1: Mr Wheeler you may state your full name to the reporter?
Cyrus H. Wheelocke.
2: Where do you live Mr Wheeler?
At Mt Pleasant, San Pete township (county).
3: What state is that in?
Utah territory.
4: Where did you live before going there?
Do you mean where did I live in this territory?
5: No, before you came to this territory, where did you live?
In Illinois. In Hancock, County, Illinois, at Nauvoo.
6: That was where you lived before you came here?
Yes sir I lived there when I left the state. Now do you want to know when I left there?
7: Well you may state first when you moved there to Nauvoo to live?
In 1840. No it was in 1841 when I first went there instead of ’40. It was 1841 when I went there.
8: When did you leave there?
I left there in 1846.
9: Then from 1841 to 46 you lived there at Nauvoo?
Yes sir.
10: Now what church, if any, were you a member of, when you lived at Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
11: You were a member of that church?
Yes sir.
12: I will ask you to state if you were acquainted, at the time you lived at Nauvoo, Illinois, with a news-paper, called the “Nauvoo Expositor”?
What is it, – with a paper called what?
13: With a paper called the “Nauvoo Expositor, – the question is were you acquainted with a publication by that name at the time you lived there at Nauvoo?
I was this much acquainted only, – I saw and handled copies of it.
14: Can you identify that as a copy of the Nauvoo Expositor, the paper I now hand you, – as the paper you say you saw and handled there?
I never have seen any other. That looks like it, but I can’t see well enough to read it, but that looks very much like it. If that is the paper there is some affidavits in it, – affidavits of different ones, members of the church that I recollect seeing there, – slurs on the church, and statements of that kind.
witness for the reason that it is immeterial and irrelevant and not responsive to the question, and the question is objected to for the same reasons.
15: Can you read the title?
Yes sir, I can see the title of the news-paper.
16: Can you read the date of it here?
What is that?
17: Can you read the date of it here?
Yes sir.
18: Well what is it?
June 2nd 1844.
19: Where was it published?
At Nauvoo Illinois. It is very hard for me to see, but I can see that much.
20: Have you your glasses?
No sir.
21: Well it offered for the purpose of identification, – we offer a copy of the Nauvoo Expositor, published at Nauvoo, Illinois, of Friday, June 7th 1844, – the witness stated it was June 2nd, but that was an error due to his defective eye sight, – and we offer it for the purpose of showing that Joseph Smith was publicly accused of teaching and practicing the doctrine of plural marriage, or polygamy; and we ask that it be marked as an exhibit. The publication above referred to as the “Nauvoo Expositor, published as appears by the date, at Nauvoo, Illinois, Friday June 7th 1844” was marked exhibit “D”, and made a part hereof, for the purpose of using extracts from same in evidence.
22: Now I will ask you to look at this paper marked exhibit “D”, and examine these affidavits, and see if you can identify those affidavits, as the affidavits you read in the paper there at Nauvoo?
Yes sir.
23: Read the affidavits?
Shall I read them?
24: Yes sir?
25: Just read them?
“I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house and read it, and showed to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time in this world, and in the world to come. It said that was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law, – and also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation supporting the above doctrines. Wm. Law. State of Illinois ) ) I, Robert D. Foster, certify that the above Hancock County) certificate was worn to before me, as true in substance this fourth day of May A.D., 1844. Robert D. Foster J.P.
I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives than one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would now allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God. Jane Law Sworn and subscribed before me this fourth day of May, A.D. 1844. Robert D. Foster, J.P.
25: Is that all of it?
Yes sir, that is all of that, but here is something more, shall I read it?
26: Yes sir, read it all?
It is as follows, “To all whom it may concern, Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course of procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by a number of persons declaring against certain doctrines and practices therein (among whom I am one), it is but meet that I should give my reasons at least in part, as a cause that has lead me to declare myself, in the latter part of the summer of 1843, Patriarch Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the prophet, that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revelation in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines, first the sealing up of persons to eternal life against all sins, save that of shedding innocent blood or consenting these to, second, the doctrine of plurality of wives, or marrying virgins, that David and Solomon had many wives yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation, with other evidences that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the church; determined me to leave the office of first Counsellor to the President of the church in Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not to preach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not.” Austin Cowles. State of Illinois) Hancock County) To all whom it may concern, I hereby certify that the above certificate was sworn and subscribed before me this fourth day of May 1844. Robert D. Foster, J.P.,
27: Now I will ask you to state if you read those affidavits or certificates in the Nauvoo Expositor in Nauvoo, Illinois, before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
28: You say you read it at Nauvoo, before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
29: In that copy, or one like it of the Nauvoo Expositor?
Yes sir, I presume so, for I never saw any other copy of the Expositor
but that one that I know of. I remember where I read them too.
30: Well where did you read them?
I read these affidavits in Law’s house.
31: Now I will ask you to examine this certificate in the Times & Seasons on page 939, and continuing on to page 940, and see if you can recognize that?
Do you want me to read it?
32: it is not necessary to read it aloud, – just look over it?
Well I am very glad that I don’t have to read it aloud.
33: Well do you recognize those certificates?
Yes sir.
34: I will ask you to state what difference there was between Dr. John C. Bennett’s secret wife system, and the system of doctrine of plural marriage as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith?
35: I will ask you to state to the reporter, if you have at any time read the revelation on plural marriage, as published by the church in Utah?
I did not answer the other question.
36: Well answer it?
You asked me what the difference as between the secret wife system practiced or taught by John C. Bennett and the doctrine of plural marriage as taught by Joseph Smith and I answer that there was not any difference, – they were the same. Counselor for the plaintiff objects to the answer of the witness on the ground and for the reasons as given in the objection to the question.
37: Now you may answer the question as to whether you have at any time read the revelation on plural marriage as published by the Church here in Utah?
Yes sir.
38: You say you have read it?
Yes sir, I have read it a great many times.
39: When was the first time you heard that principle taught and where?
Well sir I cannot tell you as to the dates, I can’t recollect dates very well, and so I can’t tell you the exact time.
40: Well about what year was it, according to the best of your recollection?
Well is was in 1845 once, – it was not taught publicly at that time however, and again in 1844.
41: Well you may state who you heard teach it in 1843?
Joseph Smith.
42: At what place?
The first time I recollect hearing him teach was in Iowa, at a place called Montrose. It was at Montrose in Iowa at the house of one Bates Noble.
43: Now I will ask you to state again (I asked you the question once before, but in a different form), I will ask you to state the difference between John C. Bennett’s secret wife system, and that principle of plural marriage as taught you by Joseph Smith?
Now I do not wish to testify to anything here that I am not wanted to testify to, for I have no interest in this case at all only to tell the truth about what I know, if there is any authority here to tell me when I am to answer a question I will do so. By the Examinee,
44: You are to answer the questions, as best you can, that are asked you, but when these gentlemen make an objection wait until they are through, and then go on and answer the questions the same as if no objection had been made at all, you are to pay no attentions at all to objections?
I will answer the questions if it is proper for me to do so.
45: Go ahead and answer the question? They are putting in their legal objections, and they have a right to do that, but it has nothing to do with your testimony, you will just go ahead and answer the questions the same as if no objection has been made?
Now I said a while ago that they were the same, but I did not have an opportunity to explain what I meant. There is a considerable difference. In the revelation, if you will read that through you will see that there is nothing but one grant at a time, it is a sealing power that is called “celestial marriage”, or marriage for eternity. That is one part of it. That is held by but one man at a time, the power to grant that is held by but one man at a time, and no man has a right to marry outside of that, in that order. There never was any other power, and never will be according to that revelation unless that power is specially delegated to some other person or persons by that man, whereas John C. Bennett got up a company, a secret combination, the purpose of which was to form a society altogether different to the purpose of that revelation. His system was a scheme some what similar to a public seraglio. It was got up for the purpose of cultivating the baser passions in human nature and these men were sworn not to reveal their system, and it was given out secretly by Bennett that Joseph Smith had told him he could get up such a society or system, and finally it came to Joseph’s ears, and Bennett was excommunicated with all of his adherents in consequence of it. He confessed to my knowledge the guilt of his adultery, so as not to be cut off from the church, but after he was cut off from the church he wrote a book, which I never read, but in that book I understand he stated that he did practice it but did so by authority of Joseph Smith. The fact is he was cut off for his baseness.
46: I will ask you what you understood these parties were denying that gave these certificates which you have read here?
Well sir I understand it to be that they condemned utterly John C. Bennett’s system, or any other outside of that revelation, and in that covenant entered into by any other authority outside of that revealed in the law of celestial marriage, they utterly repudiated anything else.
47: What position did you occupy there in the church before the death of Joseph Smith?
Well sir, in what
Well sir, in what regards do you mean?
48: Well in what kind were, – in what kind of work were you engaged, if in any work on behalf of the church?
In the last four months of Joseph’s life time, I was detained by him and his brother from a mission that I was appointed to, and there was a conspiracy being organized or hatched at different places, – a conspiracy as we supposed for they detected it from Missouri, leading right into his own house, and they were about to sell him, as he got information of the mob that was being organized to get him. That was one thing, and I was detained to assist them in defeating its operations. Now these men, his counsellors, the affidavit of whom I have read apostatised, and was supposed to be in league with them, and I was asked to remain and trace out as much of the conspiracy as I could.
49: You were detained to do what?
To watch and find out what I could, and defend him from his enemies there in Nauvoo, and out side. That was my business and I was with him all the time up to within an hour of his murder.
50: I will ask you to state in what other respect you acted as a guard for Joseph Smith?
Well sir there were people there who were accused of being spies, or as acting as spies on Joseph Smith while they visited him. It was said that they were some of his plural wives that he had. His son was accused of being on the watch also, but I don’t know what for I never traced him to the house or detected him in anything of the kind, but I was authorized to keep my eye on him, and on these people which I did to the best of my ability.
51: You guarded Joseph’s house in that manner?
Yes sir.
52: Now did you guard any one else’s house?
Yes sir.
53: State who it was?
President John Taylor’s.
54: For what purpose?
And Orson Hyde’s.
55: for what purpose did you guard them?
To see who was there and who went in and who came out when they were hunting him. I was to watch these men.
the objection to the question to which it is an answer,
56: Did John Taylor have any plural wives?
No sir I know nothing of it only what he told me and what I saw, for the fact is I saw no man marry a plural wife. They simply told me the situation of things and wished me to be on guard.
Well sir that I have told you here is the truth. I have told the truth, and I would have you understand that I am not in the habit of stating falsehoods. I am in the habit of stating truths, and I have lived right here for a great many years, and the people know what my reputation is in that regard. (The above expression of the witness was caused by Mr. P.P. Kelley saying “He may have told a falsehood”.
57: I did not say you did not tell the truth, – “what I said was that John Taylor may have told you a falsehood”?
Well I misunderstood you, – I am happy to receive your explanation and receive it.
58: Were you asked to guard his house on account of his having plural wives there?
Yes sir.
59: I will ask you to state if you guarded Joseph Smith’s house on account of his having plural wives there?
No sir I don’t know anything about that.
60: Well was it on account of his having plural wives?
No sir I never went to a plural wives house in my life, – I did not have anything to do with that. I was just employed to see where he went, – that is to follow him and see if he was followed or if there were any spies et on him by those whom we mistrusted were his enemies.
61: I will ask you to examine this paper which I now hand you this book, – which is called the “Times & Seasons” in bound form, and read that hear, if you can identify that as a publication that was published there at Nauvoo during the time that you lived there?
It reads at the head, – Times & Seasons. City of Nauvoo, Illinois. March 18th 1844″. Yes sir that is the paper.
62: Can you identify that as a true copy?
Yes sir.
63: You identify that as a true copy?
Yes sir.
64: Of the Times and Seasons?
Yes sir.
65: Published at Nauvoo during the time you lived there?
Yes sir.
66: I will ask you now to read this letter published on page four-hundred and twenty four?
Do you want me to read it to myself or read it aloud?
67: Well you had better read it out aloud?
I will do so.
It reads, – “Nauvoo, March 15th 1844. To the brethern of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, greeting; – Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he please and that doctrine is taught here; I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here. Any man found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine is culpable, and will standochance and membership also; therefore he had better beware what he is about. And again I say unto you, an elder has no business to undertake to preach mysteries in any part of the world, for God has commanded us all to preach nothing but the first principles unto the world. Neither has any elder any authority to preach any mysterious thing to any branch of the church, unless he has a direct commandment from God to do so. Let the matter of the grand councils of heaven and the making of gods, worlds and devils entirely alone; for you are not called to teach any such doctrine, – for neither you, nor the people are capacitated to understand any such principles, – less so to teach them. For when God commands men to teach such principles the saints will receive them. Therefore beware what you teach, for the mysteries of God are not given to all men, and unto those to whom they are given they are placed under restrictions, to impart only such as God will command them; and the residue is to be kept in a faithful breast, otherwise he will be brought under condemnation. By this God will prove his faithful servants, who will be called and numbered with the chosen. And as to the celestial glory, all will enter in and possess that kingdom that obey the gospel, and continue in faith in the Lord unto the end of his days. Now, therefore, I say unto you, you must cease preaching your miraculous things, and let the mysteries alone until by and bye. Preach faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentence and baptism for the remission of sins; the laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost; teaching the necessity of strict obedience unto these principles; reasoning out of the scriptures; proving them into the people. Cease your schisms and divisions, and your contentions. Humble yourselves as in dust and ashes, lest God should make you an ensample of is wrath unto the surrounding world. Amen. In the bonds of the everlasting covenant I am your obedient servant. Hyrum Smith”.
68: Have you read the whole of the letter?
I have
69: Did you ever read that letter in Nauvoo?
Yes sir.
70: You did?
Yes sir.
71: When did you read that letter in Nauvoo?
I read it in the paper as it was published.
72: Was it identical as you find it here?
It was.
73: I will ask you to state the differences between a man having as many wives as he pleased, and the principle of plural marriage as taught by Joseph Smith?
Well sir I never knew that any man had a right to any more than one wife, or even that in that covenant, unless it was given him of God, that that man could do so appointed through Joseph Smith. That was the only thing that was taught me, and the only thing I ever heard of. No man had any authority or right to teach any other system of marriage connected with the system of celestial marriage or plural or eternal marriage, – nothing only what appears there, – and with reference to the men that were entitled to them, – that is to plural wives there was no priesthood about it.
74: I will ask you if there was any doctrine taught there in Nauvoo that a man could have as many wives as he pleased?
75: You may answer the question? Any doctrine to that effect taught by proper authority?
What do you mean by proper authority?
76: Well perhaps I should not have said that, – , – by any authority I will say, – in reference to whether a man could have as man wives as he pleased?
Well there was John C. Bennett’s system in the geginning I believe. That was a plural wife system, and they had a certain creed and order of priesthood, and they said they could have as many wives as they wanted. They is they said or claimed that certain men could have, but there was no authority in the church for the practice or connected with it in any manner. Nothing that was given out to the world or anything pertaining to it.
77: I will ask you to state then if it was the truth, – if the statement made in this letter which you have just read, – the the effect that there was no such a system taught there?
Yes sir that is the truth for there was nothing of the kind taught there at Nauvoo at that time by authority. It was not endorsed by the church or by any member of the church in good standing.
78: Then explain if you can, the system of plural marriage as taught you by Joseph Smith?
Yes sir it is taught to me by Joseph Smith, I can tell you that for that is something I know of my own knowledge. I did not
see that revelation at that time, but I saw it afterwards after we came here and before it was printed in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.. I heard it at that time in Nauvoo, – I mean for the clerk of Joseph Smith by his request read that revelation on the celestial order of marriage in its entirety, and that was the doctrine contained in it. I don’t think it needs any explaining for it will explain itself.
79: Well when did you hear that read? That is something that I did not quite understand?
I couldn’t give you any date at all. I remember once, – I think it was the first time, and it was at Nobles, and another time there was a few of us in the woods, getting out of the way and we were talking together, and I heard about it.
80: You were out in the woods you say?
Yes, sir, and I can make it clear to you in a little while that Joseph had to be on the run to keep out of the way of his enemies, and some times he would go out in the country to one of our neighbors, for he felt that he could trust any one that lived in the woods or forest down the river, and we would go out in the timber to talk under the trees about the principles of the church, amongst other principles that of baptism for the dead was discussed and the building of the temple and all these things together. It was at this time amongst others that he taught us the principle of plural marriage, but his teaching was not specially directed to me, but to all who were in the company. We talked about it as we might here or any brother qualified and having authority to do so will discuss principles when he gets along with his brethern in friendly and confidential discourse.
Of course sir I have no desire to testify here at all if I am not wanted to do so. If it is un-necessary I do not desire to speak here at all, for it is nothing to me.
81: Have you read the revelation as published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Utah Church?
Yes sir, I have.
82: I will ask you to state what difference there is, if any, between the revelation as published by the Utah church, and the revelation you heard read?
There is no difference whatever in the reading that I can now discover. I do not know of any difference and I will say this that I never heard the thing questioned until now. I don’t think I ever heard it questioned until now.
83: I will ask you to state whether you heard that revelation read before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
84: You did hear it before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
85: And you say that the revelation that you heard read before the death of Joseph Smith, and the revelation as such published by the church here in Utah are identically the same?
I can’t recollect of any deviation at all. I can’t remember that there was any difference but as to swearing that they are identically the same I could not do it, for that would be impossible, but I can swear that to the best of my recollection they were the same identically. Of course I don’t think I had that manuscript in my hand or read it for myself, but I heard it read, –
86: That was the revelation on plural marriage?
Yes sir.
87: Well that is all. Cross examination by P.P. Kelley, – 87 (Listed as the second number 87)
87: Did you ever had the revelation in your hands before the death of Joseph Smith?
No sir.
88: You did not?
I don’t think I had, – I am quite postive I did not.
89: Whose hand writing was it in?
I don’t know.
90: How many pages of manuscript was there?
I don’t know.
91: You don’t know how many pages of manuscript it was, or how large it was?
No sir.
92: It was read to you I believe you stated?
Yes sir.
93: Well how long did it take the party that read it, to read it?
Well I could not tell you for I did not keep any time on it.
94: Did Joseph Smith read it to you?
No sir.
95: Who did?
The clerk.
96: What clerk?
Joseph’s clerk.
97: What clerk was it?
I don’t know.
98: Don’t you know his name?
I can tell you the year anout it was and you can find out for yourself who it was, for I am very bad at remembering names.
99: Was James Whitehead the clerk?
No sir.
100: He was not?
No sir.
101: Do you swear he was not the clerk at that time?
No sir.
102: You will not swear that he was not the clerk?
I will swear that I do not think he was.
103: Was he not the clerk of Joseph Smith up to 1844?
Some times he was, and some times William Clayton was, and some times it was Thompson.
104: William Clayton was not the clerk up to 1844 at the time of the prophets death was he?
I think he was part of the time. I think he acted occasionally up to that time, and there was a man named Thompson that acted a part of the time as his clerk also. I don’t know particularly who it was that read that revelation at that time, but I know that it was not either of them, – it was a man who I was not much acquainted with, – I remember that very well. He was the new clerk that was acting at that time.
105: Who was present when you heard it read?
Bates Noble.
106: Any one else?
Captain Daniel Davis was there also.
107: Where was it you heard it read?
Perhaps a mile or so out of town, – perhaps a mile or so out of the town of Montrose, – west of the town.
108: That was where you heard it read?
Yes sir, and I heard him teach it in Bates Noble’s house also.
109: Where was this place out in the woods that you spoke of?
It was close to Bates Noble’s house.
110: What year was that in?
It was in I think the last of the year 1843, but I would not be right positively sure as to the date for that is something I can’t remember, but I think it was in the latter part of the year 1843.
111: You are certain that it was close to Bates Nobel’s house?
It was in his house.
112: At Montrose?
Near Montrose.
113: How far from Montrose?
Out west from Montrose about a mile I should say. Well not quite that far perhaps.
114: He was living there at the time with his family was he not?
Well he was living there, and his family lived there too at that time I think, but his family was not there personally present at that time?
115: Was Bates Noble there at the time?
Yes sir.
116: Were his household goods there at the time also?
Yes sir.
117: You are sure they were there?
Yes sir, some of them were I know.
118: Where was his wife?
I don’t know.
119: Where was his family?
I don’t know.
120: That is where you heard the revelation read?
Yes sir.
121: How long were you there?
I don’t know.
122: Well about how long?
Well perhaps two hours?
123: Who else was there besides yourself and Noble?
I can’t tell you positively.
124: Well was there anybody?
Yes sir, Daniel Davis was there, and a man by the name of Van Alstine was there also and some others I don’t recollect their names. Davis and Van Alstine and Williams and some others were there. I don’t recollect what all their names were.
125: Davis, Van Alstine and Williams were there?
Yes sir.
126: Were there any others there?
Yes sir.
127: Who were they?
I told you I could not remember who they were.
128: You don’t know who the others were that were there?
No sir.
129: Well can you think of anyone else that was there?
I know there were more there, but I say I can’t think of their names.
130: Well, Joseph Smith was not there?
Yes sir, he was there.
131: Then you can think of his name, can’t you?
Yes sir.
132: Why did you not say he was there, when you gave a list of the names of the parties that were there?
I think I said he was there. If I am not very greatly mistaken I said he was there. I said his name in the first place and I did not think it was necessary to repeat it half a dozen times, for it was understood all the time that he was there.
133: Can you recollect the date of this occurrence?
No sir.
134: What day of the week was it?
I don’t know.
135: What month was it?
I don’t know. I don’t remember the date and there is no use asking me anything about the date for I do not remember it.
136: Well about what time in the year was it?
I would not be sure as to that but I think it was about in November 1843.
137: You think it was in November 1843?
Yes sir, I think it was about that time but that is something I could not be sure about either. That is my best recollection of the time.
138: Was it in cold weather?
No very.
139: What kind of a day was it?
It was a little rainy, – I remember the character of the day very well. I remember that it was a little rainy and chilly.
140: Well did Joseph Smith teach you polygamy that day?
He did not teach it to me no day, – any more than what I have told you.
141: Then he did not teach you polygamy?
No sir not in that way. He had that revelation read to us, but he did not teach it to me formally any more than what I have told you. He did not speak to me specially and formally on the subject at all. What he said was to all of us and not to any one in particular.
142: Did you ever hear him teach it publicly to any one at any time?
No sir no more than what I have said, – to three or four or five together at a time.
143: Did you ever hear him teach it from the stand?
No sir.
144: Did you ever hear any elder of the church preach it publicly from the stand in Nauvoo?
Yes sir I did.
145: When did you hear that?
I can’t give you the date.
146: Well was it before the death of Joseph Smith?
No sir it was right away after his death. Will you permit me to tell you who it was?
147: Yes sir?
Well it was William Smith, and he was an apostle in the church before he was expelled or dis-fellowshipped, and I heard him preach it publicly from the stand there in Nauvoo.
148: What time was it that he preached it?
That very year after Joseph’s death in 1844.
149: Now do you say that he preached it publicly from the stand in Nauvoo at that time?
I do.
150: Well what did he say?
A great many things. For instance he undertook to prove that it was right and that that order of marriage would be restored, and he preached so many strange things there to the people that elder John Taylor got up and correct him, and I was a witness there to the whole proceeding myself. This is not hearsay but something that I witnessed myself. John Taylor said that he had no authority to preach or teach any such a thing, even if it was true, and said that it was unjust to his brother and injuring him. Now that is what I heard, and William Smith is the only man I ever heard preach it publicly in Nauvoo.
151: Then William Smith was telling the truth about it and John Taylor stopped him? Is that what you say?
No sir, for he told more than the truth. He said it was the right of a man to have more wives than one when it was not the right, for it was forbidden.
152: Then it was forbidden?
Yes sir, except here, – except they were given by a man having authority to do it, or under his authority. Now it was for that that he was cut off from the church.
153: Who was cut off from the church?
William Smith was cut off from the church for that, – I know that. 154 (Mistakenly listed as number 164)
153: What year was that?
It was that winter.
155: The winter of 1844?
Yes sir, and do you want me to tell you the particulars?
156: Well, was he cut off the winter of 1844?
Well I don’t know just the season of the year it was, but it was about that time, and I think it was that winter. He was a bad man, and he went and disgraced a woman that lives in this town to day, and I can tell you who it is. I can tell you a good many thing about his business perhaps that you don’t want to know if I like to do so.
157: Well sir if you will confine yourself to answering the questions I ask you, you will find that you will have quite enough to attend to?
Well you asked me if I heard it preached there at Nauvoo, and I told you of one man whom I heard preach it.
158: Well now you answer this question, was William Smith cut off from the church in 1844?
I don’t know.
159: Well was it in 1845?
I don’t remember.
160: You don’t know the year he was cut off in?
no sir, not exactly
161: Do you know that he was ever cut off?
Yes sir, he was.
162: Were you present when he was cut off from the church?
I was.
163: You are sure of that?
Yes sir.
164: Did you raise your hand and vote fore it?
I did.
165: Who put the question?
I think it was Brigham Young. I would not be sure about that but I think it was Brigham Young.
166: In what body or by what body was he tried?
Well I think it was the Twelve. I think it was by the Twelve, but it went before the whole church after that.
167: Was Smith present?
Yes sir.
168: Well did he make any defense, – did he?
sir he did, before he went before the church.
169: Was he tried before the High Council?
I do not know whether he was or not.
170: Did they cut him off for practicing polygamy?
No sir.
171: Well what was it they tried him for?
For teaching false doctrines. It was not for practicing polygamy, – it was for teaching false doctrines.
172: Did they cut him off for teaching polygamy?
No sir, not that I know of.
173: It was for teaching false doctrines?
Yes sir.
174: What was the false doctrine that he taught?
Why he taught that any man, the “son of Jacob”, as he called him, and he was a son of Jacob, – any man in Israel, and a right to as many wives as he could sustain.
175: And he was cut off from the church because he taught that?
Yes sir.
176: That was what he was cut off for?
Yes sir, and because he be- gan to practice it.
177: And that was in 1844 or 1845, and after Joseph Smith’s death?
Yes sir.
178: What time did you unite with the church?
The first day of September 1839.
179: You joined the church in September 1839?
Yes sir.
180: Where did you become a member of the church?
In Pike County Missouri.
181: Where did you go after that?
After when?
182: After you united with the church?
Where did I go?
183: Yes sir?
I went from there to Nauvoo.
184: You moved from Pike County Missouri, to Nauvoo?
Yes sir.
185: Did you go to Nauvoo right away?
No sir, but in six or eight months I did.
186: When you united with the church in September 1839, what was the doctrine of the church in reference to having more wives than one?
I never heard anything about it at that time.
187: Was it not the doctrine of the church, – did you not know what the law of the church was on the subject at that time, – that is at the time you joined the church?
About having wives?
188: Yes sir?
I never heard anything about it at that time.
189: You had not heard anything about it at all?
No sir.
190: Did you not know the section on marriage that was in the book of Doctrine and Covenants at that time?
Yes sir.
191: You did?
Yes sir.
192: Does that permit a man to have more wives than one?
Well there was no practice of that kind then that I knew anything of.
193: Will you answer my question?
I have tried to do so.
194: Well you have not suceeded very well in your effort?
What is the question?
195: You say you knew at that time that the law on marriage was as printed in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir.
196: Well I ask you if it is not a fact that that did not permit a man to have more than one wife?
Yes sir. Every man can read that for himself. It says that one man shall have but one wife, and one woman shall have but one husband. That is what it says and you can interpret it for yourself as you please. That is what it said, and I do not wish to pervert the language at all.
197: Did you think when you joined the church that you would be permitted to have more wives than one?
I did not know anything about it at all. They preached the doctrine of the church to me, and I accepted it, and there was nothing said about it at that time. Of course I understood the laws of the church at that time to be the laws laid down in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, but I understood there might be additions made to it as the Lord would see fit to reveal himself to his church through the prophet.
198: Let me refresh your recollection, and see if you recollect this as being the book of Doctrine and Covenants when you joined the church in 1839. I will read paragraph four of section one hundred and one on page two hundred and fifty one of Exhibit “E”. It is as follows, – “All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized in to 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 one one; and one woman but one husband except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent is unlawful and unjust. We believe all persons who exercise controll over their fellow beings and prevent them from embracing the truth will have to answer for that sin”. I have read the whole paragraph to you, and now I will ask you if that was the law at the time you became a member of the church in 1839?
I don’t know a thing about it at all only as I read it there, and anything I say would be merely my opinion, and I do not wish to put an interpretation on that matter at all but leave it just as I find it.
199: Well I have read it just as it reads here?
Yes sir.
200: Now do you say that teaches polygamy?
I do not.
201: Then the law of the church says that one man shall have but one wife, and one woman but one husband, when you joined the church?
That was the way I understood it. |
202: And you were never taught any other law than that by Joseph Smith?
I have been.
203: You were?
Yes sir.
204: When?
It was taught in his presence.
205: How was it taught?
Well the revelation on celestial marriage that came after that was taught in his presence.
206: The revelation on celestial marriage permitted a man to be sealed to his wife that was living, and to his wife that was dead, did it not, and was that not all there was to it?
yes sir it was that, and it was more for it was as it is taught in the revelation here concerning celestial marriage, that a mans wife was under certain conditions. –
207: Well was not this it, – “it is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband”?
Yes sir I admit that, for I know it is there some where.
208: Now what was the first date that you saw that publication of that revelation on polygamy?
I don’t know sir, and I don’t know that I ever took note of it either.
209: Did you ever see it before it was printed in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No sir.
210: You never saw it before it was printed there?
I told you that I did not see it. I saw what purported to be that manuscript but I did not read it or see what was written.
211: How did you see it?
I saw it in the hands of the clerk that read it.
212: Are you willing to swear that the revelation that is printed in this book of Doctrine and Covenants (the book published by the church in Utah) is the identical paper that was read to you in Nauvoo?
No sir. I did not say it was in Nauvoo.
213: Well where was it you heard it read?
It was in Montrose.
214: Well you could not do that, could you?
Do what?
215: Say the revelation or alleged revelation that you board read at Montrose was the same as the one printed in this book here?
I told you in the beginning I could not say it was the same, but I believe it is the same for it is said to be the same.
216: Who said it was the revelation?
The clerk that read it. He said that, and it was sanctioned by the President of the church there at that time.
217: Did he say it was a revelation on sealing, or a revelation on celestial marriage, or a revelation on plural marriage?
I said it was called a revelation on celestial marriage, and it was taught as it is in there. Is sounded just like that that is printed in there. There is no difference that I can see and I believe them to be the same.
218: How many pages of manuscripts is there, or was there in the manuscript?
I don’t remember anything about that.
219: Well was there twenty?
I don’t know.
220: Well have you any recollection on that subject?
I cannot say. I did not pay any attention to it in that way at the time, for I did not feel the importance of counting the pages at the time.
221: Well what was the clerk’s name that read it?
I don’t know. I told you in the beginning that I did not know, and I did not. I don’t think I ever did know his name. He was a man that was a stranger to me, and he came there with the prophet I think and was
called on to read it and did read it, but I don’t know what his name was. I don’t think that I had ever seen him before that time or after that time either for that matter.
222: Was that revelation that was read to you there, for sealing for eternity?
Yes sir.
223: And it provided that when a man had been married, and his wife died, he was permitted to take another wife?
It did not say anything about that, that I know of, only as it is written in there.
224: Written where?
In the book there, – that is as near as I can remember what it said.
225: Well state how that is written in there?
I will tell you if you will give me time to explain what I mean to you.
226: Well never mind your explanations. If these gentlemen want your explanations they can call for them at the proper time, but I want you to state how it is written in the book here, if you can?
Well I can’t do it, but I am ready to read it to you if you want me to do it. I can’t remember all that is in it only in a general way, but I can read it to you if you desire me to do so, and then you can see for yourself what is in it.
227: Then you cannot tell what is in it without reading it, or hearing it read?
No sir, for I never committed it to memory sir.
228: It might be changed from the way it was when it was read to you by this man, whose name you do not know, – might it not be changed from the way it was when it was read to you on that occasion, and you not know it?
What do you mean, – in what way?
229: I mean that in the printing of this, it might have been changed from the way it was when it was read to you in Illinois, and you would not be able to know or detect the change?
Well I can’t say for I never saw the inside of the manuscript, but I say to the best of my knowledge and recollection from hearing it read, – that is the hearing of the document read, and this one here, that there is no change or difference in them.
230: Now did not the document that you read consist of only one page of manuscript?
I don’t know.
231: Well what is your best recollection as to that?
I don’t know how many pages there was.
232: Was there more than one page?
I think so, but I can’t say postively.
233: Was not the document on celestial marriage only?
Well I say I don’t know what all was in it.
234: Well is this not what you recollect that was taught in that document that you head red, – that a man could be sealed to his wife that was living, and to his wife that had died?
Well of course. Afterward he told me that that was proper.
235: And that was all he did teach you?
No sir.
236: Was that not all he did teach you?
No sir it was not all he taught me by a good deal.
237: Well what else did he tell you?
Well sir he told me a good deal that is not competent to this case, and that has nothing to do with this case.
238: That is your judgement?
Yes sir that is my final judgement that it would not be for your benefit or the benefit of any gentlemen here. I will answer any question you ask me as best I can, but that is not competent to this case at all, for I certainly shall not undertake to tell you all that Joseph Smith disclosed
to me about the doctrines of the church.
239: Well I have not asked you to do that?
Well you have come pretty near to asking me that, and in my judgement and recollection I have told you repeatedly all that I care to tell you about it, and there is no use of questioning me any further sire.
240: Well never mind sir. When I want advice as to what questions I shall ask you I shall probably go else where for advice, and I want you to understand that there is no use getting excited over the matter, for I propose to ask you just what questions I deem proper to ask you, and I propose also that you shall answer them, or we shall see what can be done towards making you do so. Now you said that these certificates that you read from the Times & Seasons here, that were signed by these parties, only referred to the Bennett doctrine?
What is that?
241: I understood you to say that the certificates you read here today from the Times & Seasons signed by these different parties man and women, members of the church here at Nauvoo, – only referred to the doctrines taught by John C. Bennett?
Yes sir that is the way I understood it.
242: It did not refer to plural marriage or anything of that kind under that revelation?
No sir I did not so understand it.
243: Well now let me read this to you?
I don’t know but they had, -what was authorized there, but that Bennett business I know was the occasion of it. There was a man teaching that doctrine there and they denounced it as I understand it, assuming that he did, it was untimely, for they were not permitted to publicly teach these things, and who ever did was subject to lose their fellowship, -I know that.
244: Were they permitted to teach it privately?
Well I don’t know any body that had a right to do that.
245: There was not anybody, -was not any body that pretended to teach it either publicly or privately liable to excommunication?
Yes sir unless it was done under certain conditions. They were liable to be excommunicated or disfellowshipped unless they had the authority to do it from the ma that held the keys of that priesthood. I know if I had taught it I would be liable to be excommunicated mighty quick.
246: Well now I will read this, -“We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and residents of the City of Nauvoo, persons of families, do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage, than the one published from the book of Doctrine and Covenant and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s secret wife system is a creature of his own sake, as we know of no such society in this place, nor never did”. You recognize that?
Yes sir.
247: Was there a plurality of wives revelation in that?
No sir, Now do you want me to answer that as it is?
248: Yes sir?
I believe what is stated there is the truth, for there was no other system of marriage at that time but what was in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, for this was not called a system of marriage, for it was sealing, – it was not the same ceremony at all.
249: You recollect reading the law of the church on marriage that was published in the same paper that this certificate was in?
Yes sir, and I knew what the law on marriage was as it was published.
250: Published in what?
In the book of Doctrine and Covenants.
251: Well it was printed in the same paper, and on the same page was it not?
Yes sir, and it was not pertaining to the original covenant, nor the ceremony.
252: And we give this certificate to show that Dr. J.C. Bennett’s secret wife system is a creature of his on make, as we know of no such society in this place, nor never did. What do you say to that?
Yes sir, that is true I guess. I don’t think that is anything wrong with that.
253: Well was there a different system of marriage from that in the Doctrine and Covenants?
Only certain men were permitted to take wives, and if they were worthy were sealed to them for time and eternity. That was the way it was, but that had nothing to do with what is stated in this certificate that I can see.
254: It was not in marriage at all then?
It was in celestial marriage. That is what it is called.
255: If it was celestial marriage it did not refer to this world at all did it?
Well I think that the ceremony would say that they were sealed for time and eternity.
256: You know that was the ceremony, these words, “seal you for time and eternity”?
Yes sir.
257: And you know that was in the ceremony, these words, “seal you for time and eternity”?
Yes sir.
258: Did you hear it performed?
Yes sir.
259: You have heard the ceremony performed?
Yes sir, I have heard the ceremony performed.
260: You have heard it performed there in Nauvoo before Joseph Smith died?
No sir.
261: Then you did not here that ceremony performed before the death of Joseph Smith?
No sir.
262: Now I want to read you another one of these certificates, “We the undersigned members of the ladies of the relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, save the one contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J.C. Bennett’s secret wife system is a disclosure of his own make”. You recollect that?
Yes sir.
262: Have I read that correctly?
I see nothing wrong about it.
263: That says that there was no other system of marriage practiced save the one taught in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir.
264: Well was there any other practiced?
I don’t know of any excepting one man who had the right to practice it, and giving other men the right to do so, that is giving other men wives if they were competent to receive them. Now I don’t know of any other only that in the church, excepting where a man wanted to be married by a magistrate or a minister.
265: Then you say there was no other system taught as the doctrine of the church or practiced as the doctrine of the church excepting that taught in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
I don’t know of any other only this revelation, that was all.
266: You never say the revelation to read it yourself, did you?
I have told you that three times at least I believe. I have told you that I did not.
267: You have?
Yes sir, I have and I am ready and willing and anxious to answer any questions you may ask me, but I
must decline to answer that question any more.
268: Did you hear Joseph Smith denounce the John C. Bennett secret wife system from the stand in Nauvoo, in a public sermon?
Yes sir.
269: That was in 1844 was it not?
Well I think so. I could not be sure as to dates, but I think so. I was at the meeting and I heard it I remember, but the date of that is something that I do not remember.
270: Don’t you know that he and Hyrum Smith cut a man off from the church for teaching polygamy?
I don’t remember about that.
271: And that is was published in the church paper?
I don’t know. It seems to me that I heard something about it, but I don’t remember how it was. I haven’t the slightest doubt but that they did for it seems to me that I remember something about that, but I can’t recollect just how it was.
272: Did not Joseph Smith in 1844 when he was denouncing the John C. Bennett secret wife system, then publicly declare that there was not any such a system or doctrine in the church?
What system?
273: As that of a man having more than one wife at the same time?
I do not recollect. If he said that I don’t think I heard it.
274: Well what did he say about it?
He said that there was no such a system as that introduced or practiced by John C. Bennett. He said it was hell, and you would take people that practiced it to hell. He said that and a good many other things that I cannot now recollect. I don’t remember just all that he did say about it.
275: You identified this book as the Times & Seasons did you not?
Yes sir.
276: Well I want to read from page seven hundred and fifteen for the purpose of refreshing your recollection. This is an article published the 15th of November 1844, and it reads thus, – “The saints of the last days have witnessed the out going and the incomings of so many apostates, that nothing but truth has any effect on them. In the present instance after the sham quotations of Sidney and his clique, from the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, to skulk off under the dreadful splendor of spiritual wifery, which is brought into the account as graciously as if the law of the land allowed a man a plurality of wives, is fiendish, and like the rest of Sidney’s revelation just because he wanted to go to Pittsburg and live. Woe to the man or men who will thus willfully lie to injure an innocent people. The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once, but if any mans wife die he has a right to marry another, and to be sealed to both for eternity; to the living and the dead. There is no law of God or man against it. This is all the spiritual wife system that ever was tolerated in the church, and they know it.” Now do you recollect reading that when it was published?
Yes sir, I think I do.
277: That was the law of the church then was it not?
Well that says so.
278: And that was what was taught, was it not?
Yes sir, – I don’t know what was taught secretly, but I know if I had taught anything else I should have been cut off from the church.
279: And you would have been cut off because the church did not accept any other doctrine?
As a church it had not, because it had not gone to the church at the time, but it was revealed to certain men in the church with the assurance that it would in the
future be fully revealed to the church, and it was.
280: It had not at that time been adopted as the doctrine of the church at all?
No sir, I don’t know how far they had adopted it.
281: Well had they adopted it as a church, – had the church as a church adopted it?
I don’t know what portion of it had been adopted by the church, or what portion or branch of he church had adopted it.
282: Well do you know of any branch that did?
I believe I do.
283: Well what portion of the church had?
The twelve apostles.
284: Is the twelve Apostles a branch of the church?
Yes sir.
285: What branch are they?
The leading branch.
286: They are?
Yes sir, the strongest branch in the church.
287: Do you know that they had adopted it at that time?
I don’t know, but some of them had.
288: Well do you know that they had as a body adopted it?
I don’t know as they had individually, for I never polled them.
289: You were never there when they adopted it at a meeting of the quorom?
No sir, I never went there for that purpose.
290: Well now I want to read you what John Taylor had to say about it at that time, and he was one of the Twelve, was he not?
Yes sir.
291: He was the editor of the Times & Seasons on the 15th day of November 1844, – in the date of the issue in which was published the extract which I have last read to you, signed by an “old man of Israel”, says in referring editorially to that communication, – “For the communication of an old man of Israel, and the letter of Elder Addison Pratt from the islands of the Pacific Ocean, we be-speak a hearty welcome. They are genuine. Now what do you say to that?
292: John Taylor was the editor of the Times & Seasons, wasn’t he Mr Witness?
I don’t know whether he was or not. I know that he was its editor at one time, but I can’t say whether he was or not. I know that he was its editor at one time, but I can’t say whether he was or not at that time.
293: Well will you read this from issue of November 15th 1844, and tell me from that who was the editor of the Times & Seasons on that date, – it is found on the last page of the issue of that date?
“The Times & Seasons is published about the first and fifteenth of every month, on the corner of Water and Bain Streets, Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by John Taylor, editor and proprietor. Terms, – two dollars per annum payable in all cases in advance. Any person procuring five new subscribers, and forwarding us ten dollars current money, will received one volume gratis. All letters must be addressed to John Taylor, editor, postpaid, or they will not receive attention.”
That is correct. I haven’t any doubt about that.
294: About what?
But that he was the editor as it is stated there.
295: He was one of the apostles at that time, wasn’t he?
Well yes sir he was.
296: Then it is a fact that there was no such a doctrine as the plural wife doctrine accepted by the church at that time?
I did not so state. It was not taught or practiced openly. It was not taught or generally preached that I know anything about.
297: Well it had not been accepted by the church, – had it been presented to the church, and by the church endorsed?
I don’t know about that.
298: Well what is your best recollection about that?
Well I say it had not that I know anything about?
299: Not at that time?
No sir.
300: You know it has been since that time, don’t you?
Yes sir, I do.
301: When?
Well the first time that I received authority to teach in publicly was in 1852 I think.
302: That was the first time you received authority to teach it publicly?
Yes sir. I would not be postive as to the date, but I think that was when it was.
303: And you have been teaching ever since?
Well most of the time, I taught it until the law forbid it and then I stopped. I did until it was pronounced to be unlawful by the United States Supreme Court, and then I stopped it, and afterwards in common with the rest of the church in conference assembled we adopted the manifesto of President Woodruf.
304: Well now the recelation on plural marriage was the law of God was it not?
Yes sir, to a certain extent.
305: Well did you not regard it as such, and teach it as the law of God?
No I did not teach it as the law of God any further than I taught it as a revelation from God, that was to be applied when it was proper and there was a man prepared to receive it from a proper authority. I never saw the man in my life that I thought it was proper to go and get him a wife, or engage in it in that way. Never. I have taught men that I believe in it, and showed them my reasons for believing in it but I have not taught men that they were under obligations to practice it at all.
306: Then you did not have very much faith in its truth?
I did believe it to be just as it was written and given to Joseph Smith. There is no doubt sir in my mind but that it was just what it purported to be.
307: Yes sir, but this revelation itself teaches that a man cannot be exalted in the celestial kingdom unless he has more wives than one?
No sir it does not.
308: Do you undertake to say that it does not teach that?
I do, – not in that language.
309: Well don’t it in substance teach that?
No sir not exactly that.
310: Well what does it teach if it is not that, – what does it teach but that?
Well I told you I could not remember just what was in it, but if you do not know I will read it to you section by section and you can see just what is in it for yourself.
311: Well sir I don’t care about you reading it section by section or any other way. You have testified here that the revelation that you say was given to Joseph Smith, and which you heard read down in Iowa some place at a place called Montrose was the same as the alleged revelation published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants here, and to do that you must know what was in both of them. I asked you if the revelation published by the church here did not teach that a man in order to be exalted must have more wives than one, and you say it does not teach that, and I ask you now what it does teach if it does not teach that?
I will read it to you, or you can read it for yourself if you want to, and then you will know as well as I do what it teaches, for it speaks for itself.
312: I will get you to look at section 132 of defendants Exhibit “A” and I will ask you if that was or is the revelation on plural marriage that was adopted by the church of which Brigham Young was the President here in Salt Lake in 1852?
Let me hear your question again.
313: I asked you if section 132 in defendants Exhibit “A”, was the revelation or alleged revelation that was adopted by the church here in Utah of which Brigham Young was the President in 1852?, – is that the revelation on plural marriage that was adopted at that time?
Well I was not here. I was not here at the time, and I received a letter in England for I was in England at the time, but I have no doubt but that is the one that was received by the church. It was in the church before that time and was practiced before that, but it had not been formally accepted by the church, and that was the first permission that the elders had to preach or announce that doctrine publicly. I know I was in England when I received authority to do that, – that is to publicly announce the principle, and I suppose it was right away after action had been taken on it by the church here that I received permission to do so.
314: Well is that the revelation that you were permitted to preach for the first time in 1852?
Well I never did preach it before that time at all.
315: Well is that the revelation, – this section 132?
Yes sir that is the revelation.
316: And that is the revelation you were permitted to preach after that time?
Yes sir. After 1852 I think it was, I don’t know that there was anything particular about it, but was after that permitted to make known generally and publicly the contents of the revelation, – that is publicly to the church you know in my travels to the various branches of the church with which I came in contact. Of course I had known of this thing before, – for years before, but of course I had not been permitted to preach it or teach it to the church until that time when formal permission was given me to do so.
317: Why did you not preach it or teach it before that time?
Simply because we were not authorized to do so in England or any where else, until formal permission had been given us to do so, and if we had done we would have been cut off from the church for doing it.
318: Well you say that you received notice of its adoption by the church, and permission to preach it?
Yes sir.
319: How long before that time had it been adopted by the church?
Well I don’t know.
320: You do not know how long before that time it had been published to the church?
I don’t know.
321: Has it ever been published before 1852?
I don’t know that it had been. It might have been but I don’t think so.
322: Had it been published in any book?
I don’t know.
323: You never saw it published before that?
No sir. Not that I
recollect of.
324: Well what is your best impression as to that?
Well I don’t think I did for I am quite certain that it had never been published before that time.
325: Let the whole of this go in as a part of the cross examination of this witness?
Excuse me if I said I would and could read that section by section and explain it as I went along for I could not undertake to do that, but I will read it for you gladly and answer any question the very best that I can, which you may ask me as I go along. I will answer any question pertaining to it as we go along if you will ask me the questions, and do the very best I know how.
326: Well I want to incorporate the whole of that section as a part of your cross examination, that is simply a notice to the Examiner to incorporate it in the record.
327: Don’t this revelation, section 132, – reveal a new and everlasting covenant?
Yes sir.
328: And is that not a covenant you did not have in the old church?
Yes sir, it was not in the old church, – that is it was not in the old book of Doctrine and Covenants.
329: Did you not have this revelation on plural marriage placed in the book of Doctrine and Covenants here in Utah?
I don’t know.
330: Was that not done, and the old section or revelation on marriage taken out?
I don’t know sir. I don’t know when that was done. I don’t know anything about when that was done. I never took notice to see when that was done.
331: I am not asking you when it was done, – I asked you if it was not done?
Well I can’t say.
332: Well examine the book and see if that is not the case?
See what?
333: See if the old revelation is in there – examine this book defendants Exhibit “A”, and see if the old section on marriage is in there? I refer to the revelation or section on marriage that was in the old book of Doctrine and Covenants published in 1835 is in there?
It is not here that I can see.
334: But the revelation on plural marriage, – the so called polygamy revelation is in there is it not?
Yes sir, but it is called celestial marriage.
335: Now do you know why the section one hundred
for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world; and fot their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man has a wife who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the laws of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe, and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God, for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name on all those who receive and abode in my law. 65 Therefore it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things, whatsoever, I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. 66 And now as pertaining to his law, verily, verily I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you hereafter; therefore let this suffice for the present. Behold I am Alpha an Omega. Amen”.
327: Don’t this revelation, section 132, – reveal a new and everlasting covenant?
Yes sir.
328: And is that not a covenant you did not have in the old church?
Yes sir, it was not in the old church, – that is it was not in the old book of Doctrine and Covenants.
329: Did you not have this revelation on plural marriage placed in the book of Doctrine and Covenants here in Utah?
I don’t know.
330: Was that not done, and the old section or revelation on marriage taken out?
I don’t know sir. I don’t know when that was done. I don’t anything about when that was done. I never took notice to see when that was done.
331: I am not asking you when it was done, – I asked you if it was not done?
Well I don’t say.
332: Well examine the book and see if that is not the case?
See what?
333: See if the old revelation is in there – examine this book defendants Exhibit “A”, and see if the old section on marriage is in there? I refer to the revelation or section on marriage that was in the old book of Doctrine and Covenants published in 1835 is in there?
It is not here that I can see.
334: But the revelation on plural marriage, – the so called polygamy revelation is in there is it not? Yes sir, but it is called celestial marriage.
335: Now do you know why the section one hundred
hundred and one in the edition of 1835 of the book of Doctrine and Covenants was taken out?
No sir.
335: You do not know why that was done?
No sir I don’t know anything about it, for I was not here at the time, and therefore I don’t know anything about why it was done.
336: Do you know why section one hundred and thirty two should be put in its place?
No sir, not of my own knowledge. I have no knowledge of the fact attending that, for I was not here at the time.
337: Don’t section one hundred and thirty two give a different rule on marriage from what section one hundred and one in Exhibit “E” does?
I don’t know what authority did it, but I suppose it was done by proper authority or it would not have been done at all. They took the one out and placed the other I suppose because they knew of they fact that the revelation on celestial marriage has been given by Joseph Smith before his death.
338: And knowing the fact also that one was in contradiction of the other?
Well I don’t understand it that way. I do not understand the fact to be that they contradict each other. Because there is more in the one than the other. The one is simply more comprehensive than the other, but I do not see that they contradict each other at all.
339: Do you say that the one is not a contradiction of the other?
No sir, I don’t so understand it myself at all. The one is simply an expression of the church more in the nature of a resolution expressing the position of the church, while the other is a revelation which of course has greater authority than the other, but it does not necessarily follow that they are contradictory of each other.
340: Well let me read from section one hundred and one of Exhibit “E” – that is the old book of Doctrine and Covenants published in 1835, – “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 one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again”. What do you say to that?
Well that is correct. That was the position of the church at that time.
341: Well now would that not be a contradiction of the revelation on polygamy?
Well no sir I will tell you, and I am very glad you asked me about it. I do not acknowledge that polygamy has anything to do with that revelation on receiving celestial marriage, for polygamy is a principle in which both sexes can indulge, – that is to say that polygamy and celestial marriage are entirely different. It is sealing, –
342: Stop right there – is that not what Joseph Smith taught you?
Yes sir.
343: Incorporate in the record as apart of the cross examination of this witness, section one hundred and one of Exhibit “E”, being the book of Doctrine and Covenants of the edition of 1835, in addition to the revelation section one hundred and thirty two of defendants exhibits exhibit “A”, heretofore offered as a part of the
Section one hundred and one of Exhibit “E”, offered in evidence in connection with the cross examination of this witness, is in words and figures as follows, Section CI Marriage. 1. According to the customs of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose; and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 2. Marriage should be celebrated with pray and thanksgiving and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed by the person 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 others companion, husband and wife, observing the legal right belonging to this condition that is keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others during your lives”. And when they have answered “yes”, he shall pronounce them “husband and wife”, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him; “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfill your covenants from hence forth and forever. Amen”. 3. The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch. 4. All legal contracts of marriages made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. In as much 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 one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to object their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that all persons who exercise control over their fellow beings, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.
344: Did you ever see any other copy of this paper?
Never to my knowledge, only one copy. (The paper referred to is the Nauvoo Expositor heretofore identified by the witness, and marked exhibit “D”)
345: You saw one copy of it?
Yes sir I saw it only at Law’s house.
346: Was that number two?
I don’t know. I don’t know what number it was, but the paper I saw had the affidavits in it.
347: Where did you say you saw it?
I read it at William Law’s house.
348: Was there ever more than one copy of this paper with these affidavits in it published?
I think not sir. I think there was but one number of it published.
349: You do not recollect of seeing any other number?
No sir, and I am quite sure that there was but one copy of it published, I think it existence began and ended the first copy.
350: Was that a regular weekly paper published at Nauvoo, Illinois?
What?
351: The Nauvoo Expositor?
Yes sir, that was the intent of it, but I say that I think it was never published but the one week.
352: Is it not a fact that there was never but one paper of it published?
Yes sir, that is that I say.
353: It was just run off one week?
Yes sir, I think so.
354: You never saw but volume one, number one of it?
No sir, I never saw any more than that.
355: That is all.
Well now I wish to say that I am seventy seven years of age, and I have had a very recent fit of sickness, and recently I have been watching a sick wife to her death bed a week ago yesterday, and I had not much chance for preparation, as I did not know what I came here for exactly. I am ready and willing to answer any question that is put to me and give as truthful and account of everything that I saw or heard as I can.
356: Well I want to ask you another question or two?
All right sir, I will answer them if I can.
357: How far do you live from Salt Lake City?
I live in San Pete County at Mt. Pleasant, and it is perhaps one hundred and twenty five or thirty miles, or something like that from here.
558: Who wrote to you and asked you to come up here as a witness?
Well the letter said it was Mr. Hall.
359: Who was the letter signed by?
Mr. Hall. I never know the gentlemen.
360: Who else wrote to you about it?
Nobody.
361: Did nobody else send you any word about it?
No sir.
362: Did you know Mr. Hall before you received that letter?
No sir, never to my knowledge. I never saw him or knew him to my knowledge before I came up here. He said there was a suit going on here, and there was somebody seeking to establish.
363: Well I don’t care what was in the letter?
Well it was something like that.
364: Well if you have the letter you can produce it? Have you got the letter?
No sir I have not.
365: Did the letter say anything about Mr. Woodruff?
No sir, not a word. Not a word about him. There is nothing in that letter but what I am willing for you to know.
366: Well you were not subpoenaed as a witness?
No sir. I was invited to come here By Mr Hall.
367: Well, that is all?
368: You were asked in your cross examination whether Joseph Smith
taught you the principle of celestial marriage?
Yes sir.
369: You were asked whether he taught you that in contradistinction to the doctrine of polygamy; now I will ask you to state whether or not the doctrine of celestial marriage, or plural marriage as referred to in that question, permitted a man to have more than one wife living at the same time?
370: It would?
Certainly, under the proper conditions and rules in of the law in there. But at that time, –
371: State the time?
The time it was taught to me in Nauvoo it was not supposed to be practiced as a principle, – that is publicly like our proceedings in the temple for the dead. It was not taught or practiced openly but it was given to me and I understood it as a crude principle that would be fully and openly revealed to the church when the proper time came for it to be revealed. My Mr Cabell, –
372: And under that principle that was revealed to you a man was allowed to have more wives than one?
Yes sir, and there were men at that time who told me that they were practicing that principle at the time, and I had reason to believe them, but I was in their houses at the time and never asked the question about it, but that is the way I understood it.
373: You yourself, did not have any more wives than one at that time did you?
No sir, for I never asked for them, and there was none appointed to me.
374: Well that is all?
I hope if at any time in the hereafter I meet any of you gentlemen and there is any information that I can give you, that you will call on me for it, for I will be happy to accomadate you wit it.