1: Mr. Richards please state your full name to the reporter?
Samuel W. Richards.
2: Where do you live Mr. Richards at the present time?
In Salt Lake City
3: Where is that located?
Salt Lake City is in Salt Lake County, Utah Territory.
4: Where did you live before coming to Utah territory?
At Nauvoo
5: What state is that in?
In Illinois.
6: About what time did you leave Nauvoo?
1842
7: I think that you did not understand my question, I asked you what time you left Nauvoo?
In the summer of 1846 some time, in the spring or summer.
8: What time did you move to Nauvoo?
In 1842 I came there.
9: Well, how long did you remain there?
Until the summer of 1846.
10: What church, if any, were you a member of, while you were living at Nauvoo, Illinois?
I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
11: I will ask you to state to the reporter what you know about the principle of plural marriage, or what is commonly known as polygamy being taught or practiced in Nauvoo, Illinois, before the death of Joseph Smith?
I don’t know anything much about it, only from what was reported to me by others. Personally I do not know anything about it of my own knowledge.
12: You do not know anything about that of your own knowledge?
No sir.
13: Who was the President of the church during the time that you were at Nauvoo?
Joseph Smith
14: State to the reporter what you know in regard to the doctrine of baptism for the dead, being taught or practiced by the, in the church there at Nauvoo during the time you resided there, and before the death of Joseph Smith?
In answer that question I will say that I was a laborer on the temple that was in process of erection there in Nauvoo for the express purpose of administering baptism for the dead. I labored on it for two, three years, and assisted in the building of the font in which the baptism for the dead was performed, and I am well aware from the facts, and that I witnessed that it was a doctrine that was adopted and provided for by the Mormon people, called the “Latter Day Saints”, under the direction of the prophet Joseph Smith.
15: Was that doctrine practiced?
What doctrine?
16: The doctrine of baptism for the dead, or rather the ordinance of baptism for the dead while you were living there at Nauvoo?
Yes sir.
17: Where was it practiced?
In Nauvoo.
18: In what place in Nauvoo?
In the font in the temple.
19: Did you hear anything of John C. Bennett’s secret wife system while you were living there at Nauvoo?
20: I will withdraw that question, and asked you if you were acquainted with the paper called the “Times and Season” published at Nauvoo Illinois?
Yes sir.
21: Was that paper published during the time that you lived there?
Yes sir.
22: I will ask you to read from the Times and Seasons, published October 1st 1842 in the city of Nauvoo, on pages 939 and 940, – just look at it and see if that is something you can identify that as something you have read, or did read, while living at Nauvoo? (The book which is handed witness is the same book that plaintiffs counsel has been using all the time during the takin of this testimony, when questioning witnesses as to the contents of the paper known as the “Times and Seasons”)?
Yes sir.
23: What do you say to that?
I think I read that, – yes sir.
24: When did you read it?
I think I have read that at the time it was published or shortly afterwards. It looks very much like it. It seems familiar to me.
25: Read it? Q – 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 Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr J.C. Bennett’s “secret wife system”, is a creature of his own make, as we know of no such society in this place, nor never did.” Yes sir I read that at the time it was published or soon thereafter.
25: I will ask you to state to the reporter if you know anything about the secret wife system referred to in those certificates?
I do not know anything about it sir of my own knowledge.
26: I will ask you to – state what the system of plural marriage was that was taught to you or talked about in Nauvoo, Illinois, before the death of Joseph Smith?
I did not hear anything or see anything direct from Joseph Smith himself while I was there in Nauvoo but others who were his clerks and secretaries and such like, – I had communication from them while I was living there on that question.
27: Were any of the parties that taught you that principle, officials in the church?
Yes sir.
28: Well who was it?
Particularly my uncle Williard Richards who was Joseph Smith’s private secretary at least during a part of
that time. He was also one of the twelve and was with him all of the time I might say up to the teim of his death, and was with him then also.
29: That was your uncle Williard Richards?
Yes sir he was one of the twelve and also acted as his private secretary for a part of the time and was very intimate with Joseph Smith up to the time of his death.
30: I will ask you to state what you were taught by those men?
Which men?
31: By Williard Richards, – what that principle of plural marriage was that you were taught by him?
Well it was the same as agrees practically with the revelation that was afterwards published.
32: Afterwards published where?
Here in Salt Lake City.
33: Well state if you had any knowledge or information of a revelation on that subject before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
34: What was it?
I was informed there was a revelation on that subject but as I stated before I did not see it.
35: Were you so informed by any of the officers of the church?
Yes sir, I was informed of it.
36: Before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
37: Is there any difference, or what was the difference between the principle of plural marriage as taught you there, and the John C. Bennett secret wife system, – if you know of any difference, you may state what it was?
The difference in the main is, so far as I understand it, or did understand it, is that Bennett and others taught simply the system of polygamy, and practiced it also to a pretty liberal extent, while the revelation give and the principles, – I mean the principles in the revelation given by Joseph Smith and taught by him and the Mormon church to the people at that time, did not embrace the principle of polygamy as it is understood in the usual acceptance of the term, which as I understand it gives a wife the right to several husbands, as it gives the husband the right to several wives. Bennet’s system was entirely opposed to the practices of the revelation, which was on the subject of celestial marriage.
38: Did the principle of celestial marriage permit a man to have more than one wife living at the same time?
and immaterial, and calls for an expression of opinion of the witness.
39: Answer the question please?
Please repeat that question again.
40: Did the principle of plural marriage permit a man to have more than one wife living at ht same time? That is the question.
It did, and the old law of Moses did it also, to say nothing about the Mormon revelations. 41: Can you state to the reporter when the second edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants was printed?
Well I cannot positively state that, I believe.
42: Well state approximately as well as you can about the time?
As I said I cannot state the time positively but I believe it was about the year 1852. I cannot give you the exact date, but I remember published one edition when I was in England in 1852 or 1853.
43: You published an edition of it when you were in England about 1852 or 1853 you say?
Yes sir.
44: Was there any edition published in Nauvoo, Illinois, while you were there that you know of?
I could not say sir, for I do not recollect.
45: I will ask you to state what you do know in regard to the building of the temple there in Nauvoo?
Well sir I simply know that the temple was built there, and I helped build it with nearly three years labor, and occupied and used for the purpose of which it was built.
46: That is all. Cross examination by P. P. Kelley.-
47: Where did they hold meetings at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
The church.
48: Yes sir?
At the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
49: Yes sir?
At the day of his death?
49: Yes sir? At the time of his death, or before the date of his death, immediately prior to his death, but noon that day I do not mean?
Well it was mostly in the grove at that time.
51: Then the temple was not built at that time?
No sir it was not completed. It was partially built but not completed.
52: The baptisms that you speak of that occurred there in the temple were after his death?
Ye sir.
53: The baptisms for the dead?
Yes sir.
54: Joseph Smith did not each you polygamy?
No sir.
55: Did you hear any body preach it or teach it to the church during his life time?
No sir.
56: Preach it from the pulpit or stand publicly?
No sir.
57: You did not hear anybody preach it or teach it either publicly or privately?
Yes sir I, yes sir I did.
58: To any considerable number privately I mean?
No sir, but I heard it talked about.
59: Well a conversation between two parties, would not be preaching would it?
Well I don’t know. Persons ides of things differ, you know. (*58 was tough, but I think I got it!)
60: Well I know they do, but if two persons should get together and talk over what they might have heard, that would not be preaching it aloud publicly, would it?
I presume not.
61: Well now did you ever hear anybody preach it publicly, or privately, to any considerable number of people, prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
No sir, not publicly, but privately to individuals I have.
62: Well to the church I mean?
NO sir, not to the church. I do not know how they could manage to preach it to the church unless they would do it to the church or its members collectively.
63: Don’t you recollect that there was a publication in the book, – I should say a publication of the book of Doctrine and Covenants in 1842, and another in 1845 by John Taylor?
Well I think there was. When that question was asked me before I did not recollect, for my attention was not called specifically to the date until now. Yes sir that may be.
64: What may be?
There was very likely editions of that book issued at the dates you say, – I think it very likely there was.
65: Well it is a fact is it not that John Taylor did issue an edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants in 1845?
Yes sir.
66: Well was the revelation on ponygamy in that book of Doctrine and Covenants that was published by John Taylor in 1845?
Well now sir I don’t know.
67: Do you know that it was not?
No sir.
68: Don’t you know that it was not?
I rather think it was not.
69: Was it in the one published by you in England in 1852?
I could not say as to that.
70: Where was that edition published that you published in England? Was it not in Liverpool?
Yes sir but it was not published until the first of January 1858, – that was the first time it was published in England.
71: That was the first time that the revelation was published in England?
Yes sir.
72: But you present don’t you, that it was not in the book of doctrine and Covenants published by you in England in 1859?
No sir, I think it was not.
73: Is it not the fact and the truth that the first time it was ever incorporated in a book of Doctrine and Covenants, was in 1876 at the time of the publication of the edition of 1876 by the church here in Utah at Salt Lake City?
Well sir I could not say as to that.
74: Well is that not the first edition you ever saw it published in?
Well I don’t know. If I could see the book of Doctrine and Covenants, – I know it was published in England in the winter or spring of 1853.
75: Well I will ask you if section one hundred and one in Exhibit E, being the edition of the book of Doctrine the Covenants of 1835 and which is the section on marriage, was not re-printed in the edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants that you published in England in 1852?
Yes sir.
76: The very same section?
Yes sir.
77: And I will ask you if that did not remain in the book of Doctrine and Covenants until 1876, – until the issue of 1876?
I wish you to understand that I am not positive as to whether it was 1852 or 1853 for I have been called in here unexpectedly, and I
haven’t had the time to look up dates. If I had been aware of the fact that I would be examined about these things I should have made any effort to prepare myself for it.
78: Now did not the section on marriagr that was incorporated in the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, that you printed, – I mean that was in the 1835 edition and which you re-printed in the 1852 edition that you printed, or the 1853 edition whichever it was, – remain in it until the 1876 edition, when it was published here by the church in Salt Lake City?
I do not understand that question.
79: I asked you if the section on marriage that appears in the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, and which you re-printed in the edition that you published in England in 1852 or ‘3 did it not remain in there until the time of the publication of the edition of 1876 that was published by the church here in Salt Lake?
Well I presume it did.
80: Can you state why that section on marriage was taken out and the other inserted in the place of it?
No sir.
81: You do not know why that was done?
I have heard no explanation of it sir.
82: Was there not a time in Nauvoo between 1842 and 1844 when baptisms for the dead were ordered to be discontinued until the temple was finished?
I am not positive as to that, sir.
83: Don’t you remember, – don’t you recollect that there were no baptisms for the dead during the year 1843 and 1844 up to the time of Joseph Smith’s death?
I know it was suspended for some length of time but I can’t give you the dates.
84: That is all.
85: How long were you connected with the work on the temple?
Nearly three years.
86: I will ask you to state what kind of a font it was in the temple when you first began to work on it?
There was none in it when I first went there.
87: There was no font in the temple at all when you first began to work there?
No sir, it was built when I was there.
88: What kind of a font was that that was built when when you were there?
It was built of hewed stone, standing on a representation of oxen.
89: About what year was it when you commenced to work on the temple?
1843.
I will ask you another question that is not re-direct examination, and I will ask it as a part of the direct examination which I over-looked? I will ask you to state Mr Richards if you were ever present at any of he council meetings of the church, there at Nauvoo during the life time of Joseph Smith?
I was.
91: I will ask you to state if there was any instructions to the church about emigrating, – or rather migrating, – from Nauvoo?
There was.
92: Can you state what those instructions were?
93: Was there any instructions given in that regard, and if so, state what they were?
The instructions were of a character, that resulted in Joseph Smith’s calling for twenty five men to equip and arrange themselves to go into the mountains as a pioneer band or company, to ascertain where they should go to after the church left Nauvoo, and I was one of the twenty five.
94: That is all?
95: You were in Nauvoo in 1844 were you not?
Yes sir.
96: I will read to you a communication that appeared in the Times & Seasons, published November 15th 1844, and ask you after I have read it, whether you read that at the time or about the time that it was published, – “The saints of the last days have witnessed the outgoings and incoming 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, the 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. Wo to the man or men who will thus wilfully lie to injure an innocent people. The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once, but if any man’s wife die, he has a right to marry another and 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 was ever tolerated in the church, and they know it,” Now did you ever read that in the Times and Seasons?
I have read that quite a number of times in the Times & Seasons, but as to whether I read it just at that time, I am not positive.
97: You do not know then, whether you read that at the time it was published or not?
No sir. It is very likely that I did, but if I did I cannot now recollect it.
98: I will read the editorial comment on it, published in that same number, – for the communication of an old man of Israel, and the letter of elder Addison Pratt from the islands of the Pacific Ocean, we bespeak a heary welcome. They are genuine”. Do you recognize that?
Yes sir.
99: That extract I read to you if from a communication signed “An Old Man of Israel?”
Yes sir.
I was.
91: I will ask you to state if there was an instructions to the church about emigrating, -or rather migrating, -from Nauvoo?
There was.
92: Can you state what those instructions were?
93: Was there any instructions given in that regard, and if so, state what they were?
The instructions were of a character, that resulted in Joseph Smith’s calling for twenty five men to equip and arrange themselves to go into the mountains as a pioneer band or company, to ascertain where they should go to after the church left Nauvoo, and I was one of the twenty five.
94: That is all?
95: You were in Nauvoo in 1844 were you not?
Yes sir
96: I will read to you a communication that appeared in the Times & Seasons, published November 15th 1844, and ask you after I have read it, whether you read that at the time or about the time that it was published, – “The saints of the last days have witnessed the outgoings and 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, the 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 revelations just because he wanted to go to Pittsburgh and live. Wo to the man or men who will thus willfully lie to injure an innocent people. The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once, but if any man’s wife die, he has a right to marry another and 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 was ever tolerated in the church, and they know it.” Now did you ever read that in the Times and Seasons?
I have read that quite a number of times in the Times & Seasons, but as to whether o I read it just at that time, I am not positive.
97: You do not know then, whether you read that at the time it was published or not?
No sir. It is very likely that i did, but if I did I cannot now recollect it.
98: I will read the editorial comment on it, published in that same number, -for the communication of an old man of Israel, and the letter of elder Addison Pratt from the islands of the Pacific Ocean, we bespeak a heary welcome. They are genuine”. Do you recognize that?
Yes sir.
99: That extract I read to you if from a communication signed “An Old Man of Israel?”
Yes sir
100: Now I will ask you if there was any other system of marriage known to the church at that time, to you knowledge, as is stated in that article?
Nos sir.
101: There was not?
No sir.
102: What do you mean by that answer, – please explain your answer?
I mean that there was no other system of marriage known to the church? At that time it had not become the rule and practice of the church as I stated before.
103: That is all Mr Richards?
I mean that it had not been communicated to the church at that time?
104: I will ask you to state if there was any system of sealing, practiced by members of the church at that time?
105: You may answer the question?
Was there any system of sealing practiced by the church at that time?
106: Yes sir?
Yes sir, there was.
107: Well, you may state what that was.
At what date do you mean?
108: At the time that was written or about that time, – that was November 15th 1844?
Well I don’t know that there was at that time. The time that I referred to as the time when the practice of sealing was practiced was in the temple.
109: Well was that the system, – the same system that had been taught you prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir it was the same, it was perfectly in accord with it.
110: Did that system permit a plurality of wives?
Yes sir.
111: State the system as it was taught in Nauvoo before the death of Joseph Smith, and the system as published in the revelation on plural marriage as published by the Utah church in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
There is no difference whatever.
112: Well that is all?
113: Did you not know all the time you were there in Nauvoo, from 1842 down to 1844 at the time of the death of Joseph Smith, that there was no other system of marriage taught to the church, and practiced by the church, than that of monogamy, in reference to marriage?
Yes sir, for the system of plural marriage was not practiced by the church as a body. The system of plural marriage was only practiced by a very few of the leading members of the church at that time; and only a very few of the leading members of the church knew of its existence, and it did not at that time become
a law of the church as I have before stated until afterwards.
114: The church as a church did not know anything about it?
No sir, not as a church, – not the main body of them.
115: Was there any system of sealing known to the church, and practiced by the church as a church up to the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Well not exclusively. It was known to the authorities of the church, but not to the church as a body I think.
116: What authorities in the church was it made known to?
I guess to all the leading quoroms of the church, but it was not generally taught or published, or preached I should say to the church as a body before his death.
117: Well was it preached to the people at all?
Not publicly.
118: Was it preached to the quoroms at all?
Yes sir.
119: Was it taught to the quoroms?
Yes sir.
120: How was it taught to them?
It was taught to them fully and explicit sir.
121: What quorom was it thought to fully and explicitly?
The quorom of Twelve and others.
122: How do you know it was taught to the quorom of Twelve?
I was present at several of their meetings and the Council at which it was taught.
123: Who was present besides yourself at these meetings?
Well I can’t say, but several of the Council of Twelve were there.
124: Well was the full quorom there?
Well perhaps not a full quorom.
125: Who taught it to them?
It was taught both by Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
126: Did you hear Joseph Smith teach it to the quorom of Twelve?
Yes sir.
127: You did?
Yes sir to the quorom of Twelve and others.
128: Did you not say in your direct examination that you never heard him teach it publicly?
Well that is what I say now, for I never did hear him teach it publicly.
129: Did you not say that you never heard him teach it publicly nor privately to any considerable number of people?
Well I heard him teach it privately to quite a number at different times, – that is in the aggregate to quite a number, but not to many at a time, and I never did hear him preach it or teach it in what could be called a public manner.
130: What did he say when he taught it to the Twelve?
Well in so far as the principle is concerned that he taught, it was just about the same as is taught here.
131: Well what did he say? Did he call it the “patriarchial order” of marriage?
He called the order of celestial marriage.
132: Was it celestial marriage, – is that what he called it?
Yes sir.
133: Sealing a man to his wife for eternity?
Yes sir.
134: Did he tach the quorom of Twelve that a man could be sealed to another mans wife for eternity?
No sir, I never heard that taught.
135: Did he tach that another mans wife might or could be sealed to him for eternity?
I never head him teach that either.
136: Did he teach the quorm of Twelve that man could have two or more wives sealed to him for eternity?
Yes sir.
137: He did?
Yes sir.
138: Did he teach the quorom of Twelve that a man could live with two or more wives in this life as his wives.
I never heard him preach that.
139: That is all?
140: I will ask you to state if he taught, – whether or not Joseph Smith taught that a man might or could be sealed to one or more women for time and eternity?
He did.
141: I will ask you to state if you can, why this principle of plural marriage was not made public?
142: State why it was not taught to the church publicly, if you know?
Well all the reason I ever heard of was that it was not considered proper to do so under the circumstances at that time. It was not thought advisable at that time to make the revelation known to the church in its application to the general church body, because the body of the church generally were not expected to engage in it at that time.
143: I will ask you to state if there were any other revelations that were acted on in the same way from the organization of the church up to the death of Joseph Smith?
I have heard of quite a number, – I have heard quite a number spoken of as being that way. Whenever there was revelations given in that way, – now I did not get this from the prophet Joseph, but it was generally understood, and talked of that revelations were not published until some time after they were given. In other words there was a sufficient time allowed to elapse before they were published for the church and the authorities to understand them, – that is for the authorities and quoroms of the church to arrive at an understanding of them.
144: I will ask you to state to the reporter, whether or not you have read the first edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir, I have.
145: I will ask you to examine that, and see if you can find in there a revelation given on Fishing River?
When?
146: In 1834?
147: Well we want to see if it is in there, but if you will admit that it is not in there all right”.
148: I will ask you if you were or are familiar with that revelation given on Fishing River in 1834?
I don’t know that I could refer to that here in this book (referring to Exhibit E).
149: Can you state to the reporter when you first saw that revelation given on Fishing River in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and if so in what edition?
I could not say what time it was that I first saw it. I can’t state the time from memory.
150: I will ask you Mr Richards what books contain the law of the church up to 1844 at the time of Joseph Smith’s death?
What books contained the law of the church in 1844 at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
151: Yes sir? Just name the books?
The bible the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants. They were the leading ones.
152: And were they not the only ones that had been accepted by the church as containing the doctrines and teachings of the church?
No sir there were other publications. Thee was the Times and Seasons, and that was accepted and acknowledged as the equivalent, –
153: These other publications aside from the bible the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants were accepted as papers published by the members of the church?
Yes sir.
154: But the doctrines, teaching and tenents of the church were to be found in the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir.
155: Mr Hall asked you on re-examination Mr Wheelock if you ever knew of a revelation that was not to be published to the world at the time it was received? Now: I want to ask you if ever you knew
of a revelation that was not to be presented to the church at all?
What is that question?
156: Mr Hall asked you if you knew of revelations that were received and were not presented to the church, and were not to be presented to the church for a time; now I want to ask you if you ever knew of a revelation that was received that was not to be presented to the church at all?
Well that is considered I think equivalent to publishing it to the world if it is published to the church it is the the equivalent of publishing it to the world.
157: Well that is your opinion about it?
Yes sir. That is my opinion about it.
158: If the church was to be taught it, then it would be published to the world?
Yes sir.
159: Then do you understand Mr Richards, that revelation could be received, and the church be bound by them before they were revealed to the church, – that the church would be bound by them before it knew anything about them?
No sir.
160: Before they were presented to the church and adopted?
No sir I do not consider that they would be binding upon the church only so far as they were made known to the church and adopted.
161: Well would they have to be presented to the church, and be adopted by the church – before they would become a law to the church?
No sir.
162: Could they become a law to the church before they were adopted by the church, so as to bind the members?
The rules of the church were such that where a revelation was given by the prophet Joseph Smith, that they were received by the church then published by the church, or to the church, but the church was not re-quired to know of their existence, until they were published to the church. While they would not be a law to the body of the church or the church as a church, still they would be a rule and law unto such as knew of their existence and their terms, and accepted them.
163: The church had a right to reject them if it wanted to didn’t it?
Yes sir, Not only the church but any member of the church could if they wished to do so.
164: Or the whole body could?
Yes sir, – if they chose to do so they could. All men, yourself included, have a perfect right to reject the truth if they do so however they would be held accountable for doing it, but that is their right beyond question.
165: And they were taught in the revelation that everything must be done by the common consent of the church, and in the church?
Yes sir. Everything that was done was.
166: Must be done by common consent?
Yes sir
167: Then would a revelation be binding on the church until the church had acted upon it, – would it be binding on the church as a law, or in any other way?
Just so far as the faith of the church and its members would receive it and act upon it.
168: Would it be binding upon them before they had faith and accepted it??
Well I can’t say. I don’t suppose that it would be binding upon me unless I had faith and accepted it.
169: Well as a fact it would not be binding upon any body until they exhibited their faith by excepting it but as a matter of fact it would not be a law that any one could legally act upon or under until it had been acted upon by the church and accepted, no matter what any ones individual opinion may have been.
No sir it would not be binding upon the church or a law or rule of action to the church until it was accepted by the church.
170: I will ask you to state if any could remain a member of the church if the would reject the revelation?
What revelation?
171: Well any revelation, – could any one remain a member of the church if they would reject a revelation?
172: That is a revelation given through the prophet Joseph Smith?
Yes sir, that might be possible, for it might not relate to the particular individual that rejected it. It might not relate to him particularly and he might reject it.
173: Could any one remain a member of the church that rejected a revelation that effected them particularly, – could they do that and remain a member of the church?
No sir, probably not, – if a revelation was binding upon the church, of course it would be binding upon every individual in the church. That is a self evident proposition I think.
174: Would any member of the church be liable to be disciplined, because of a revelatiol, or failure to obey the provisions of a revelation before the church had adopted it as a part of the law and rules and practices governing the church?
Well sir that is a question that might require some explanation to give a proper answer to it. There are revelations given that apply particularly to the members of various quoroms; and special persons in the church, and of course in these cases the revelations are binding only upon these persons.
175: Well I am speaking now of a revelation, – well would a member be disciplined for such a revelation as that until it had been adopted by the church as apart of the church law?
Probably not until it was recognized as a part of the church rules.
176: Well that is all.
It might be accepted by common faith or common action.
177: State what you would consider would be the acceptance of a revelation?
I could only answer that so far as I am personally concerned I could not answer it for any body else.
178: Well just answer it as best you can?
179: Answer as far as you can?
What was the question?
180: I asked you to state what you would consider would be the acceptance of a revelation?
By the church?
181: No sir? By your self individually.
An acknowledgement and acting upon it.
182: That is all?