1: State your name to the reporter?
My name is Lyman O. Littlefield
2: Mr Littlefield you may state where you reside?
I reside at Smithfield, Cache county, Utah.
3: Where did you reside before moving there?
I have resided here and at Logan since moving there seventeen or eighteen years ago. I resided there previous to moving to Logan seventeen or eighteen years ago.
4: When did you come to this territory Mr Littlefield.
I came to Utah in 1859, and I resided her in Salt Lake City until I moved to Logan something like fifteen years ago last spring, – I think that was the time I moved there.
5: Where did you reside before moving there?
Before I moved to Smithfield?
6: Yes sir?
I resided there in Logan, –
7: I mean before you moved to Utah?
I came from Nauvoo to Utah.
8: You came from Nauvoo in Utah?
Yes sir?
9: What state is Nauvoo in?
Iowa, – I mean Illinois. I meant to say Nauvoo was in Illinois, and I came from there here in 1859. I get these states mixed up sometimes.
10: About what time did you live at Nauvoo, Illinois?
I lived there, – I went to Nauvoo I think first in about ’40 or 1841. It was in 1841 I think, – either ’40 or 1841, – and I resided there, – do you want to know how long I reseded there at Nauvoo.
11: Yes sir?
Well I resided there until the church moved from there in 1846.
12: You resided there from 1841 or ’40 down to 1846?
Yes sir. It was the time that the church left there, that I left, and I think that was in 1846, – I think itw as that year that the church moved from there.
13: State what church, if any, you were a member of while you were living at Nauvoo, Illinois?
I was a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
14: State what office, if any, you held in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, while you were at Nauvoo, Illinois?
It was in the Seventies Quorom.
15: What is that?
I was one of the Presidents of a seventy at that time, and I am still I may say.
16: State to the reporter Mr Littlefield, what you know in regard to the doctrine of plurality of wives, or as it is commonly called, polygamy, being taught in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Nauvoo before the death of Joseph Smith?
Well I can tell what I know about it, – what I know about that doctrine being taught. Do you want to know?
17: Just answer the question?
Well I was cognizant of the fact that that doctrine was taught there, and it was understood by a great many people that it was taught, – and not only taught but practiced. I knew it and it was known by a great many people I understood that matter perfectly but it was not taught to the whole church generally, but it was taught privately so that a great many people understood it and knew it was practiced, too up to that date.
18: Up to what date?
Up to the time previous to the death of Joseph Smith, senior. Now what I mean by that is that it was not taught publicly from the stand, but it was taught that the people, or a great many of them understood that doctrine, and some of the practiced it, – al least if it was taught from the stand I didn’t know it, for I never heard it taught from the stand but I know it was taught and practiced secretly, and was not given to the whole church as a principle according to the best of my knowledge in the days of Joseph.
19: I would like to ask you Mr Littlefield if you were taught that principle?
Yes sir, I was taught that doctrine or principle, and conversed upon it with different parties, but I never was taught that doctrine from Joseph Smith, himself, personally, but the doctrine was talked of between myself, and a great many other parties, and always with the understanding that it had its origin, with Joseph Smith the prophet, himself.
I can give that more definitely. If you wish I can do so, – give it more definitely if you want. They stated these things more definitely, and if you wish me to do so I can give you their statements more definitely.
20: I will ask you this question Mr Littlefield, – by what authority were you taught that principle?
Do you mean what authority in the church?
21: Yes sir?
What people holding office?
22: People holding office or any other authority, – church authority?
Well of the people that I conversed with on this matter some were ladies and some were gentlemen. I conversed with both ladies and gentlemen on this matter. Some of the gentlemen were elders of the church, but the ladies of course did not hold any offices of that kind.
23: Can you state the names of any of the officers of the church that you conversed with on the subject or question of that principle, – that is the principle of plural marriage?
Do you mean elders?
24: Well elders, or officers of any kind?
Well the elders were officers of church. Yes I can state one mans name, – one man there is whose name I can positively state that I conversed with but he is not living now.
Well he is not living?
25: Well give his name?
It occurs to me now that there was one other man that I was very familiar with that was an elder in the church and that was Lysander Gee, and he is living now. He lives now in Toole City in Toole county in Utah territory.
26: Well, what did he say about it?
He understood that matter and told me about it.
27: I will ask you to – state to the reporter Mr. Littlefield, what authority there was to, if any, for the iltroduction of the principle of plural marriage in to the church?
Well the idea of that doctrine was founded upon a revelation that was given to the prophet Joseph Smith about that period. That was the origin of it.
28: I will ask you to state to the reporter whether or not you were taught before the death of Joseph Smith, that there was a revelation given on that principle?
Yes sir.
29: You were taught that principle before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir. It was understood and was taught privately in the church before Joseph’s death.
30: Will you state to the reporter what difference there is, if any, in the doctrine of plural tives, ow what is commonly called polygamy, as taught to you in Nauvoo, Illinois, before the death of Joseph Smith the prophet, and the doctrine as taught in the revelation published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah?
They are identical, – they are the same. The doctrine contained in that revelation, and the doctrine of plurality of wives as taught and practiced in Nauvoo are identically the same. Cross examination by P.P. Kelley, –
31: Where did you live prior to going to Nauvoo?
I lived in Missouri, and from there I went to Illinois
32: What place in Missouri, did you live at?
I lived in Far West.
33: Then you went where?
I went to Illinois. I went to Quincy first and then I went to Rushville, and published a paper there, and from there I went to Nauvoo.
34: Where did you live before you went to Far West Missouri?
I lived in Clay County, at Liberty.
35: Where did you live before that?
Well I went, – in the state of Michigan, – I went from the state of Michigan to that place.
36: You went from Michigan to Clay County, Missouri?
Yes sir?
37: Were you ever – in Jackson county, Missouri?
No sir
38: You never resided in Jackson county then?
No sir
39: When did you become a member of the church?
In 1844
40: In 1844?
Yes sir.
41: At what date please?
That time, – I became a member of the church, –
42: Well at what place did you become a member of the church
I am going to tell you if you will give me a chance. –
43: Well if you will answer my questions promptly without beating all around the bush it will greatly expedite matters?
Well give me a little time an I will tell you. –
44: Well do so?
In Clay County.
45: In Missouri?
Yes sir.
46: You became a member of the church in Clay Count, Missiouri?
Yes sir. That was where I was baptized.
47: And that was in 1844?
Yes sir.
48: And you went from there to some pint in Illinois?
Yes sir, I told you where I went.
49: And then you went to another town and published a paper, I believe you stated?
Yes sir.
50: And then you went to Nauvoo.
Yes sir, then I went to Nauvoo.
51: Now what was the doctrine of the church up to 1844 with reference to the question of marriage?
Up to 1844?
52: Yes sir, up to the year 1844 what was the doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with reference to the question of marriage?
Well I don’t know as I could tell you what it was.
53: Didn’t they have any doctrine?
On that subject?
54: Yes sir?
I suppose they did.
55: Well do you know whether they did or did not?
Well they married the same as other people did. They married wives and lived with them.
56: Married wives, and lived with them the same as other people did?
Yes sir.
57: Did they have any principle or revelation, or anything in the book of Doctrine and Covenants on that question?
Up to 1844?
58: Yes sir?
Not that I’m aware of?
59: You were a President of a Seventy?
No sir.
60: You were not?
Not at that time.
61: Well before 1844?
Before 1844 was I?
62: Yes sir?
Yes sir.
63: You were?
Yes sir. Before 1844 I was.
64: And you had a copy of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir.
65: And had read it?
Yes sir.
66: Had read everything in it?
Yes sir. Well now I don’t think I have sir, when I come to think of it.
67: Do you say there was not a revelation in there on the question of marriage?
In what?
68: In the book of Doctrine and Covenants that you had?
No sir. I don’t say that. I say there was a ceremony of marriage there, but I don’t think it was in the form of a revelation.
69: Well was there not a revelation in there outside of the ceremony on marriage, commanding one man to have but one wife, and one woman to have but one husband?
There was a ceremony given there for celebrating marriage, it was not the revelation on plural marriage however
70: Was there not a revelation on monogamous marriage there, – a revelation commanding that a man should have but one wife only?
Well I don’t know what you call a revelation -. You may call it a revelation but I don’t, – I call it a ceremony regulating the performance of the marriage ceremony, – given directions as to how they shall be performed. You might call it a revelation but I don’t know that it was.
71: Well was there not a revelation outside of the ceremony on marriage?
I say there was a ceremony on marriage, – you might call it a revelation, -but I don’t
72: Was there not a revelation in the book of Doctrine and Covenants prior to 1844 on the question of marriage?
I say there was a ceremony, – there was no revelation that I think of now. That is the only thing that I know of that you could call a revelation on parriage, but I don’t call it a revelation.
73: Now wait a moment, –
74: I will read from exhibit “E”, page one hundred and twenty one, paragraph seven, section thirteen, –
75: I just want to refresh the witnesses recollection on this matter, since it seems that it needs refreshing?
76: “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’ he that lieth, and will not repent, shall be cast out. Thou shall 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, and shall not have the Spirit, and if repents not, he shall be cast out. Thou shalt not commit adultery, and he that commiteh adultery and repenth not shall be case out; but he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and foresaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; but if he doeth it again he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out. Thou shalt not speak evil of they neighbour, nor do him any harm. Thou knowest my laws concerning those things are given in my scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not, shall be cast out.” Do you recognize that which I have just read as being a part of the book of Doctrine and Covenants of the 1835 edition?
That speaks for itself.
77: Well do you recognize that which I have read as being a part of the law of the church at that time?
If you have read it correctly, and that is the book of covenants, that is correct.
78: Look at the book and say how it is, – is it not the book of Doctrine and covenants of the 1835, edition?
Yes sir I knw it for I have looked at it a great many of hundreds of times?
79: Now look at it, and see if that is not the law governing the organization of the church from the time of its organization up to 1844?
From when?
80: I asked you to look at that book and state if that is not the book that contained the laws governing that organization of the church up to 1844, from 1830 up to 1844 the time that Joseph died.
It has the appearance of being the regular Book of Covenants so far as I can see. It has every appearance of being the regular Book of Covenants, I have no doubt in the world but that it is the book.
81: And that was the law of the church up to 1844, was it not? The law of the church up to 1844 was the law contained in that book wasn’t it?
Well sir I could not answer that. I could not be particular enough about the dates to answer that. It might have been a little previously to that time.
82: It might have been a little previous?
Yes sir.
83: Might have been what?
Might have been the law of the church a little previous to that time.
84: Do you know how many editions of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there has been published?
I don’t know the number sir, but there has been a good many.
85: There has been a good many?
Yes sir, there has been a good many. There has been reprints of it published.
86: Reprints?
Yes sir, so I understand. When one volume has gone out of print, they would reprint it and reproduce it again. That is what I mean when I say there has been reprints of it published from time to time.
87: What edition has there been a reprint made of?
Well sir I can’t tell you anything about the editions.
88: Well what edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants that was published prior to 1852, contained any other revelation on the question of marriage then is contained in this edition of 1835?
I do not know.
89: Do you know there was any?
No sir.
90: Don’t you know there was not any such a book?
No sir I do not know anything about it.
91: Don’t you know that the purported revelation on that question of polygamy was not published until after 1852?
No sir, I don’t know for the reason that I haven’t posted myself.
92: Don’t you know it never was published in any from until 1852, or after that time?
I can’t say for I never was particularly interested in it.
93: You were there at the time it was presented to the church?
Where?
94: Here in Salt Lake City?
No sir.
95: When did you first see it?
In Nauvoo.
96: You were in Nauvoo when you first say it?
Yes sir.
97: What time was that?
I don’t know the time but it was previous to the death of Joseph Smith.
98: You remember that it was prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
99: Now did you not see it in 1839?
I could not tell you the date, but I know it was in Nauvoo, and know it was before the death of Joseph Smith. I could not tell you the date though.
100: Did you see it in 1840?
I don’t know what time it was further than it was previous to the death of Joseph Smith.
101: You were taught the principle of polygamy in 1839 in Nauvoo, now is that not the fact?
I could not say, for I did not keep
any dates of it, so I can’t say what time it was.
102: Well, were you not taught it previous to 1840?
I could not say. I have told you all I know about it with reference to the dates, and there is no sense or use in asking me these questions.
103: Did you ever hear Joseph Smith preach it, or teach it?
No sir.
104: Did you ever hear him say anything about it personally, or mention it?
No sir.
105: Did you ever hear any of the Apostles teach it or preach it in Nauvoo prior to 1844? Come answer the question.
I am in no hurry. I don’t want to be hurried. I am getting pretty old now and I have to take time to think over these occurrences that happened so long ago.
106: Well I wish you would answer these questions with some kind of promptness, for you see I am paying three dollars a day for my board here, and I want to get through as soon as I can?
So am I for I am also under expense her.
107: Well answer the question then?
I couldn’t say, but I think I have.
108: You have?
Yes sir.
109: When was that?
I can’t give you the date, but it was previous to the death of Joseph Smith?
110: Well who was it?
John Taylor.
111: When was it that you heard John Taylor?
I told you it was previous to the death of Joseph Smith.
112: I know you did, but I want to know the year it was?
I could not tell you.
113: Don’t you know that John Taylor was not in Nauvoo from 1839 to 1845?
Well I know this,- that he was there considerable of his time, for I was in his employment there a good deal of time, and I know he was there. I boarded at his house considerable of the time and was very familiar with him and his family.
114: When was that?
I could not tell you.
115: Don’t you know he was in charge of the English mission from 1839 to 1845?
I don’t know.
116: Well what do you say to that,- what is your best recollection about that?
I have nothing to say.
117: Do you say that you heard John Taylor preach the doctrine of polygamy at any time from 1839 to 1845?
I do not positively, but I believe I did.
118: You were taught in Nauvoo previous to 1840 that you could have more wives that one if you wanted them, were you not? Come answer the question,-were you not taught that in Nauvoo previous to 1840?
Well I understood was the priveledge.
119: You understood that in 1840?
No sir, I did not say 1840.
120: You did not?
No sir.
121: Well was it in 1841?
I could not tell you. I told you I could not tell you the year, but it was previous to the death of Joseph Smith that I heard it.
122: How long before the death of Joseph Smith was it?
I could not tell you the day nor the hour nor the minute.
123: Can you tell me the year?
I told you sufficient to answer the purpose.
124: Can you tell me the year?
I don’t know that I could.
125: Could you come within two years of it?
I don’t know that I could.
126: Can you come within three years of it?
I said it was previous
to the death of Joseph Smith and that ought to be sufficient. I told you I did not keep dates on it, and I could not tell you the year or the month, or the date or hour or minute, but – that it was before the death of Joseph Smith, and I think that ought to be sufficient.
127: When did Joseph Smith die?
In 1844.
128: And you heard it before his death?
Yes sir.
129: Well was it early as 1839 that you heard John Taylor announce this principle?
I cannot say when it was. I cannot state the year, for I am under oath now, and I do not wish to say anything I only what to know to be right.
130: Well sir I understand that, and I am here as a lawyer to do my duty and elicit these facts that we deem to be essential to our side of this case, and now I want you to answer my question, – were you taught the practice of polygamy in 1839?
131: Were you taught it in 1839, – answer the question yes or no, and have done with it?
I told you that I never was taught it, – I think I told you that at the start.
132: That you were never taught the practice of polygamy?
Yes sir.
133: Do you say that you stated that you were never taught polygamy, or, -?
I think I told you that I never was taught the practice or polygamy. I think I told you I was never taught it by Joseph Smith him self. That is what I think I told you.
134: Well were you taught it by any one else in 1839, – by any officer of the church?
I merely told you that in a conversation with President John Taylor I was told that that principle was in existence.
135: John Taylor told you that in a conversation then?
Yes sir.
136: Then he did not announce it publicly?
No sir.
137: And that was in 1839?
I did not keep any dates, and I can’t tell you.
138: Were you a married man then?
Yes sir.
139: You were a married man at that time?
Yes sir.
140: Had you more than one wife then?
Yes sir.
141: By what law were you married?
I was married by the law of the country, – by the law of the state.
142: What state was that?
Illinois.
143: You were married according to the laws of the state of Illinois?
Yes sir.
144: Where?
Where was I married?
145: Yes sir?
In Quincy, Illinois.
146: By whom were you married?
No I made a mistake. I was not married in Quincy either, but I got my license there. I got my license there, and was married out about twenty miles out in the country and I was married by Elisha B Groves.
147: Was he a minister?
Yes sir.
148: A minister in what church?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
149: Did he marry you according to the laws of the state of Illinois?
Yes sir.
150: What time did he marry you?
I could not tell you the year.
151: Well about what year was it?
I can’t tell you the year I believe, but I can come pretty near it. Let me see, – it was in about 1840. I could not say positively that was the year, but I have the date at home and I can tell you by referring to that if it is essential that you should know.
152: Groves was a minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir.
153: You were a member of the Quorom of Seventy were you not?
At that time?
154: Yes sir?
No sir, – not at that time.
155: That was not the office you held at that tume?
No sir.
156: Well what office did you hold at that time?
It was after I went to Nauvoo that I held that office.
157: Well what office did you hold at the time you were married, if any?
I don’t know that I held any office.
158: Then you want to be understood that you were married by an elder in the church, at the time that you were married, and you were married according to the laws of the state of Illinois, and not according to the church formula?
I was married according to the laws of the state of Illinois.
159: What ceremony was repeated to you?
I do not know of any ceremony only the ceremony required by the laws of the state of Illinois.
160: Was not this ceremony here in the book of Doctrine and Covenants repeated to you, at the time you were married?
I cannot say.
161: Well I will read it to you, and then see if it is the one?
The ceremony that was performed is one that I cannot remember.
162: Well I will read this ceremony here, and see if that is not the one that was performed at the time you were married?
163: I will read from paragraph two, section one hundred and one of exhibit “E”, as follows, – “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 thee be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names; “you both mutally agree to be each others companions, husband and wife, observing the legal right belonging to this condition; that is keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others during your lives”. And when they shall have answered “yes”, he shall pronounce them “husband and wife” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him; “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen”. What do you say to that? Was that the ceremony used?
I don’t remember what the ceremony was.
164: Is that the ceremony, – that is the ceremony that is in this book of doctrine and covenants?
The ceremony that was used was the ceremony that was used at the time that I was married. It was the ceremony that was lawful in Illinois at that time.
165: And was it not the ceremony that was lawful in the church at the time you were married?
Well of course I suppose it was.
166: Well don’t you know it was?
I don’t know anything about it, for I don’t know what ceremony he used. I don’t know a thing about it for I did not take any note of it, either to write it down or make any minute of it either in my memory or in any memorandum book: and so I can’t tell you anything about the ceremony that was used, for I don’t know or remember anything at all about it, one way or the other.
167: This man Groves that married you, I believe you stated he was an elder in the church?
Yes sir.
168: Was he an elder in good standing in the church at the time he married you?
Yes sir.
169: And had been for some time?
Yes sir.
170: Now I will read this marriage ceremony to you again, – “you both mutally agree to be each others companion, husband and wife, observing the legal right belonging to this condition; that is, kepping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives”. Now was that repeated to you?
171: Answer the question, – was that repeated to you?
I do not remember the ceremony that was used.
172: Well do you remember anything like that?
I don’t remember anything about it. I don’t remember anything that was said in that ceremony any more than if I was a dead man, – I don’t remember a thing about it.
173: Well you knew at the time you were married?
Yes sir.
174: You knew at the time you were being married?
Yes sir.
175: You knew whether you were being married under the statute laws of Illinois, or under the laws of your church didn’t you?
Yes sir.
176: Well which was it?
I was married under the laws of Illinois I told you that previously.
177: The minister that married you, used the statutes of Illinois, and read the marriage ceremony out of them did he?
I presume he did.
178: You presume he did?
Yes sir.
179: Well don’t you know?
No sir, I don’t know.
180: Groves had been a minister in Missouri, before that time, hadn’t he?
He was a minister before that but I don’t know for how long.
181: You had belonged to the church for a good while before that hadn’t you?
I had belonged to the church before that time.
182: You had belonged to it six years?
Yes sir, ever since ’34 and that would be six years.
183: And at the time of your marriage you were a member in good standing?
Yes sir.
184: And knew that you had a law of the church on marriage?
Well. What is that?
185: At the time you were married you knew there was a law of the church on marriage did you not?
Why yes I suppose so. I knew the members of the church married like other people.
186: Now whom did you marry, – did you marry a member of the church?
Yes sir.
187: Now you want to go on record here as saying that some time between ’36 and 1841 you were married,-you do not know the year, but it was some where between these dates or years,-you were married by minister of your own church, and married a woman who was also a member of -your church, and then you say that you were married according to the laws of the state of Illinois, and not according to your church law? Is that what you wish to go on record as being your statement?
I say that I don’t wish to decide on that point at all. That may-be correct and it may not be,-for I can’t say what the ceremony was that was used, only I know it was according to the laws of the state of Illinois.
188: You don’t say you do not know anything about that at all, do you?
I say I was married according to the laws of the state of Illinois, and that is all I do say”. I have stated that repeatedly, but I can do it again if there is any satisfaction to you in attempting to bader me in the way you are trying to do. Now that is the way of it.-I presume I was married according of the ceremony prescribed by the laws of the state of Illinois,-at least I know I always supposed I was.
189: Now you only suppose you were?
Yes sir.
190: You were taught before that time that it was necessary to be married according to the laws of the church were you not?
I can’t say.
191: Well don’t you know whether you were or not?
I can’t say whether I was or not. I don’t know that I was.
192: Did not Joseph Smith and the Twelve Apostles all teach that?
They might have done it but I don’t know. I am not so positive as to what they preached on that point.
193: Did not the-church have certain officers that could perform the marriage ceremony?
Yes sir.
194: The church had certain officers that could perform the marriage ceremony, and certain other officers in the church, and yet could not perform the marriage ceremony?
According to the laws of the country, according to my understanding of that matter, all elders in the church could perform the marriage ceremony,-that had the right to perform marriage ceremonies.
195: They had right to solemnize the marriage ceremony?
I think so.
196: Was it not the law of the church that elders and priests could perform the marriage ceremony, and no body else could?
I don’t know sir.
197: You don’t know about that?
No sir.
198: Don’t you know that to be the fact, and don’t you also know that the laws of Illinois did not say anything about it?
I did not post myself about the ceremony. I left that part of the matter in my case, entirely to Mr. Groves. I know one thing and that was I was satisfied that I was married all right.
199: Was Groves a civil office in the state of Illinois.
Not that I am aware of, only that he was an officer in the church. He was an elder in the church, but I don’t think he was an officer of the state of Illinois.
200: Was he not a Judge of a Court, or a Justice of the Peace?
He was not that I know anything of. If he was I didn’t know anything of it.
201: He did not hold any office that you know anything of in the state of Illinois, – that is any civil office?
No sir.
202: Still you say you were married by Groves under the laws o the state of Illinois?
That is what I supposed.
203: Don’t you know the laws of the state of Illinois did not authorize a minister, priest or elder to perform the ceremony of marriage?
I don’t know anything about it sir.
204: You don’t?
No sir, but I know that was the way I was married all right enough. I was young in those days, and I was satisfied I was getting a wife, and that was the main thing to me, – I was getting what I wanted, – a wife.
205: Well now that will do, for you have answered my question?
I have something more to say too, – I supposed I was getting her lawfully, –
206: Well I object to all this for it is not a responsive answer to my question, –
207: At what time were you appointed a President of a Seventy?
Well now if you want the exact date, I can’t tell you.
208: Well about what time were you so appointed?
It was when I was in Nauvoo.
209: It was while you were in Nauvoo?
Yes sir.
210: Well what year was that?
Well as near as I can tell you it was about 1842 or 1842, – some where along there, but I can’t give you the exact date. I think however, that it was about that time.
211: Now did Joseph Smith attend the meetings of the Seventy of which you were the President occasionally or ever?
He did occasionally. Yes sir he occasionally attended them, but not regularly.
212: Did he attend the meetings of the Seventy on these occasions for the purpose of instructing them?
Some times.
213: How often?
Not very often.
214: Well when he did come to the meetings on the Seventy for the purpose of instructing them, he instructed them in the laws of the church, didn’t he?
Yes sir, in the principles of the gospel.
215: Did not he also instruct you, or the seventy in the church rules and regulations?
Well I don’t know that he made that a principle point, but he did instruct us in the principles of the gospel.
216: Did he not instruct in the church rules and regulations in connection with the other?
Well I don’t remember exactly, but I would naturally suppose he did that. I would naturally suppose he did that, but my memory don’t serve me to say whether he did or not. Now if you would ask me for my impression I would say I think he did.
217: Well I am not asking you for your impression, – I am asking you for your knowledge, and when I want your best impressions I will ask you for them?
Well then I don’t recollect whether he did nor not.
218: Well then in connection with the instructions he gave you on
the question of polygamy?
No sir.
219: He did not?
No sir.
220: Did you not say he did?
No sir he never did. Joseph Smith never said a word about it in my presence, and I told you that before.
221: He never instructed you on that question, nor the Quorom of Seventy to your knowledge?
No sir, not to my knowledge, -he never said a word about it in the quorom of seventy to my knowledge on the question of polygamy.
222: Well you understood the doctrine of polygamy did you not?
I understood that that was the doctrine.
223: You were taught that by some body?
Yes sir.
224: What doctrine was that?
The doctrine taught in that revelations.
225: And you understood that as early as 1842?
I did not say so sir.
226: Well as early as 1843?
I didn’t say that either.
227: Well what did you say?
I said I heard it before the death of the prophet Joseph Smith during some of these years,- I did not say the year, for I don’t remember the year, but I know it was before the death of Joseph Smith.
228: Well was it about the time that you became a member of the quorom of the Seventy?
That I first heard of that?
229: Yes sir?
It was after that?
230: It as after you became a member of the quorom of Seventy?
Yes sir.
231: Now what makes you think it was before the death of Joseph Smith that you first heard that, and it was taught to you?
Well I know it was, – I don’t think anything about it, -I know it.
232: Well, how do you know it?
Because he was living, -he was alive at the time.
233: You know it in that way?
Yes sir.
234: Well now I will ask you how you know he was living, and alive there if you never heard him say anything about it?
Why I saw hi walking around the streets, and in pubic places and congregations. I heard him preach many a time, and I know that he was there, and that he was alive.
245: Well you were instructed at that time, during the life time of the prophet Joseph Smith, – you were instructed by some one on the question of polygamy?
Yes sir.
246: By whom were you instructed?
I cannot tell you.
237: It was not by Joseph Smith, though?
No sir.
238: Can you tell me the name of one man who so instructed you?
I referred you before to President Taylor, but told you what he said was in an indefinite manner.
239: Are you positive of any body who instructed you in a definite manner?
No sir.
240: You can’t positively name anybody?
No sir.
241: Did you ever talk to any woman bout it?
What I mean for you to understand is that Joseph never taught me anything about it, or said anything to me about it.
242: Well did you get your teaching from the ladies?
Some from the ladies.
243: When at that time?
Yes sir.
244: Wast that prior to 1844?
Certainly, -it was prior to his death I told you. It was while Joseph was living, -all this happened
while Joseph was living.
245: Do you know when Joseph died?
Yes sir.
246: Well when did he die?
He died in 1844.
247: Do you know the date of his death?
Yes sir.
248: When was it?
It was June 27th 1844. I think that was the date if I remember right. I have written the date often enough and I remember it, so I think there is no mistake about it that he died June 27th 1844.
249: Now Joseph Smith was the highest officer in the church wasn’t he at that time?
Yes sir.
250: And the chief teacher in the church?
Yes sir.
251: Now did you ever go to him, – when you heard this question of plural marriage, or polygamy advanced, did you ever go to him to asertain whether it was correct or not?
No sir.
252: You took no pains to find that out at all?
No sir I didn’t go to him.
253: Well did you go to any body else?
Yes sir, I talked with a good many people.
254: Who did you go to?
I talked to a good many people, both males and females.
255: Did you ever hear it preached to any congregation publicly or privately by any minister?
Before the death of Joseph?
256: Yes sir?
No sir, _____sented.
257: Did you ever hear it preached to the church?
No sir.
258: You never heard it presented to the church, or its being presented to the church, in the life time of Joseph Smith?
No sir not from the stand, – not publicly.
259: Did you ever hear it presented to the church privately?
Not by Joseph Smith.
260: By any body prior to his death?
Not to the church, but to individuals of the church, I have sir.
261: Then you never heard it presented to the church either publicly or privately – prior to Joseph Smith’s death?
Not by Joseph Smith, or by any authorities in the church I didn’t. I never heard it preached publicly in his day.
262: Not by any authority in the church prior to his death?
No sir.
263: Either publicly or privately?
No sir, not by the authorities of the church, in public.
264: Did you ever hear it presented to the church either in public or in private, by any officer of the church, prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
No further that I have already stated. I cited brother John Taylor, but I am not positive about that or about what he said to me.
265: You just heard the rumor that there was that kind of a revelation?
Yes sir.
266: You just heard that rumor, and nothing more?
Yes sir, but it was generally understood by the people in Nauvoo that it was so, and was talked about a good deal.
267: Did you see it yourself?
See what?
268: See the revelation?
I don’t know that I saw it just at that time, but I saw it previous to his death.
269: You saw it previous to his death, you say?
Yes sir.
270: Previous to whose death?
Joseph Smith’s.
271: Was it printed or written?
I could not tell you that.
272: In what shape was it?
I can’t tell you.
273: You don’t know whether it was printed or written?
No sir.
274: Was it in book form?
I could not tell you?
275: Was it in pamphlet form?
No sir.
276: You don’t know anything about it, or who presented it, do you?
No sir, I can’t say what shape it was in, but I understood it perfectly well.
277: Well who presented it to you?
That is something I don’t know. I cannot tell you who it was.
278: Did you read it?
I either read it myself or heard it read.
279: And that was prior to 1844?
Prior to the prophets death I did.
280: You read it you say?
I understood about it.
281: Did you hear it read?
I understood all about it at that time.
282: Well did you hear it read, – that is the question?
Well I would not say, –
283: Now don’t you know you did not?
Well now I am in no hurry. Just give me time to answer these questions and we will get along all right. I am trying to answer these questions the best I can, but all this happened a long tome ago, and I have to think over them before I can answer them.
284: Well I am in a hurry and I want to get through for I am paying three dollars a day for my board?
Well now a good many of these things I forget, and I have to study on them, –
285: Well did you hear that revelation read?
I would not swear positively that I ever heard it read.
286: Now did you ever see it prior to Joseph Smith’s death in any shape or form?
I heard it talk of.
287: Well did you ever see the paper on which it was written or printed?
As positive testimony I could not swear to that. I would not wish to do so, for I cannot conscientiously do it.
288: No, I guess not?
No sir I don’t say that I saw it as a positive fact.
289: What made you say a while ago that you saw it and either read it yourself, or heard it read?
I don’t know that I said that.
290: You don’t know that you said that?
No sir, I don’t know that I did.
291: Do you swear not that you did not say that?
No sir, I didn’t swear that at all.
292: You did not say that?
No sir.
293: If you did say that and the records shows it, then it is a mistake?
I merely said according to the best of my recollection.
294: If you said so, you made a mistake?
Well that depends upon the contraction you place upon it.
295: Well what do you now say about it?
I say that according to the best of my recollection I have no recollection of reading it, and still I might have done it.
296: Well what is your recollection about hearing it read?
The same.
297: It is the same?
Yes sir, but I remember, – I know that I heard it frequently referred to.
298: You heard the revelation referred to frequently?
Yes sir.
299: When?
By other parties.
300: When?
Previous to the death of Joseph Smith.
301: How long before the death of Joseph Smith?
I cold not say how long before his death.
302: Was it in the shape of a rumor or some on teaching it?
It was in the shape of a conversation.
303: Between yourself and some other parties?
Yes sir.
304: That was the way it was?
Yes sir.
305: Where did these conversations occur?
At various places.
306: Was it in a meeting?
No sir.
307: Was it on the street?
I could not say.
308: Was it in a private house?
I could not say.
309: You can’t say where these conversations were had in which you heard this doctrine advanced, or heard the rumor that there was such a doctrine in existence?
I can’t say but I know it was in private interviews.
310: Was it in connection with John C. Bennett that you heard it?
Well I could not say that it was particularly in connection with him. I know John C. Bennett and is affairs frequently came up in conversation, but I can’t say that it was in this connection.
311: Do you say that it was not in connection with conversations in which John C. Bennett, or some of his folks participated?
I could not say.
312: You do not say it was not?
No sir.
313: You do not say it was not?
No sir, I could not say it was not. John C. Bennett and his affairs I remember came up frequently but whether it was in connection with this revelation or not I could not say.
314: Now how has that revelation been taught since you have been in Utah?
315: Answer the question?
How has it been taught in Utah?
316: Yes sir?
Well so far as I understand it has been taught in Utah according to the revelation itself.
317: Well I mean with reference to its being taught publicly or privately?
Well publicly. I have heard it taught publicly. I have heard it referred to, – well I don’t know what you would call it.
318: You have heard it taught from the stand to public congregations here?
Yes sir.
319: You have heard it taught by all classes of officers in the church, from the Presidency down, by all the officers of the church that you have ever heard preach upon that subject?
I have frequently heard it referred to, and elders bear testimony to the truth of it. Now I have heard that here in Utah.
320: And you have heard the President of the church here, Brigham Young, at that time, – that is the time
the time-he was the President of the church here, proclaim it from the stand publicly?
I think I have.
321: And you present President, President Woodruff?
Well I don’t know. I presume he has done so, but I do not remember hearing him say anything about it.
322: Well you have heard President John Taylor?
Yes sir.
323: And George Q. Cannon?
They have all referred to it in their testimony, and bore testimony to its truth.
324: And have taught the principle of polygamy?
I think they have.
325: And that has been one of the doctrines of the church since you have been here in Utah?
According to my understanding it has.
326: Was that doctrine presented to the church here, for adoption?
I can’t tell you.
327: Do you say it was not?
No sir.
328: Do you say it was?
Was what?
329: Was presented to the church here, for adoption?
I say I can’t tell you.
330: Were you here in 1852?
Here in Utah?
331: Yes sir, that is the question I asked you?
No sir I was not here at that time. I came here in 1858.
332: You came here in 1859 you say?
Yes sir.
333: From where?
I came from Nauvoo here.
334: In 1859 you came from Nauvoo here?
Yes sir.
335: Now where was it you first say the published statement of the pretended revelation on polygamy?
I could not tell you.
336: Do you say you do not know anything about that?
I can’t remember.
337: Can’t you remember when you first saw it?
I can’t fix the date.
338: Do you remember where you first say it?
No sir.
339: Was it in the “Pearl of Great Price”?
I could not tell you where I first saw it.
340: Don’t you know that it was never published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants until 1876?
I do not know.
341: Would you say it was?
I would not say whether it was or was not. It is sufficient for me to know it was there, and always has been.
342: Always has been?
Yes sir.
343: Always has been you say?
Yes sir.
344: Since when?
Since it was put there first.
345: Now you said it was always there, from what time?
I can’t say.
346: Don’t you know it was never published in this book prior to 1876?
347: And he has stated that it was always there, he should surely know something about it for it appears now that he remembers the time when it was not there. Don’t you know it was not published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants until 1876?
I don’t know
348: Well would you say it was?
I would not say whether it was or was not.
349: Don’t you know it was not continued in the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
I could not tell you.
350: And don’t you know it was not in the 1844 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
I cannot tell you.
351: Not in the 1845 edition?
I can’t tell you I never bother myself about it at all.
352: Don’t you know it was not in the edition of 1852 that was published here in Salt Lake City?
I don’t know anything about it.
353: Then you do not know when it was published first?
No sir, I know it is in there, but I don’t know the edition it was first published in.
354: You know when it was presented first to the church here in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, – you have read about that have not you?
355: What do you say to that?
I say I don’t know.
356: You have read about it haven’t you?
I don’t know whether I have read about it or not.
357: Have you not read the sermon that Brigham Young delivered at the time that he presented it here to the Conference assembled in 1852?
I don’t know, I may have done so, for I have read a great many of Brigham Young’s sermons.
358: Have you not read that sermon?
I don’t remember all of them.
359: Well did you read that sermon, – answer the question?
I do not remember.
360: Well did you read the written argument that was conducted between Joseph Smith – of Plano, Illinois, now of Lamoni, Iowa, and Brigham Young, – and yourself I mean?
361: I will modify the question, You conducted the correspondence between Joseph Smith now of Lamoni, Iowa, but previously of Plano, Illinois, did you not?
Yes sir.
362: Now did he not cite the fact to you there in that correspondence, that the first time this pretended revelation on polygamy was presented to the church, was in 1852?
He might have done so, I don’t remember.
363: Did you not reply to that?
I couldn’t say what I replied to it.
364: He wrote to you?
Yes sir.
365: And you replied to his letter?
Yes sir. I replied to a great many items in his letter, but I don’t remember now any particular item that I replied to.
366: Did you not in your correspondence with Joseph Smith, in reference to this matter, in relation to this revelation on polygamy, did you not in that correspondence between yourself and Joseph Smith the President of the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, say that Brigham Young in a discourse here in the City of Salt Lake, claimed that there was no man on earth ever saw that revelation until the time when it was presented here in 1852, or that had a copy of it?
I don’t remember that.
367: Weill you swear that you did not write that?
Write what?
368: In substance, what I have repeated to you?
I cannot say.
369: Well what do you say, you must remember something about it?
The correspondence will show for itself what I wrote.
370: Will you swear that is not in it?
I don’t know whether it is or is not.
371: Well if it is in there is it true?
I don’t remember whether it is in there or is not. I don’t remember anything about it.
372: Well if it is in there is it true?
The correspondence speaks for itself, and it is still in existence I suppose.
373: If it is in there, if that statement is in the reply that you wrote to Joseph Smith, is it true?
I guess you are familiar with it.
374: Well yes, I guess I am just as familiar with it as you are, just exactly as familiar with it as you are, although you are a good many years older than I am. I have no doubt but that you know right well what is in it, but if you are willing to go on record as evading the question in that way all right, Now you say you heard some ladies and gentlemen talk about this polygamous revelation in Nauvoo, Illinois?
Yes sir.
375: Now I will ask you if it was not at the house of John C. Bennett that you heard this talk?
No sir.
376: At the house that was built just north of the temple there in Nauvoo?
No sir.
377: It was not there?
No sir. I don’t know that I ever was in his house at all.
378: You know where that house that was just north of the temple stood, the house that was tumbled into the ditch?
If there was any house there that was tumbled into the ditch I am not cognizant of it, or I don’t remember of any such an occurence.
379: Did they tumble any house at any place there in the ditch?
No that I remember of. If they did do it, and I knew it at the time, I don’t remember anything about it now.
380: Were you in Nauvoo all the time up to 1844?
I was there at the time he was killed.
381: Were you there from 1840 to 1841?
Well about 1840 or 1841 was the time according to the way my memory serves me now, that I went to Nauvoo.
382: I don’t understand that?
I say I think it was in 1841 or 1842.
that I went to Nauvoo, – 1841, 1842 or 1843, – some where along there was the time that I went to Nauvoo. That is my memory, but I guess it was about 1841.
383: After you first went there, you went off on a mission to some place did you not?
After I first went there?
384: Yes sir? Were you not away on a mission some place after you moved to Nauvoo?
Yes sir.
385: Where was your mission?
I was on a mission to England.
386: In what year?
I went in ’38 I think it was. Yes sir I think it was in ’38.
387: You went with John Taylor?
No sir.
388: Where was he at that time?
John Taylor was in England at the same time. No sir he was not either, for I went just after President Taylor had returned from his mission.
389: How long was it after he returned that he went?
Well the date might have been a year afterwards, – it was in ’38 or ’39 if I remember right that I went to England on the mission.
390: Was it before you went to Nauvoo that you went on your mission to England, or was it afterwards?
I went to Nauvoo when they were in winter quarters there, and wile the camp was in winter quarters I was sent to Nauvoo, – I mean to England on this mission.
391: Well that time was it that you were there under those circumstances?
I don’t remember the date exactly?
392: It was in 1843 was it not?
In 1848 or 1849 (???), – I think it was in 1848, but I would not say the date positively.
393: Where were you on a mission prior to the death of Joseph Smith if at all?
I was never sent on but one mission before his death, but this, and that was down in Madison County, Illinois.
394: Well when was that?
Well that was but a short time previous to his death.
395: A short time you say, – how long?
Well about a year, – perhaps a year and a half or something like that.
396: That was down in Madison County?
Yes sir.
397: Well how long did you remain there?
Just a short time.
398: Well how long was it?
Only a few months.
399: Who was in company with you, if any body?
I was by myself, – that is I know what you mean, – who were associated with me down there?
400: Yes sir?
None at all, – no one.
401: You taught the plural wife doctrine while you were on that mission, did you not?
No sir.
402: You did not?
No sir. I did not teach it.
403: Had you heard of it?
I told you that I had heard of it previous to the death of Joseph Smith.
404: Well had you heard of it previous to your going on that mission?
I can’t say. I presume I did.
405: Well will you say you had, or had not?
I would not say whether I had or not, but I think I had heard of it before that. I think I had, but I would not state positively.
406: If you had taught it to any body while you were on that mission did you think you would have been cut off from the church for so doing?
I did not teach it to any body while I was on that mission.
407: You did not teach it while on that mission for the reason you knew you did not have the right to teach it?
If I knew about it of course that is correct. I do not say that I knew about it that time, but I think I did, and I did not teach it to any body at that time however.
408: You knew you had no right to teach it?
I went there to teach the first principles of the gospel, –
409: You knew you had no right to teach polygamy?
Yes sir, I considered that I had no right to it.
410: You did not think you had the authority to teach it?
Certainly not.
411: You would not say you understood about it?
No sir, I would not say positively, but I understood about it previous to his death, and while he was living. I understood then that the principle was taught and practiced in the church.
412: Ans talked with him about it?
With Joseph?
413: Yes sir?
No sir, and I didn’t say I talked with him about it.
414: Now you say that the doctrines of the church since you have been here in Utah, is just the same as was taught in the old church while it was at Nauvoo? Prior to 1844 I mean? Did you not say that?
Why you asked me a question in relation, –
415: In answer to Mr Hall’s question did you not state that?
Why the ceremony, – the law here is the same as it was then governing that, but you asked me a question touching polygamy?
416: Well the law of the church is just, – ?
You asked me if polygamy is or was taught here the same as it was there.
417: Just wait a moment. Now in answer to a question asked you by Mr Hall, – you stated that the law of marriage in Utah territory since the church has been here, was the same as it had been in Illinois, in Nauvoo, before they left there?
I don’t remember that.
418: Don’t you recollect that you were asked that question and answered it?
I don’t recollect answering that question at all.
419: Well did you answer this question that the doctrine of polygamy as taught here in this territory by the church here, was the same as was taught in Nauvoo?
Well that is the question that I answered before.
420: And you say that the doctrine that is taught here in Utah is the same as taught in Nauvoo when the church was there, prior to 1844?
Yes sir.
421: What is it?
In respect to the plurality doctrine.
422: The doctrine regarding plurality of wives is the same?
Yes sir.
423: And on your cross examination you said it was not taught there?
What doctrine was not taught there?
424: The plurality doctrine?
It was taught, but it was not taught publicly.
425: You said it was not taught publicly or privately by any officer of the church to the church, – Did you not say that?
My answer was that it was not taught in public.
426: Well was it taught in private to the church?
Not to my knowledge by Joseph Smith.
427: Well was it taught by any body else to the church in private?
I can’t say, – it was talked of.
428: Was it taught to the church in private?
No sir not to the church by individuals.
429: Well then what makes you say that the law of polygamy as you
say it was; taught to the church in Nauvoo, is the same as the doctrine that was taught to the church here, in Salt Lake City, and in Utah territory?
So far as the polygamy part of it is concerned, it is the same.
430: But you said it was not taught to the church there as polygamy?
Yes sir.
431: That is what you said?
Yes sir and I say so now.
432: It is taught here?
Yes sir it is taught and practiced here. At least it has been taught and practiced here, but it is not practiced herer now.
433: And you swear to that as positively do you, as to anything else you have testified to?
What?
434: That it is not taught or practiced here at the present time?
Not to my knowledge. I believe it not to be.
435: You believe it not to be?
Yes sir.
436: And that is the reason it is not taught?
No sir the reason of it is because the practice of it in Utah has ceased according to my understanding of it.
437: Well how did it come about that the church ceased to practice polygamy and teach it?
Well it stopped it, and that is sufficient.
438: Was it by a vote of the church?
It was.
439: It was by a vote of the church?
Yes sir, it was by a vote taken at a conference, so I understood, but I can’t say positively for I wasn’t present at the conference.
440: You were not at the conference?
No sir.
441: You were notified of the action of the conference by reading the minutes of it?
442: Answer the question, – you were notified of the action of the conference by reading the minutes of it?
Yes sir, but I was not present at the conference.
443: You know there was a vote taken by reading the minutes of the conference, and the claim was that there was ten thousand members of the church present who voted on it?
The minutes of the conference is the best evidence.
444: Well fortunately you are not passing on the question as to whether it is the best evidence or not? You know there was a vote taken by reading the minutes of the conference, and the claim was that there was ten thousand members of the church present and who voted upon it, – is that not the fact?
That is about my recollection.
445: That is your recollection of it, that there was ten thousand persons, members of the church present who voted on it?
Yes that is my recollection of it. That is correct according to my recollection of it, – my best recollection is I think that it was estimated there was about ten thousand, or about that many present.
446: Now then it was abolished by a vote of the church?
Yes sir. That is my understanding of it.
447: It was abolished by a vote of the church, but the church went into it without any vote?
That is my understanding, – well not I could not say.
448: Did the church ever take a vote on it, when you say it was taught privately around there?
No that I am aware of.
449: You never heard anything either in public or private or from any officer of the church, or any one in authority, about its being presented to any body of the people for adopted in Nauvoo?
450: Answer the question?
What is the question.
451: You never heard anything either in public or in private or from any officer in the church, or from any one in authority in the church, about its being presented to any body of the people in Nauvoo for adoption?
Do you mean the adoption of the law of polygamy?
452: Yes sir?
No sir.
453: Now was it not a law or rule of the church prior to 1844, that anything, in order to become a law of the church, must be presented to the church, and be adopted by the church?
I could not swear to that either way, but I think that is contained in the book of Covenants.
454: All revelations?
I think it is.
455: That everything must be done by the common consent of the church?
I think that is contained in the book of covenants?
456: Yes sir, it is?
Yes sir.
457: And that was the law of the church prior to 1844 was it not?
Well it is in there and I think it is binding the same as all other matters that are in there.
458: Was it not the law of the church that everything lust be done in order and by the common consent of the people before it could become a law unto the church.
That has been the general practice.
459: What?
That has been the general practice. I believe it has been the general practice.
460: That has been the general prjctice?
Yes sir.
461: That was the universal practice prior to 1844 was it not?
It has always been so far as I understand it.
462: And doe snot the law of the church prescribe that there shall be nothing done contrary to the church covenants?
463: Answer the question?
What is the question?
464: Does not the law of the church, – did not the law of the church prior to 1844, prescribe that there should be nothing done contrary to the church covenants and articles?
I could not answer that. I couldn’t swear to that.
465: You could not swear to that?
No sir.
466: I will ask you if it was not the universal custom, and rule and law of the church, that all revelations and doctrines before they became a law of the church, must first be presented to the church, and be adopted by the church? Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the grounds and for the reasons that it is not the best evidence, is improper cross examination, and is incompetent, irrelevant and immeterial.
I think that has been the practice, always of the church”.
467: And it has always been the law?
As a general thing it has been, so far as I understand it.
468: Do you know of any exception of that rule?
I know nothing only what is contained in that book there.
469: Do you know of any exception to that rule?
No sir, I don’t know that I do.
470: That is all?
471: In your cross examination Mr B Littlefield you stated that you were baptized in 1844?
In ’34 it was.
472: You said in 1844 in your cross examination?
I don’t think I did, – I meant to say ’34 if I did.
473: You meant to say in 1834?
Yes sir, for I was baptized in 1834, and if I said 1844 I made a mistake, for it was in 1834.
474: You also state in giving the date that you went on a mission to England as being in 1838 or 1839?
Did I, if I did it was a mistake, for it was after the death of Joseph Smith that I went on that mission, – it must have been in ’40?
475: You meant to say 1849 instead of ’39?
Yes sir, for we left Nauvoo in 1846, and it should have been 1849 instead of ’39 that I went on that mission to England. There was a mistake there of ten years.
476: Now I want you to state to the reporter, Mr Littlefield what your occupation was at Nauvoo?
I was employed in the printing office there.
477: In what printing office?
In the office of the “Times and Seasons”.
478: I would like for you to state to the reporter who was the editor of that paper, – the Times and Seasons, – at the time that you were employed there?
Well Joseph Smith was its editor for a season, and he was succeeeded by John Taylor, as I understand it.
I worked under both editors there in that office,- both of them.
479: Do you remember Mr Littlefield who was present with Joseph Smith, when he was killed in the Carthage jail?
Well I was not present there, but I know from the general report who was there, I know from the testimony of other men who was there, who was present.
John Taylor was there, and Williard Richards was there, and Hyrum Smith was there. If there was any one else there besides these whose names I have given and Joseph Smith himself, it don’t just at this time occur to me who they were, but there might have been more there.
I was not present in the jail when he was killed, and I could not swear to that positively, for I was not present in the jail at the time.
480: Now in your cross examination you made a statement, and I will now ask you to state to the reporter if you know whether John Taylor was in Nauvoo, at or about that time?
About the time of the killing?
481: Yes sir?
Yes sir he was there. I know that for I was boarding at his house at the time, and of course he was in jail, and I know that from one fact,- because he was brought in from Carthage, and I was one that went out to meet his body and helped to bring him in I met his wounded body, and helped to being him into Nauvoo.
I know it too, for I waited on him a good deal after that while that he was sick from his wounds.
482: Will you state to the reporter Mr Li tlefield what you know about revelations being given and acted upon by members of the church, before being presented to the quoroms and the church in general assembly for acceptance?
I could not say. I couldn’t state anything positive in relation to that matter I don’t think.
483: I will get you to state to the reporter Mr Littlefield, if you attended any of the conferences held by the church,- generan conferences?
In Nauvoo do you mean?
484: Yes sir, or any where else, from the time that you became a member of the church, up to the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
A general assembly. I have attended general conferences, but I have no recollection of attending what would be called a general assembly.
485: Will you state to the reporter whether or not a general assembly was ever held by the church between the years 1836 and 1844?
I have no recollection of a meeting of that kind. 486 (Written as 498)
485: I will ask you to state to the reporter if any revelations given to the church through Joseph Smith, were ever acted on at any of the general conferences you attended from the time you became a member of the church, until the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Well I have no recollection of it, but still such a thing – might have been often one, but if it was I don’t remember it. If it was done I was not present, and to the best of my recollection and memory there was no such a thing done.
487: You can’t say positively whether that was the rule or not?
I could not state positively whether it was done or not done. Re-cross examination by P.P. Kelley, –
488: Now when did you first go into the Times and Seasons office in Nauvoo?
When did I first go into it to work?
489: Yes sir?
Well I went in there first, – let me see, Why I went in there first while it was printed by Robinson and Smith. Firstly I went into it when they were publishing it, and then they sold out to Joseph Smith, and he became the editor, and he then vacated to John Taylor.
490: What Smith was that that was in with Robinson and Smith?
It was Don Carlos Smith. I went personally into that offime soon after I went to Nauvoo.
491: What time was that?
The time I went to Nauvoo, – I don’t remember exactly the date.
492: You do not remember the date you went to Nauvoo?
No sir, not exactly.
493: Were you at Far West in 1838?
At Far West Missouri?
494: Yes sir?
I was there when the church left there. At least I was not in Far West when it was vacated for I had left there previously and had gone to Liberty, and I was at Liberty, Clay County when that vacation took place.
495: Do you remember about a revelation being given while the church was at Far West, Missouri?
I don’t recollect of any revelation. I don’t remember, but there might have been, but if there was I don’t remember it now. That is I don’t remember the dates o the revelations.
496: Do you remember there at Far West when the revelation was given on tithing and surplus property in 1838?
At Far West?
497: Yes sir?
no sir. I don’t recollect anything about that. I don’t think I remember anything about it at all.
498: You don’t recollect whether it was presented to the conference, and adopted by the people?
No sir.
499: You were not there then?
No sir.
500: And so you don’t know anything about that?
No sir if that occured perhaps I was during my absence in Liberty in Clay County, for I had gone there about that time to work in a printing office.
501: Do you recollect when the revelation of 1841 was given in Nauvoo, Illinois?
In 1841?
502: Yes sir?
What revelation do you refer to? May I ask what revelation you refer to?
503: Well was there more than one revelation given in 1841?
I can’t say.
504: Well, what is your best recollection about that?
I have no recollection about it at all. I can’t say what were given in 1841, there may have been several given in 1841 for all I know to the contrary.
505: I mean the revelation directing the building of the temple?
There was a revelation given about the building of the temple, there, but I cannot remember the date. I know that there was such a revelation given about the building of the temple there, but the date of it is something I can’t now remember.
506: Well do you recollect the time it was given? Were you there then?
I think I was.
507: You think you were then?
Yes sir.
508: Do you recollect that being presented to the church, and voted on?
Voted on by whom?
509: By the church?
No sir I don’t.
510: Do you say it was not?
I say I don’t remember.
511: You do not say it was not?
No sir.
512: Now you say you have no recollection of any general assembly of the church from ’36 down?
No sir.
513: You do not mean to say there was not any general assembly of the church held from 1836 to 1844?
No sir. I do not mean to say there was not, but I was never present at any that I remember of.
514: How far do you live from this city?
I think it is sixty either miles about, – It is about sixty eight miles I think.
515: Who notified you to appear here as a witness?
516: Who notified you to appear here as a witness?
517: Answer the question?
Wilford Woodruf.
517: The President of the church here in Utah?
Yes sir.
518: He notified you to appear here?
Yes sir.
519: Was the notice in writing?
No sir it was not in writing, -not what I would call writing.
520: In what shape was it?
It was in type-writing.
521: Have you that letter?
Yes sir. I guess so. But I don’t know whether I have it here or not.
522: Will you see whether you have it or not?
Yes sir.
523: Well, have you the letter?
I presume I have.
524: Will you let me see it?
I have no, -as far as I am individually concerned I have no objection to any one seeing it.
525: Well we insist upon it, -we insist upon the production of that letter. Will you produce that letter from Wilford Woodruf asking you to appear here as a witness?
I have no objection to doing so, but objection is made to my doing so.
526: Well never mind the objection, -do you refuse to produce it?
I guess I will avail myself of my privilege and refuse to do it. I will avail myself of my privilege and retain the letter.
527: Do you refuse to produce the letter, -answer the question, -Do you refuse to produce the letter from Wilford Woodruf to yourself asking you to appear hear as a witness?
Under the circumstances I do.
528: Why?
Why, -what?
529: Why do you refuse to produce it?
I don’t know why.
530: You don’t know why?
I don’t know why there should be any objection to my doing so.
531: Do you have any objection personally to producing the letter?
No sir. I don’t now of any reason why I should not do so.
532: Is your refusal to do so, simply because of the instruction of counsel for you not to do so?
Yes sir, that is the reason.
533: Is that the only reason why you refuse to produce the letter?
Yes sir.
534: You refuse to produce the letter simply and solely because counsel for the defendant advises and instructs you not to produce it?
That is the only reason.
535: Who pays your expenses for coming here?
I have paid my expenses so far I know, and I will continue to pay so far as I know. Nobody advanced a dime or farthing to me, for I came on my own responsibility, and at my own expense.
536: Did you expect to pay your own expenses before you left home to come here?
Yes sir.
537: You volunteered to come here at the request of Wilford Woodruf?
Yes sir, -I came because I was requested to come.
538: And you were requested to come by Wilford Woodruf, and testify as a witness in this case?
Yes sir,-well now you are making it a little broader than what it was intended. I was requested to come and be here, -I don’t think there was anything said about testifying.
538: As a witness
given in the letter at all. I don’t think that word was used in the letter.
540: Well you were requested to come and give evidence?
I don’t think I was.
541: You were requested to come and give evidence in this case?
No sir.
542: Will you read the letter?
With the consent of counsel that are objecting I will.
543: Well they are not objecting to that question it seems?
544: Do you decline to read the contents of that letter to the Examiner?
I do under the existing circumstances.
545: Why do you refuse to read it?
Because counsel objects.
546: You decline solely, and only, because your counsel object to your doing so?
Yes sir.
547: And that is your reason for declining to read it?
That is all sir.
548: Well will you let me see the letter out of court?
No sir.
549: Why do you refuse to let me see it out of court?
I decline to do so under existing circumstances.
550: They you will let me see it?
Yes sir. If it is agreed upon by all parties I have no objection to your seeing it and reading it too, or any other man, but under the existing circumstances I must decline to do so.
551: If President Woodruf consents to the letter being produced here, will you produce it? Counsel for defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the grounds and for the reasons that it is improper cross examination, and irrelevant and immeterial.
With the consent of counsel here, I will.
552: You do not refuse to produce it here, because it is a private communication from President Woodruf, do you?
No sir. In that respect it would be the same to me as if it was from any other man.
553: The letter that I have been calling for is a letter written by Wilford Woodruf, president of the church here in Utah, is it not?
Yes sir.
554: That is all?