the church was not prepared for it?
Yes sir, that is what he told me. And he told me one particular person that was not prepared for it and that was his brother Hyrum.
(continued) And I will tell you the reason why if you wish to it?

329: Well never mind that,-that is not a part of my examination, You have told the fact and that is sufficient. You have stated that Joseph Smith said to you that the church was not prepared for it?
Yes sir.

330: The the church never accepted that, did they, Mr. Snow.
No sir, not in the time of Joseph, for it was not published.

331: It was not presented to the church for acceptance?
No sir, not at that time.

332: Was it ever accepted by the church?
Yes sir, it was presented to the church here and accepted, but it was not presented to the church in the time of Joseph.

333: How long afterwards was it, when it was presented to the church.
Well I told you it was about the middle of April 1843 when Joseph explained it to me, and you have it down there when I said it was present to and accepted by the church and published.

334: Did you say it was published July 12th 1843?
No sir.

335: You did not say that?
No sir, you said that.

336: No sir, I did not. I do not like to contradict you, but I did not say so?
It says so, it says you did (referring to the stenographers notes).

337: No sir, it does not say so, when was it give to Joseph Smith? I will ask that question now?
I did not say that, it was given in July 1844, Mr. Cannon, wasn’t that the time? I guess you can get along very well with a higher officer in the church then Mr. Cannon, and what he says is pretty good authority.

338: Well I am asking you for your information, and not for Mr. Cannon’s?
Well I just said that because I thought that his memory was better than mine.

339: You can refer to that book if you want to (referring to the book of Doctrine and Covenants (Covenants and Commandments) marked exhibit “A” part of def’s exhibits.)
 

340: Do you want to refer to any book to show the time of the publication?
Does it not state there what the time was?

341: Not the time of the revelation, and that is what I am asking you for?
Well I can’t say.

342: You don’t know?
I can’t remember now what it was.

343: Do you now know, Mr. Snow, that when Brigham Young presented that in the Tabernacle, he stated that no man knew of its existence up to that time but himself?
Well I told you that I was in France or Italy at that time, and don’t know anything about that. I am not supposed to know what everybody says.

344: What time did you leave Nauvoo after the death of Joseph Smith?
Well as near as I can recollect, it was as near as I recollect, it was some time in the spring, and I think it was in the spring of 1847 that we left Nauvoo. I am not sure about that for my memory does not serve me so well in regard to these distant acts that occurred as it does some of the things that occurred more recently.

345: You are acquainted with the facts in reference to the breaking up of the church there at Nauvoo, are you not?
Yes sir.

356: And with reference to two of the first presidency being killed?
Yes sir. I remember all about that, but of course I was not there at the time.

347: Were you present at the reorganization of the quorums afterwards at Kanesville or at Council Bluffs, Iowa?
No sir, for I was not there at the time. I was at a town called Pisgah about one hundred and twenty miles from the Bluffs.

348: Well what was the manner with reference to the acceptation of revelations by the church when they were presented, Mr. Snow?
 

331: It was not present to the church for acceptance?
No sir, not at that time.

332: Was it ever accepted by the church?
Yes sir, it was present to the church here and accepted, but it was not present to the church in the time of Joseph.

333: How long afterwards was it, when it was present to the church?
Well I told you it was about the middle of April 1843 when Joseph explained it to me, and you have it down there when I said it was present to and accepted by the church, and published.

334: Did you say it was published July 12th 1843?
No sir.

335: You did not say that?
No sir, you said that.

336: No sir, I did not. I do not like to contradict you, but I did not say so?
It says so, it says you did (referring to the senographers notes.)

337: No sir, it does not say so, when was it given to Joseph Smith? I will ask that question now?
I did not say that, it was given in July 1844, Mr. Cannon, wasn’t that the time? I guess you cen get along very well with a higher offiver in the church than Mr. Cannon, and what he says is pretty good authority.

338: Well I am asking you for your information, and not for Mr. Cannon’s?
Well I just said that because I throught that his memory was better than mine.

339: You can refer to that book if you want to (referring to the book of Doctrine and Covenants (Covenants and Commandments) marked exhibit “A” part of def’s exhibits.)
 

340: Do you want to refer to any book to show the time of the publication?
Does it not state there what the time was?

341: Not the time of the revelation, and that is what I am asking you for?
Well I can’t say.

342: You don’t know?
I can’t remember now what it was.

343: Do you now know Mr. Snow, that when Brigham Young presented that in the Tabernacle, he stated that no man knew of its existence up to that time but himself?
Well I told you that I was in France or Italy at that time, and don’t know anything about that. I am not supposed to know what everybody says.

344: What time di you leave Nauvoo after the death of Joseph Smith?
Well as near as I can recollect, it was as near as I recollect, it was some time in the spring, and I think it was in the spring of 1847 that we left Nauvoo. I am not sure about that for my memory does not serve me so wel in regard to these distance acts that occurred as it does some of the things that occurred more recently.
Yes sir.

346: And with reference to two of the first presidency bring killed?
Yes sir. I remember all about that, but of course I was not there at the time.

347: Were you present at the reorganization of the quorums afterwards at Kanesbille or at Council Bluffs, Iowa?
No sir, for I was not there at the time. I was at a town called Pisgah about one hundred and twenty miles from the Bluffs.

348: Well what was the manner with reference to the acceptation of revelations by the church when they were presented, Mr. Snow?
 
When?

349: From 1836, the time you came into the church first up to 1844?
I have no recollection of ever being present until here recently.

350: Then you did not remember anything about being present when it was presented to the church?
NO sir, I have no recollection of being present when that was done. As I told you I was away a great deal of the time in those days engaged in the traveling work of the ministry, and I have no recollection of being present.

351: Then you do not know what the manner of the church was from 1836 to 1844?
Yes sir, I understand it generally. I understand it in a general way as a matter of course.

352: Well were not all the revelations that pertained to the church as contained in this book, presented to the general conferences of the church at Kirtland when you were there?
Did I not tell you I was not there.

353: I understood you to say you were there?
No sir.

354: Well do you know whether they were presented or no.
No sir, I do not.

355: Were you acquainted with that?
Yes sir, pretty well.

356: Well you do not know what the order was in that respect?
I understood this plurality business.

357: You understood the plurality business you say?
Yes sir. I understand that.

358: How long have you been a member of the church?
Fifty six years.

359: A member of what church?
This church.

360: What church is that?
The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

361: All this time?
Well now I have answered these questions over and over again, and from the way you are acting in asking them it looks to me as if you are not after information, but just to criticise. However if the gentleman is willing to stand it I am willing to stand it, – I can stand it as long as he can.

362: Have you been a member of the church all this time?
All of what time?

363: All these fifty six years since you first joined it?
Yes sir, that is just the length of time that I have been a member of the church.

364: Did you not know, and do you not know that the church broke up in 1844?
No sir.

365: You are not aware of the fact?
I don’t know anything about that?

366: You do not know anything about that?
No sir, I never heard that this church broke up. I have heard that the claim was made that it broke up, but if it did I am not aware of the fact, and I never saw anything to indicate that that was the fact. I think I would know it if it did, and I did not think that I did, – in fact I know that it did not.

367: You do not know anything about that?
No sir, I never heard that this church broke up. I have heard that the claim was made that it broke up, but if it did I am not aware of the fact, and I never saw anything to indicate that that was the fact. I think I would know it if it did, and I do not think that it did, – in fact I know that it did not.

368: Don’t you know that another portion of it went to Pennsylvania under Sydney Rigdon?
I have heard so.

369: And don’t you know that another portion of it went to Beaver, Wisconsin, under Strang?
 

370: Don’t you know that?
Well I understand that to be so, I know it from hearsay, but I do not know any of these things of my own knowledge.

371: And don’t you knot that there was a large portion of the people that belonged to the church at the time of the death of Joseph Smith, that did not go with any of these factions in the United States?
I know there is the Josephites, –

372: Let Mr. Cannon prompt you, – that is all right for him to do so, but I want the record to show that he does prompt you?
Well that is right, – they were not in existence at that time, – they came in later.

373: Don’t you know that a large porpion of them did not come here to Utah with you?
yes sir, that is my understanding.

374: It is very difficult for you to understand anything in connection with the Josephites?
Well that is the first time I have heard their name, –

375: Who became the president of the church after the death of Joseph Smith?
Brigham Young.

376: How did he become the President?
Because he was appointed to the position and accepted by the people

376: So that the way he was made the President of the church?
Well that was one way.

377: Is that the way provided in the laws of the church in existence in 1844?
What law do you refer to?

378: The law as contained in the book of doctrine and covenants?
Well you know, –

379: Well I ask you if it was according to the law?
Which point do you refer to?

380: I ask you the question again, – was Brigham Young appointed president of the church according to the law contained in the book of doctrine and covenants?
If you will point out what you refer to, I will express it to you immediately, – I will answer you immediately if you will point it out to me.

381: Was Brigham Young appointed President of the church according to the law contained in the book of doctrine and Covenants at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
I don’t know what you refer to.

382: Do you decline to answer the question Mr. Snow?
What is that?

383: I asked you if you declined to answer the question?
 

384: Just state how Brigham Young becamr President, Mr. Snow?
Well I will admit that he became,- he came into that position by the voice of he people.

385: He was not appointed by Joseph Smith as president?
No sir, he was not.

386: Joseph Smith did not designate him as his successor?
No sir, I do not understand it that way.

387: And he never so claimed did he?
Who?

388: Brigham Young?
No sir.

389: Now I will read to you the section given in the revelation of 1831 in February of that year,- “Verily, verily, I say unto you that none other 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 you receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived; that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations that you have recieved, and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.” Now was Brigham? Young appointed through him to receive revelations?
Through Joseph?

390: Yes sir.
Well it was,- it has been understood that,- it is pretty well conceded, and the people of the church recognize it,- that the churches recognize,- that when Joseph was martyred there in Carthage, that the entire authority devolved upon the president of the quorum of Twelve, and upon the twelve apostles,

391: Upon the twelve apostles?
Yes sir.

392: That the entire authority of the church devolved upon the twelve apostles?
Yes sir.

393: Well we move to exclude the answer of the witness, ,- no we will not either,
 

394: Well that was the position of the church at that time, that the entire authority of the church rested upon the thelve?
Yes sir.

395: Was Mr. Young made president of the church afterwards?
Yes sir.

396: After what?
After that time.

397: After the martyrdom?
Yes sir.

398: After this time that you speak of when it was understood that the authority rested upon or with the twelve?
Yes sir.

399: The he was never appointed president according to the law of the church?
According to the law?

400: Yes sir, the law from which I have read?
What is that?

401: He was never appointed or set apart by Joseph as his successor according to the law that I have just read to you?
He was never se apart by Joseph Smith as his successor that I am aware of

402: Now I will ask you why it is that you have revelations here in your book of doctrine and covenants, purporting to be the word of the law the Lord through Brigham Young, when it is stated in the original law of the church that none shall be received except the one through, or by Joseph? Why do you receive these things?
Well that was understood that during his time,-that is during Joseph’s time of exercising his authority as there were persons who undertook to exercise their authority, or other authority in his time on several occasions. They undertook to take the office from him and exercise the authority pertaining to it. I recollect an instance of the kind that occurred in Kirtland, and that law was made to be operative in his time.

403: Don’t it apply after his time the same, unless they receive the appointment through him, as designated here?
I don’t know

404: Does not the language so state?
Well there is many things in the revelations of the old testament and the new that seem to conflict unless they are reasoned out, and so it is with that. You will find statements in both the old testament and the new testament, and afterwards you will find that changes are made. Now there is the instance of Moses, where there was a law made or given,-

405: Well do you say there was a change made in this?
There was a law given and afterwards circumstances arose that rendered a change necessary, but it was not in Joseph’s time. The necessity for the change did not arise until after Joseph’s time.

406: Do you say there was a change made in this?
There may have been.

407: Do you say there was or was not?
I think the Lord has a perfect right to make a change any time he sees fit or pleases to do it; and we find always from the days of Adam down to the days of John the revelator there was the most extra ordinary changes made, and so it was in this case, for the Lord mad them in this case.

408: Has he contradicted his word flatly at any tme in any of these changes Mr. Snow?
Well it says in one passage in the scriptures that,-

409: Well never mind what it says Mr. Snow, but just answer my question,-has he contradicted himself or his word in any of these changes that you speak of?
I don’t know that he has.

410: Do you say that he never has?
He never contradicts himself. It might seem a contradict to men, but in reality there is no contradiction at all. It is only to men’s fallible judgment that there appears to be a contradiction as in reality there is no contradiction. Now you have asked for my opinion, and you have it.

411: Can you mention anything in the bible or book of doctrine and covenants, or the book of Mormon, or in either or any of these books that is in any, – that is in contradiction to any of the laws he has given to the church?
Well in the days of Noah it says the Lord repented him of certain things, and it says at different time he repented. There was one time it says he made a determination to destroy Israel entirely, and Moses through his exertion and force and power he had with God, seated face to face with God as the only perfected man, – he argued and reasoned with him and told him what the people would say, and he said to him in effect, – “you undertook to deliver Israel, and could not carry out the job, – you failed, and now” said he “don’t do this thing”.

412: Where did Moses ever say this?
Well I see you are not well acquainted with the bible.

413: Well I would like to know all about that?
Do you say there is no such thing as that in the bible?

414: Well ther may be some such tging as that, -?
Well Moses prayed with the Lord and through his arguments and prayer and persuasion he changed the mind of the Lord entirely with reference to the destruction of Israel.

415: Well do you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet?
Yes sir, but that is not the question. You see you do not know as much about the bible as you ought to for you wanted me to point to one passage in the bible, – you wanted me to cite an instance, and I am citing instances, – I am showing it from the bible itself, and now you try to evade these points after asking for them.

416: Well it don’t matter what I am trying to evade, – you please answer the questions I ask you and we will get along much better, for it may be that I know more about the bible than you credit me with knowing. Now you still believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he did the work he claimed to do?
Yes sir.

417: Don’t you know that when he translated that passage you quoted from Genesis, that he did it?
Yes sir, but when it comes down to the fact I don’t know that he did all the work he claimed to do.

418: Don’t you know that when he translated that passage that you attempted to quote from Genesis, that he found it was not correct that God repented there?
No sir.

419: You do not know that?
No sir, I do not. I don’t know anything about that.

420: You do not know that?
No sir, and I never saw it either. I don’t know that he ever translated any such a thing.

421: So you bring that up as an instance where God changed and repented of a pre-conceived determination, do you?
Yes sir.

422: And you give it from the King James translation of the bible?
 

423: You are willing to quote from the King James translation are you?
What is that?

424: You quoted from the King James translation, did you not?
No sir, I did not quote anything at all, and did not attempt to quote anything at all. I simply stated my understanding of it in my own language. I did not pretend to give the language of the quotation.

425: So then you do not know what translation you wee quoting from?
Well I suppose sir, I gathered this from Joseph Smith’s translation.

426: You do not use that translation of the bible here in the church in this territory, do you?
What translation?

427: Joseph Smith’s translation?
I don’t know.

428: You are one of the twelve?
Yes sir.

429: One of the twelve in the church as organized here in the Territory?
Yes sir.

430: And yet you don’t know everything that is done in the church?
No sir. You are a lawyer and yet you don’t know everything you ought to know.

431: Well I admitted that a while ago, – and you certainly ought to know the books that your church uses as authority?
Yes sir, I ought to know. There is many things I ought to know and do not know, like yourself, but I think I might know if I would run it down.

432: Now at the time you first joined the church, what kind of a church was it, – an monogamist church, or a church that believed in plural wives?
It did not believe in more than one wife, – just one wife.

433: Then it was monogamist on that point?
Yes sir, it was just one wife in those days.

434: And now you belong to a church that believes in how many wives?
Well it depends on circumstances as to how many wives a man might have, – as many as Jacob had, as many as Abraham had, but not as many as Solomon had, – he had three hundred or something like that I believe, and he was a wise man too.

435: And yet notwithstanding the fact that the church at the time you joined it permitted a man to have but one wife, and this church permitted a man to have as many as he pleased, you still claim that it is the same church?
Yes sir.

436: The same church that it was in 1836?
Yes sir, the same church that it was in 1836, – it has always been the same church.

437: It has the same law in reference to the doctrine of marriage?
Yes sir, and more.

438: Has it not changed the law with reference to marriage?
No sir, – well yes, I suppose it has, – it has extended it.

439: Has it extended it from one wife to a plurality of wives?
No sir.

440: It has not?
No sir.

441: Have you not just a moment ago stated that when you first joined the church in 1836, it permitted a man to have but one wife, and now you believe – or your church since that time has permitted people to belong to it that have more than one wife?
Yes sir.

442: Well is not that a change?
No sir.

443: Well is it?
Well I call it an extension.

444: In your cross examination Mr. Snow, you were asked the question if there was not a large number of your members, – that is a large number of the members of your church, who belonged to the church at the time it left Nauvoo, and did not remain in fellowship with the church here?
 

445: You may answer the question?
What is the question?

446: I asked you if you did not state on cross examination, when the question was asked you, that there was a large number of the members there at Nauvoo, did not leave Nauvoo, or rather did not come to the Valley here with the church when it came west, and did not remain in fellowship with the church here?
No sir, not a very large number, but there was some.

447: Now I will ask you to state Mr. Snow if the fact as to whether or not a large number of members both in the United States and Europe and other parts of the world remained in membership, and were a part of the members of the church that left Nauvoo and removed here to the mountains?
Yes sir.

448: Now you were asked on your cross examination, if it was not necessary for a revelation to be presented to the church and be acted on or accepted by the church, before it would become a law to the church. I will ask you to state whether you know that such is the law or was the law at that time?
It never was the law. As I stated a while ago I can explain that if I am given an opportunity. Well I think I explained that pretty clearly why it could not be.

449: Mr. Snow I will ask you to state to the reporter, the fact as to whether or not a revelation was binding upon the church, just as soon as the church was made acquainted with the contents of what that revelation was?
Yes sir.

450: That is the fact?
Yes sir, that is what I have stated before.

451: It was binding on the church just as soon as the church was made acquainted with it?
Yes sir.

452: I will ask you to state Mr. Snow if you know of any council of the church that has ever passed upon and decided that revelation on plural marriage is an addition and change from the law of marriage as contained in the first edition of the book of doctrine and covenants?
 
No sir.

453: I will ask you to state to the reporter Mr. Snow, whether Brigham Young was appointed to the position which he held by a revelation through Joseph Smith?
I am not aware that he was through a revelation from Joseph Smith.

454: I mean as president of the Twelve?
Yes sir, he was appointed by revelation as President of the Twelve. That was what was understood, – that was generally understood to be the fact.

455: Mr. Snow I will ask you to state to the reporter, whether or not it has not always been the rule of the church, that the one holding the highest office in the church, is the proper one to receive revelations for the church?
That has always been the order of the church.

456: I will ask you to state to the reporter if there was any higher officer, – No I will ask you to state to the reporter who was the highest officer in the church after the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith?
President Brigham Young.

457: Will you now state to the reporter what were the customs and usages of the church in regard to the reception or revelations?
Well during Joseph’s life he received revelations from time to time, and those revelations occasionally were shown to several parties, or to certain parties at first, and then extended from time to time, – they were shown to certain parties at first and then published.

458: Will you state to the reporter whether or not there was any law requiring all the revelations given through Joseph Smith to govern the church to be acted on by the quorums of the church, before they were submitted to the church?
There was no such law.

459: Then Mr. Snow, do I understand you to say that a revelation might become a law to the church after it and before it could be acted upon by the church as a body?
Yes sir.

460: In what way would it become a law, and to whom would it be a law?
It would become a law to everybody that would or should believe it. Of course it could not become a law to the church as a body before it was formally presented to the church in some of its conferences, but to every person who had notice of it or to whom it was communicated it would be a law from that time. Now there is the revelation that Joseph communicated to me that time on my return to Nauvoo. -that was never, -at any rate not at that time laid before the church, -the church had no notice of it, but it was a law to me and I was bound by it after the time it had been known to me.

461: Very well, if you object I will ask all my question through Mr Hall. I will put my questions through Mr Hall, and hope you gentlemen will observe the same rule?
 

462: Mr. Snow in your cross examination you made a statement in regard to the marriage ceremony, or your not knowing anything about it. Now I want you to state to the reporter whether you know that as a fact, or is that simply your best recollection about it?
 

463: You may answer the question?
Well it was according to my best recollection, for as I said I never knew much about this marriage business. I never had much to do, -or anything to do I might say, – with this marriage business at that time, for I was a bachelor until I was thirty three, or thirty or somewhere along there, and at the time the question was asked me it did not occur to my mind that there was any special ceremony. That is in former times, it did not occur to my mind now that there was any special ceremony then. Now I would like to say a word or two further on that point.

464: Well you can do so.
These ceremonies were intended to be observed of course or they would not be presented in the form they are, but they are not always observed to the letter. Now in regard to baptism there is sometimes made use of different words from those laid down in the books, but when that is done either in the ordinance of baptism or marriage it is done through ignorance and from not understanding the formula properly, but it is not at all considered that on that account or for that reason, it decreases the value of the ordinance, because the party performing it does not happen to conform exactly to the formula laid down.

465: Well that is all.
 

466: For the purpose of refreshing your memory or recollection on a point you have just stated that there was no law, rule or usage in the church with reference to the bringing of re- velations before the church for acceptance, Mr. Snow. Did you state that to be the fact?
Well as a general thing that was not done, – there may be exceptions as I have said, – there certainly are exceptions when they were brought before the body of the church. I know there is something in regard to the matter, but it is not in my mind now. I cannot remember about these things now as I once did, but there was something of that kind done.

467: Don’t you know there was a usage of the church to that effect? Don’t you know as a matter of fact that there was usage to that effect, now that you come to thank of it, and that the revelations were presented to the general assembly at Kirtland and accepted.
Yes sir.

468: You know the revelations contained in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants were presented to the church there and accepted?
Yes sir, and I know that it was also done at other places, – at least I have heard that it was done. Now as you mention, and so what I know about this is hearsay.

469: Well was that the rule?
Yes sir.

470: Now I will read to you from the Times and Seasons a statement made by Orson Hyde to the Quorum of Twelve. It is in the Times and Seasons Vol. 3 page 649, published September 8th 1844?
 

471: I will read you this and see if you identify it Mr Snow. “There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from God through any man can be tested. Brother Joseph gave us the plan, says he, when all the quorums are assembled and organized in order, let the revelation be presented to the quorums, if it pass one let it go to another, and if it pass that to another, and so on until it has passed all the quorums; and if it pass the whole without running against a snag, then, says he, you may know it wants inquiring into; you must see to it. It is known to some who are present that there is a quorum organized where revelations can be tested. Brother Joseph said, let no revelation go to the people until it has been tested here.” Now I will ask you if you recognize that?
That is a very good doctrine. 471 (Mistakenly numbered as a second 471)

471: I ask you if you recognize – that as the rule of the church?
Yes sir, that was the doctrine as I told you before.

472: So that was the rule instead of there being no rule, when you come to think about it?
Well that was the rule but as I told you before there was exceptions to the rule, and you can see the reason of it too. Revelations were often given when the whole of the church were not present, and there is some of the quorums that have to confirm the revelations before it can ever go before the church.

473: Well that was the rule of the church at that time, – always was the rule of the church prior to the death of Joseph Smith wasn’t it?
Yes sir, with the exception that I speak of, –

474: No you were asked this question, – was a revelation binding upon the church as soon as it was made known to the church?
Yes sir.

475: That question was asked you, – and you answered it “yes sir.”
Yes sir.

476: Now is a revelation binding upon the church, before it is made known to the church?
No sir.

477: It is not binding upon the church then until it is made known to the church?
Certainly not, but it is binding upon such individuals as to whom it may be made known. If a revelation was made known to an individual it is binding upon him, even if it has not been made known to the church. I have repeated that answer I suppose a dozen times.

478: Well I am just asking the question to have it brought out definitely and beyond mistake?
Well that is all right. Yes sir, there are circumstances, – there has been times when revelations were revealed to a few persons, and it thereby became a law to them, but not a law to the church until it is revealed to the church.

479: Now suppose that a revelation should be accepted by a few people before it is made known to the church, and that revelation is contrary to the doctrines of the church, – it it is true that it is obligatory on the few people to whom it is made known, and it is contrary to the law of the church as accepted by the church, – what position would these few people be in?
Well in rather an unpleasant position.

480: They would be in a position of violating the law of the church wouldn’t they?
No sir, no sir, – not necessarily.

481: They would not?
No sir.

482: Would not they be liable to be dealt with, to be disciplined?
Well they might be like in the instance of the persons who revealed the plural marriage doctrines on revelation before it was announced to the church, and practiced it, – their position would be delicate, but it is not for me to question the matter or the position they would be in, for it would be the Lord’s business and He would probably see them through safely. It is the Lord’s business. It is not mine or yours. If the Lord had revealed to Joseph Smith to take a certain course, as he had to John the Revelator, –

483: Well suppose the Lord had not revealed it, – suppose the Lord had not anything to do with it, – what then?
Well it would be a bad case.

484: That would be bad you say?
Yes sir, and I speak thus because of your supposed unbelief in these matters, for I believe that the Lord did reveal it to him, so I think that all who accepted it are in no danger from the wrath of the Lord at all.

485: Who were the officers of the church just prior to the death of Joseph Smith, or at the time of his death?
Who were the officers of the church?

486: Yes sir?
When?

487: At the time of the death of Joseph Smith, or just prior to his death?
Oh gracious, I could not tell you? I could tell you some of them but not all of them.

488: Well tell us some of them?
Well what ones do you want?

489: Who were in the Presidency?
There was President Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball. Oh I can’t tell you all of them.

490: I asked you prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

491: Well was Brigham Young the president then?
That was the question you asked me?

492: Yes sir, that was the question?
Well Brigham Young was the president then. I was telling you the officers and President Brigham Young was one of the officers,-that is prior to the death of Joseph Smith these were some of the officers that I have named.

493: You do not understand my question. I asked you who formed the Presidency of the church?
Before he was dead?

494: Yes sir, before Joseph Smith was dead?
Oh he himself and his two counselors.

495: Well just name the First Presidency of the church at that time?
Joseph Smith and his two counselors.

496: Well who were they?
Well there was Hyrum Smith his brother, and Law,-well that was some little time before his death. Well my memory fails me now and I can’t tell you.

497: Well you know who it was Mr. Snow, so just name the man?
Name him? Thunder, do you think I am able to name him now. Didn’t I tell you I couldn’t do it, and don’t know that if my memory did not fail me now that I could do it. It is not on my mind just now and I can’t do it. Mr. Cannon, can’t you name the?

498: Was it not Sydney Rigdon?
Well there was some little trouble with him about that time. Sydney Rigdon was disfellowshipped from his position, and afterwards he was restored.

499: Was he restored at that time?
Yes sir,-yes sir, he was restored at that time. He was restored just a short time before his martyrdom.

500: There is no question about that?
Yes sir, that is right,-it was Joseph Smith, and Hyrum Smith and Sydney Rigdon composed the presidency at that time.

501: They formed the first Presidency?
Yes sir.

502: Was that the highest quorum in the church?
Yes sir.

503: Now was there a second quorum in the church at that time?
Yes sir, the Twelve.

504: That was the next highest quorum in authority in the church?
Yes sir.

505: Now at the time Joseph’ Smith’s death who was the next highest officer in authority in the church?
Brigham Young.

506: What made him the next highest office in the church in point of authority?
Well sir, I am able to enlighten your mind o that subject and I am glad to be able to do it. I am glad that I can. Brother Joseph Smith or a bishop or any one who has or had great responsibilities restin upon them growing out of the duties of their office, had the right to select two counselors, and they had the right to select them themselves, and those two counselors have no authority other that to act as counselors to that person, whoever he may be, or whoever his office may be,-that is all the authority they have,-and when that person dies, whether he is the president of the church or simply a bishop or whatever he may be,-those counselors are sim- ple selected to act for him during his life-time, and as soon as he is withdrawn from that office by death or otherwise, his counselors have nothing more to do with it, -that is the end of their connection with it.

507: Was not Hyrum Smith, when hew as set apart as counselor to the President of the church, also made President, revelator under the apostle?
Well probably he was appointed a prophet, seer and revelator, but not as a President, – well yes he was too, when he was ordained as Counselor.

508: Well at the death of Joseph, would not he hold the same office, – except that he would no longer be Counselor?
No sir.

509: He would not?
No sir, – not for one moment.

510: Would not he have the right to preach the gospel?
Yes sir. And he could have baptized for the remission of sins, and possibly he would have baptized you, –

511: Well possibly I would not need to be baptized. I was baptized, for remember my father was President of a Stake in Illinois at the time he died?
Well that is possible, I am glad to hear it and from that fact I am bound to think a great deal of you on account of whatever other good qualities you may be possessed of.

512: So you find that the three highest officers in the church at that time were Joseph Smith, the President of the church and his two counselors, Hyrum Smith and Sydney Rigdon, the three together composing the First Presidency of the church?
Yes sir. They were at the time of his death, – during the occupancy of that position just before his death.

513: Now you stated that at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith the highest authority in the church fell upon the Twelve?
Yes sir.

514: And you state that as a positive fact?
Yes sir, the moment that Joseph was murdered it fell upon the Twelve.

515: That is the twelve acting as a quorum?
Yes sir.

516: Suppose that the quorum og Twelve at the time was non-existent, that the majority of them had been killed, would they, – would the remainder of them still have held their offices?
After their death?

517: The remainder of them would not have been dead?
I thought your question assumed that they were dead.

518: I said, suppose the majority of them had been killed would the remainder of them still have held their offices?
Yes sir, and they would have been the higher authority, – the highest authority after the dissolution of the first Presidency.

519: They could not have acted as a quotum because they would have been in a minority, – wouldn’t that have been the case?
Well I don’t know about that.

520: Well was not that the case with Sydney Rigdon, – he could not act as ahe quorum of the First Presidency, and at the same time he held a certain high position there?
No sir, he did not, – the cases were entirely different, for the twelve apostles were not appointed as Counselors. They were not appointed as Counselors at all, – not to act as Counselors particularly, but they had a certain authority given them with their apostleship, which continued with them as apostles as long as they continued in life.

521: How many of the Twelve Apostles continued with the church after Joseph Smith’s death?
That were apostles when he was murdered?

522: Yes sir?
Well I don’t know but what they all did.

523: You believe they all did?
No sir, when I think of it I believe there was one or two apostatized.

524: Is that all?
Well I can’t say.

525: Well what is your best opinion about it, – what is your best knowledge or recollection about it?
I don’t know.

526: Well I will ask you if Lyman Wight continued with them?
No sir.

527: What became of him?
He apostatized.

528: But did William B. Smith continue with them?
No sir, he apostatized too. He was another one that apostatized also.

529: Was there any other who apostatized as you term it?
I can’t say.

530: Well was Thomas B. Marsh a member of the Quorum of Twelve then?
Yes sir.
No sir, when I come to think of it I know that Thomas B. Marsh was not a member. He was not a member when I come to think of it.

531: Thomas B. Marsh was not a member of the Quorum of Twelve then? That is the conclusion you come to when you think of it?
No sir, he was not a member.

532: Was John E. Page on of the Quorum of Twelve at that time, – that is at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir, he was one of them.

534: That makes three that did not continue with them?
Yes sir. If you can think of any more do so and I will tell you if they apostatized.

535: You will admit that they did not continue with the Quorum of Twelve?
Yes sir.

536: How man of that Quorum did it take to Constitute a quorum, or majority?
Seven (???).

537: At the time that this faction of the church that left Nauvoo and went to Kanesville or Council Bluffs this portion that was led by the President of the Twelve, – what happened there with reference to a re-organization of the church, – if anything?
Where?

538: At Council Bluffs or Kanesville?
There was a great many things happened there. In what way do you mean?

539: Well I mean with reference to a re-organization of the church?
I can’t say, as I was not there.

540: Do you know whether there was a Presidency formed?
I have heard there was.

541: Don’t you know it by association with the Presidency that was then formed, and the President afterwards?
Well yes, I know something about it.

542: Who was selected as President?
Brigham Young.

543: Who were selected as his Counselors?
Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards.

544: Did these men formerly belong to the Twelve at Nauvoo?
 
Yes sir.

543: Now do you say there was three of the Quorum of Twelve who apostatized?
Yes sir.

544: That left nine that went west with Brigham Young?
Yes sir.

545: Now if you take these three, – Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards out of the nine that were left, – how many would you have left in the Quorum of Twelve?
Well that is very easy, – three form nine leaves six.

546: Then when you take three out of the nine that were left, did it not disorganize the Quorum of Twelve as it existed in Joseph’s day?
Yes sir, if you look at it in that way, but my understanding is that others were appointed at the same time.

547: Did not that disorganize the quorum so that it could not transact business?
No sir.

548: It did not?
No sir.

549: Why didn’t it do it?
Because there was a Presidency that acted with the quorum for the transaction of business.

550: In the formation of that Presidency were they called according to the law of the church?
Yes sir, and I will tell you what that law was if you would like to know it.

551: Well I would like to know it?
It was through a revelation that was done.

552: Where do you find the revelation?
The law is in the revelation.

553: I understand, but where is the revelation?
Where is it?

554: Yes sir?
What do you refer to?

555: I mean the revelation calling these individuals to the Presidency?
Do you want to know where it is found, – in what book it is found?

556: Yes sir.
Well it is not found in any book.

557: That revelation you refer to is not found in any book?
No sir.

558: Still you say there was a revelation?
Yes sir.

559: How do you know there was any revelation?
Well I know it just as well as I know there was any Presidency formed.

560: Well how do you know it?
Well where there is any matter of that importance, a person never receives any position of that kind unless there is a revelation calling them to it. A person never receives a position of that kind unless the appointment is dictated by the Sprit of God.

561: is that all the way you know it?
No sir, not altogether, for I know it by the Spirit that is within me, that tells me it is a fact.

562: That is the way you know it?
That is the way.

563: You know it by the spirit that is within yourself, that they were called by a revelation?
Yes sir, I know they were called by a revelation dictated by the spirit of inspiration.

564: Now is it not a fact to your knowledge that there was no revelation at all calling them to the Presidency?
You asked me if there was a Presidency formed, and I told you that I did not know, and then you inquired further, and I told you that I understood from reports and what I saw that there was a Presidency formed, but I would not say positively that I knew it, – but that the information was just as good as knowledge. Now I do now know these things of my own knowledge, for I was not present at the time, but I have heard that it was as I have stated, and I consider my information fully as good as positive personal knowledge, – at least it is as satisfactory to my mind as personal knowledge. Now when President Young and these Counselors were appointed, – that is were appointed to the First Presidency, the Spirit of the Lord manifested to them that they were to do this work, and they went ahead and did it.

565: And you know that only from their statement in the matter?
No sir, not wholly in that way. I know it from their statements that is true, but I also know it from the same principle in the same way that I know the bible is true, and that I know that the Twelve Apostles lived and did as they are recorded as doing, and that the Son of God was on earth and made manifest in the flesh to the world, – it is the Spirit that manifests to me that these things were true. Now this may not be entirely satisfactory evidence to you, sir, but it is to me.

566: Well is that Spirit recognized in a Court of Justice?
No sir, I am sorry to say it is not.

567: Well I am asking you for testimony that will come within the rules of the Court of Justice, – testimony that is in accordance with the rules of the court?
 

568: Now suppose another man has testimony from the Spirit to the effect that they were not called, and goes on the witness stand and swears to it, would not that be just as good testimony as far as the Court is concerned as what you have given?
No sir for it would be entirely contrary to the course that is pursued in putting men into these offices or positions.

569: Would it be contrary to putting that man into that position?
What is that?

570: Well I will ask the question again? Suppose another man claimed to receive a revelation, – a testimony to himself, – that Brigham Young and his council were not called by a revelation, would that fact be a principle that could be received as evidence here?
I don’t know what would be a proficient evidence here, – I am simply telling you of the facts, and do not propose to sit in judgment on what would or would not be evidence.

571: Would it be competent evidence or not?
We have a way by which we determine whether that would be a revelation or not.

572: Answer the question. Would that be competent evidence?
I am not here to judge what is competent, or what is incompetent.

573: I believe the examiner is correct in his position. Now I believe Mr. Snow, that after the taking out of the three apostles there were only six left of the old apostles?
I think so. Yes, that is right.

574: That would not form a quorum would it, Mr. Snow?
Yes sir.

575: How would that be done?
It would form a quorum in connection with the First Presidency. And further I will say, that if there was not one single one of those six apostles left, the First Presidency could transact business without them.

576: Are you through with your answer?
Yes sir.

577: Well now answer my question, – that would not form a quorum of the apostles, would it?
No sir.

578: Of the six, – that would not form a quorum of the apostles?
No sir.

579: They would not form a quorum independently of the First Presidency?
No sir.

580: The six themselves could not do business as a quorum for the church themselves, could they?
No sir, not the six that were left, – they themselves could not do business as a quorum, but it could do business in connection with the First Presidency of the church just as well as if it was full.

581: How do you understand they would do business in connection with the First Presidency as an independent quorum?
Because the First Presidency has a right to take part in and preside over all the affairs of the church.

582: You mean the First Presidency could?
Yes sir.

583: Could not the First Presidency act without them?
Yes sir.

584: Could the remaining six act as a quorum without the co-operation of the First Presidency?
 

585: That is all I believe. – ?
 

586: Mr Snow, I would like to get you to state to the reporter whether or not the Quorum of Twelve, – whether or not the Quorum of Twelve was filled up before Brigham Young was appointed?
That is what I stated.

587: So that at the time of his appointment there was nine in the quorum?
Yes sir. Well now just wait a moment. Now I say that without further thought I could not say whether they were appointed before or after the First Presidency was appointed or organized. As it is I do not know, and I would not know under the circumstances anyway.

588: Now in your re-cross examination, you were asked the question if Hyrum Smith was not ordained a seer and revelator when he was counselor to Joseph Smith and I will ask you to state whether or not he was not ordained a prophet, seer and revelator in connection with the office of patriarch?
He might have been.

589: Can you state it as a fact that he was ordained to the office of prophet, seer and revelator, while he was a counselor to Joseph?
I could not say as to what. I would not say as to that.

590: Mr. Snow, who pays your expenses up here?
Nobody unless you pay them.

591: Well who asked you to come?
Nobody. Wait a moment, – yes I think there did somebody ask me to come here, – I think I got a kind of a hint to come, –