67 – Joseph Smith

1: For the purpose of showing the doctrine of the original church prior to the death of Joseph Smith the Seer, on the subject of secret oaths and covenants, I now hand the witness exhibit “F” and ask the witness to read paragraph thirty of chapter two on page three hundred and ninety five?
 

2: You may read it Mr. Smith?
Is it section thirty?

3: No sir, it is paragraph thirty of section two?
“And it came to pass that they did have their signs, – yea their signs, and their secret words, and this that they might distinguish a brother who has entered into the covenants, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do, he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band who had taken this covenant; and thus they might murder and plunder, and steal and commit whoredoms, and all manner of wickedness contrary to the law of their country, and also the laws of their God: and whosoever of those that belonged to their band, should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations, should be tried, not according to the laws of their country, but according to the law of their wickedness which had been given by Gadianton and Kishkumen. Now behold it is their secret oaths forth to the world, lest they should be a means of bringing down the people unto destruction. Now behold these secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gadianton from the records which were delivered unto Heleman: but behold they were put into the heart of Gadianton by that false being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit; yea that same being who did plot with Cain and his followers from that tie forth. And also it is that same being who put it into the hearts of the people to build a tower sufficiently high that they might get to heaven. And it was that same being who led on the people that came from that tower into this land; who spread the works of darkness and abominations over all the face of the land, until he dragged the people down unto an entire destruction, and to an everlasting hell; yea it is that same being who put it into the heart of Gedianton to still carry on the work of darkness, and of secret murder; and he has brought it forth from the beginning of man, even down to this time. And behold it is he who is the author of all sin. And behold it is he who is the author of all sin. And behold, he doth carry on his works of darkness and secret murder, and doth hand down their plots and thier oaths, and their covenants and their plans of awful wickedness from generation to generation, according as he can get hold upon the hearts of the children of men. And now behold he had got great hold upon the hearts of the Nephites; yeah, insomuch that they had become exceedingly wicked; yea, the more part of them had turned out of the away of righteousness, and did trample under their feet the commandments of God, and did turn unto their own ways, and did build up unto themselves idols of their gold and their silver.

4: I will now hand you exhibit “E” Mr. Smith, and ask you to read section 58 on page one hundred and eighty six. Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness for the reasons above set forth in the last objection.
Behold I say unto you that it is not expedient in me that ye should translate any more, until ye shall go to the Ohio; and this because of the enemy and for your sakes. And again I say unto you, that you shall not go until you have preached my gospel in these parts, and have strengthened up the church whithersoever it is found, and more especially in Colesville; for behold they pray unto me in much faith. And again, a commandment I give unto the church that it is expedient in me that they should assemble together at the Ohio, against the time that my servant Oliver Cowdery shall return unto them. Behold, here is wisdom, and let every man choose for himself until I come. Even so, amen.

6: What translation do you understand from the histroy of the church is referred to in that revelation?
I understand it to be the scriptures.

7: What scriptures?
The Bible.

8: The Book of Mormon had already been translated?
Yes sir, for the Book of Mormon had already been published before that.

9: When was it published?
The Book of Mormon?

10: Yes, sir.
It was published in ’29 or ’30.

11: Now turn to Section 13, paragraph 15, and read it –that is in that same Exhibit E?
Section 13 paragraph fifteen reads thus, “Thou shalt ask and my scriptures shall be given as I have appointed, and they shall be preserved in safety; and it is expedient that they should hold thy peace concerning them, and not teach them until ye have received them in full. And I give unto you a commandment that then ye shall teach them unto all men; for they shall be taught unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.”

12: Have you read the whole of that?
Yes, sir.

13: What is the date of that?
It is a revelation given February 1831.

14: Well to whom was it given?
It does not state there.

15: It does not?
Yes sir, it says, “Hearken oh ye elders of my church.” It was given to the elders of the church. It is stated at the beginning, “who have assembled themselves together,” so it was given to the elders.

16: I will ask you, Mr. Smith now, whether as a matter of fact the translation of the scriptures was a work preserved, and whether they afterwards came into your possession?
Yes sir, they were, – pardon me for inquiring whether you refer to the inspired translation?

17: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

18: Well that work was preserved you say?
Yes sir.

19: How were they preserved, if you know?
That is, who kept them in possession, – who had possession of them?

20: Yes sir?
They were kept in the possession of my mother, – that is she had them in her possession as their custodian, until they were delivered by her to a committee of the re-organization for publication.

21: Who was that committee, if you remember?
It was Israel Rogers, Ebenezer Robinson and Joseph Smith if my memory serves me right. They were the members of the committee if I am not very much mistaken.

22: Into whose hands were they delivered?
Into my hands.

23: By whom were they delivered info your hands?
By my mother.

24: Into your hands as the agent of the committee?
Yes sir, it was delivered to me for the committee by my mother.

25: Was it in manuscript?
Yes sir.

26: Was it published?
Yes sir.

27: Well was it published as it was received?
Yes sir.

28: What is that publication?
What is it called?

29: Yes sir?
It is called the “Holy Scriptures” the “Inspired Translation”. It is usually called by us in referring to it.

30: Is that the same book Mr. Smith, that was introduced here and marked as an exhibit at the time that you were on the witness stand before?
 

31: It was introduced and marked as exhibit “D” I believe?
Yes sir.

32: How old were you at the time of your father’s death?
He was killed in June, – on the 27th day in 1844, and I would have been twelve years old in the November following.

33: Your father was killed on the 27 of June 1844, and you would be twelve, – you were twelve in the November following?
Yes sir.

34: You remember the time your father was killed?
Yes sir.

35: Where did your father live at the time of his death?
At Nauvoo.

36: He had lived there for several years before he died?
Yes sir, for a few years.

37: How long did he live there?
He lived in Nauvoo, Hancock County from the fall of ’39 some time until the day of his death. That is it was his place of residence during all that time, but he was away occasionally on short visits.

38: And you lived there with him?
Yes sir.

39: Now did you live there in the family all of the time?
Yes sir, that was my home there with my father and mother.

40: Where were you at nights?
I slept in the room where my parents were, or in the room adjoining.

41: Well where did your father sleep when he was in the city?
He slept at his private house, known as the “Nauvoo Mansion” or hotel. We lived a part of the time in the old house, —the house built by Hugh White, purchased by my father, and after the mansion was built he lived there,—

42: Who did?
My father did, —after the mansion house was built he moved there, and lived there very nearly two years I think before his death.

43: Who slept in the room with him, and the room where the rest of the family slept?
I remember of no one but my mother, my brothers and myself, and sometimes an adopted sister when the house was crowded, for sometimes we had the house full of people or visitors.

44: Your father kept hotel did he?
He did the latter part of his life.

45: What part of the house was his sleeping room in?
It was in the private apartments.

46: And where were these, —the family’s sleeping apartments with reference to his?
They were right together, for the children slept in the room adjoining their mother’s and father’s sleeping room.

47: Was there any means of communication between these rooms?
Yes sir, there was just an open door between them, —they were adjoining rooms with an open door between.

48: What was the custom and habit of your father in regard to prayers?
We always had family prayer, —evening and morning family prayer.

49: Was the family present at the evening and morning prayers?
Yes sir.

50: The whole family would be present?
Yes always.

51: Was there any woman by any name during the time you lived, —during the time your father lived in Nauvoo, or at any other time or place, that claimed to be his wife, aside from your mother?
Never to my knowledge sir, and I never heard of such a thing until sometime after his death.

52: Was there anybody that stayed there around the house towards whom your father acted as his wife?
No sir.

53: You say you did not see anything of that kind?
No sir, I never saw such a thing in my life.

54: Who besides your mother, Emma, attended the funeral as one of the mourners?
As one of the family mourners?

55: Yes sir?
There was no one.

56: Was there not the members of the family?
Yes sir.

57: Well what lady attended other than your mother Emma?
No one in that capacity, excepting that the people came in and visiting the body, — to see my father after his death, – that is after the body was laid out in the room, the people came to visit it, and they were all mourners, but my mother was the only woman there as a mourner in the capacity of a wife.

58: She was there and the family of course?
Yes sir.

59: And that was all?
Yes sir.

60: These people that came in there to view the body were simply members of the church and friends of the family?
Yes sir.

61: Do you remember a woman or girl by the name of Lucy Walker?
Yes sir, I knew her.

62: She was afterwards known as Lucy Kimball?
Yes sir.

63: Was she ever at your father’s house there in Nauvoo?
She was at one time.

64: Well what was she doing there?
As a hired girl and going to school with the children.

65: With what children?
Myself, my brother and adopted sister. My father’s family of children, such as they were. 66 (Mistakenly listed as number 68)

65: Well that consisted of whom?
My adopted sister, my brother and myself.

67: What other occupation did she have there, if any?
None that I know of, except to occasionally do a little sewing.

68: Did she work for her board and go to school?
Yes sir.

69: Did you go to school with her at the time?
Yes sir, I did go to school with her.

70: How much older than you was she at that time?
Well she was some five and a half years older than I was. I think that was bout it.

71: She was between five and six years older than you were?
Yes sir, and she kind of had charge of us children for she was older than we were.

72: How many children were there that she had charge of?
The four, – or three of us.

73: You were well acquainted with her?
Yes sir.

74: I will ask you whether or not your father ever treated Lucy Walker as his wife?
Never to my knowledge.

75: You say never to your knowledge, – do you mean by that that you do not know of it?
Yes sir, not to my knowledge did he ever treat her that way.

76: If he ever had done so, would you have known about it?
Yes sir, I would if it ever was anything that marked attention.

77: You had the opportunity of knowing?
Yes sir, as much as I could.

78: You did?
Yes sir, as much as anybody of that age could know in a house held as circumscribed as ours was.

79: Well just explain what you mean by “circumscribed”?
I mean that the household was not overly large and the members were known to every one in it and their whereabouts, and I knew every one that was in it at all times, – that is who were in the house, excepting the strangers that might be in it for the time being, – as we kept a hospitable house,

80: How many rooms were in the house?
The Mansion house?

81: Yes sir?
Where father lived?

82: Yes sir.
Yes sir, – at the time of his death, there was six.

83: How long had your father lived there?
Before he died?

84: Yes sir?
Well I am not certain as to the exact time but it must have been nearly two years.

85: What house did he live in before he moved into the Mansion house?
It was a house that he bought from Hugh White.

86: How many rooms were there in that house?
It had four rooms, – two above and two down below and a stair way between them, and an addition of family rooms containing four rooms, – two below and two above, and afterwards there was an addition put onto it that had ten sleeping rooms, – four double rooms and six single rooms over a dining room and kitchen and cellar way, – the outer one of these rooms was used as a kitchen, and that would make four and three is seven, and ten is seventeen or eighteen rooms counting the kitchen and exclusive of the hall.

87: Which house was that in?
In the Mansion house.

88: That was in what was known as the hotel or Mansion house?
Yes sir.

89: Now who occupied the ten sleeping rooms?
Oh I could not tell you for they were strangers.

90: Well I am not asking you for their names? What I am doing is asking you for, – whether it was the family or the strangers?
There might be some portion of the family at some times occupying one or two of the sleeping rooms, but they were mainly occupied by transients or boarders, for they were not what we called the family rooms.

91: I will ask you Mr. Smith, whether in the Mansion house or hotel you have described there was any rooms set apart for washings or anointings, ot for any secret purpose whatever?
None that I know of. Thee was never any of them used for that purpose that I know anything about.

92: In any part of the house?
No sir.

93: You were frequently through the hotel and in all the rooms in it?
Yes sir.

94: If there had been any such rooms as these in the building would you have known of it?
Yes sir, I think I would. I think I should have been apt to know it.

95: There could not have been any such rooms there unless you had known it?
 

96: Were there any such rooms as I have described in the house from which your father removed to the Mansion house?
No sir, there were no such rooms in either house.

97: How many rooms were there in the old house?
 

98: Answer the question?
What is it, – I have forgotten it.

99: How many rooms were there in the old house?
In the old house?

100: Yes sir, in the house that your father lived in before he moved to the Mansion house, how many rooms were there?
There was four, five, six, seven, exclusive of a little hallway.

101: Were any of these rooms used, or set apart for the purposes to which your attention was called in the other question?
No sir, not to my knowledge.

102: If there had been so would you have known it?
I would.

103: Now what time was it that Lucy Kimball, known at that time as Lucy Walker, was at your father’s house going to school?
It was before we moved into the Mansion house.

104: You were in the old building?
Yes sir, it was when we lived in the old building before we had removed to the Mansion house.

105: Well how long would that be before your father’s death?
It would be perhaps two years, or nearly two years. It might possibly be a little over two years.

106: What is the fact about her being at your father’s house after that time, either working for her board or going to school, or in any other capacity?
I think she was afterwards employed in the Mansion house for a short time as dining room girl. I think she was employed for a while in that way.

107: For how long was she so employed?
I don’t know how long.

108: Well about how long was it?
I can’t say but it was not for long. The whole family was employed there around the place in one capacity or another.

109: What family do you refer to?
The family of George Walker, they were all of them about there I think, for their mother was dead at the time, and her whole family was employed there around the place.

110: Who were they that were employed?
Well she was and her brothers William and Loren. Her brother Loren was for a number of years employed by father, and I know the whole family from the old gentleman down to Henry.

111: Well was Lucy Kimball or Walker living there at your father’s house at the time he was killed?
I think not sir, I think not. You asked the question, Lucy Kimball you said.

112: Well I meant Lucy Walker, and she afterwards married Kimball, so when I say Lucy Kimball you will know that I mean Lucy Walker? Her name was Walker at first, and then afterwards it became Kimball did it not?
Yes sir.

113: Now after your father’s death your mother continued to live there in Nauvoo in the same house did she not?
Yes sir, she did for a time.

114: For how long?
Did she live there?

115: Yes sir.
Well now I would not undertake to say how long it was that she lived there, but she rented the house to William Marks part of the time, and afterwards she rented it to a man named VanTyle for a while and lived across the road in the old house.

116: Well she lived there in the same town?
Yes sir, right there in Nauvoo across the street from the Mansion house. She never lived any place else in Nauvoo but at these two places.

117: Well you met with these people afterwards did you not, after your father died?
Yes sir.

118: What, if any, claim was ever made from the time your father died up to 1846 by any of these women, Lucy Kimball, Lucy Walker or by any other woman, except Emma Smith as to their being the wife of your father?
 

119: Answer the question?
There was no claim ever made, of the kind, to my knowledge.

120: Either to yourself or to your mother, or to any other member of the family there?
Not to my knowledge. I do not believe there was, and I never heard any such thing in my life until after the year 1846.

121: How long after 1846 was it?
That I heard of it?

122: Yes sir?
Oh it might be in the spring or summer of 1846.

123: Now in the Mansion house or hotel in which your father lived for about two years before his death, I will ask you what the fact is about your mother, – about your mother’s rooms in which she slept and did what work she did, being arranged for the purpose of giving anointings or washings?
There was nothing of the kind.

124: There was nothing of the kind performed in your mother’s rooms?
No sir, I never saw anything of the kind preformed in my mother’s room.

125: Was there any arrangements looking towards that end in the room of your mother?
Looking towards what?

126: Looking towards preparations to that end, – that is, preparations for washings and anointings?
No sir, I never knew of any. I did not know of it if there was. I slept in the adjoining room, unless I slept in the same room that father and mother did, and I never saw or heard of anything of the kind. We slept there all the time, for mother never allowed us to sleep away from her very far until after father’s death.

127: Were you acquainted with what was known as the Lott family there?
Yes sir.

128: Where did they live?
They lived two miles and a half east of that on my father’s farm which they rented from my father.

129: Did they live in Nauvoo?
Yes sir, but not before my father’s death. They never lived in Nauvoo that I knew of until after the time of my father’s death.

130: You say you knew the family?
Coenelius P. Lott.

131: What was their father’s name?
Coenelius P. Lott.

132: Did he have any daughters?
Yes sir.

133: Did he have a daughter by the name of Melissa?
Yes sir.

134: Did you know her?
Yes sir, I knew the whole family.

135: How many was there in the family?
Well there was John and Mary and Martha and Melissa and Alzina and Peter, and I am not sure but what there was another one, but I am not sure as to what her name was, for I don’t remember it.

136: Have you seen Melissa Lott within the last few years?
Yes sir, I saw her about six or seven years ago.

137: Well when did you see her last?
I saw her in the fall of 1885.

138: Where did you see her?
I saw her in the town of Lehi in Utah Territory.

139: What is her name now?
Her name is Willis, – that is her married name is Willis.

140: Her husband’s name is Willis?
Yes sir, I believe she married a man by the name of Ira Willis–at least it is reported that she did.

141: In the testimony of Mrs. Willis, formerly Melissa Lott, taken in Salt Lake City, she makes a statement that in a conversation with you at Lehi in the Terrirory of Utah some years ago she claimed that she was married to your father, and lived with him as his wife in Nauvoo, Illinois. Now, what are the facts with reference to that conversation, if there was ever such a conversation?
 

142: What, if any such a conversation was ever had?
 

143: Well, about four years ago–put it that way, Mr. Reporter.
If you will pardon me, I will say that in my crusade against polygamy there it had been stated that I would not dare to face Mrs. Willis, and when I went to Lehi preaching there, she was in the congregation on the first evening, and I secured an introduction to her and asked her for an interview, and I went the next day at ten o’clock by appointment to see her.

144: That was in Lehi?
Yes, sir.

145: Please state when this was.
This was in ’85, and I think in the latter part of October.

146: Well, was that the only time and place you ever met her?
I called on her again on my way back when coming up from the south. I just merely called on her to say “how do you do” or something like that, and that was about all.

147: Were these two visits the only ones you ever made to her?
Yes sir, that was all in Utah.

148: What were your reasons for calling on her?
Well sir, having known her in my boyhood, I was anxious to see her, and especially anxious to find out if I could, about what was stated in regard to her alleged connection with my father, and I went there and saw her and had a conversation with her in which she did state that she was married to my father, but she stated also that she did not live with him as his wife.

149: Is that all that she stated in that connection?
No, sir. After she had made that statement, I asked her the reason why she had not, and she said she did not think it was necessary. I asked her a number of questions with regard to it with the intention of ascertaining what the facts were in connection with it as near as I could, and she did not state that she had lived with him as his wife, but on the contrary, distinctly affirmed that she did not live with him as his wife. I asked her also if he had ever treated her as a wife, and she suggested that he did once, but nothing came of it, and I asked her why if she was properly married, why the relationship was not continued, and she said she did not think it was right. I asked her then if this took place in the Mansion House or in the old house, and she said no, that it was not in the Mansion House–that nothing ever went on in the old house or in the Mansion House. She said that nothing of the kind ever took place there, and then I asked her, or stated to her, that it was said that he had several wives living there with him in the Mansion House, and she said it was not so, that nothing of the kind was carried on there, or permitted at all. Now of course it is impossible for me to remember all that was said or passed between us, but that was the substance of what passed between us at that time and place.

150: Well state anything and everything that was said in the conversation?
 

151: Well of course I mean upon that subject?
Well gentlemen, I am willing to state all I know for I have nothing to conceal about it.

152: What, if any thing, was said in those conversations of either of the conversations between yourself and Melissa Willis, with reference to your mother, or a statement made by your mother?
Well after asking her these questions, I asked her if my mother knew of this marriage that she alleged had taken place.

153: What marriage do you refer to now?
That marriage that she alleged had taken place between herself and my father. I asked her if my mother knew that it had taken place or was aware of it in any way, and she said that mother was, – that she had given her consent to it, and then I asked her the question as to whether my mother was a truthful woman, – whether she was a woman that would tell the truth, and she said she would, – that that was her character, and then I said “suppose my mother should make to me a statement in answer to a question, could I rely on what she said” and she said “you can Joseph, you can, for if your mother told you anything you can believe it to be true and then I told her that my mother in answer to my question I had asked her, had stated positively that my father had no wife but my mother Emma, and that he had never had any other woman in any sense as his wife with her knowledge and consent, and then this woman Willis looked at me and said “Well Joseph if your mother told you that she knew nothing about it.” Now that was all in the same conversation, and then I told her that my mother had made the statement to me specifically, and she said “you can rely on it then, your mother knew nothing about it.” 154 (Mistakenly listed as number 134)

153: That was the conversation you had with Mrs. Willis formerly known as Melissa Lott?
Yes sir.

155: Who was present during this conversation?
Soon after that her sister Mary, and her sister Alzina came into the room for they heard that I was there and was visiting Melissa I suppose, and so they came into the room to see me.

156: Well what was said then?
Well we fell into a general conversation. Of course I did not question the woman directly any more but in the course of the conversation I turned to Mary and asked her if she knew where I could find any brothers and sisters there in the territory, for it was reported that I had a good many mothers there in the territory, and I would like to find some brothers and sisters, for I was kind of lonesome, and Mary remarked that she had hunted the whole territory over for them, and went every place where there was any report of the kind and she could find no children, and then Alzina spoke up and she said “No brother Joseph, I do not believe there is any chance for any”, and then I turned to Melissa Willis, and I said “you hear what your sisters say, – what have you to say to it?”

157: Proceed Mr. Smith?
Well then Mrs. Willis immediately remarked in answer to my question, that she thought the girls were right.

158: Well what did she say about it?
She said “Joseph, I expect they are right” and then I said “I thank you, for I think that gives the case away.” That was in effect what I remarked. The conversation was rather general after the girls came in, and having known them so well in the early days I felt free to converse with them as I would with those I had known for years. I was under no kind of reticence, or disinclination to talk with them for they were very friendly and we talked in a very friendly way.

159: I will ask you now if there is any rule, doctrine or teaching, tenet, rule or order or obligation in the church, – I mean in the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of which you are the president, which authorizes or countenances in any way, shape or form or manner, any secret oaths, ordinances, obligations, or any such thing as a part of its faith and practice, and the duty of its members?
There is not.

160: There is not anything of that kind?
Not a thing.

161: Is there any obligation of any nature?
The only obligation imposed by the church is the one taken at baptism.

162: Is there any such teachings in any of the original books of the church, or records of the church, especially in 1830 say at the time the church was established then, and from that time on up to 1844 at the time of your father’s death?
None that I know of. I know there is none in the books. It may be in the records, but I don’t know about it if it is.

163: Have any of the records of the church come into your possession teaching or authorizing any such practice?
There has none of them come into my possession or under my knowledge, therefore I know of nothing of the kind.

164: Is there anything in any of the books of doctrine of the church that would permit any such a thing?
Not that I know of, – not as a church obligation or enjoined as a duty upon the members of the church.

165: Take the witness.
 

166: Mr. Smith you have been asked concerning the manuscript of the Inspired Translation?
Yes sir.

167: You have been asked about its possession, and about its having been handed over to a committee?
Yes sir.

168: And I believe you were also asked about its publication?
Yes sir.

169: Now I want you to state more specifically what that inspired translation is?
 

170: You may answer the question?
As I understand it, it is a translation and correction of the common version of the bible. Of the bible and the new testament, I should say.

171: Well do you mean the King James version or translation?
No sir, I don’t mean the King James version.

172: Well what do you mean then?
I mean the Bible.

173: You mean just the Bible?
Yes sir, the old and new testament, commonly called “The Bible”.

174: You state that you understand it to be a correction of the translation?
No sir, that is not what I said, I said it was a translation and a correction.

175: A translation and a correction?
Yes sir, just as it is stated in the preface.

176: Of the bible it is a translation and a correction?
Yes sir, of the old and new testaments, excluding the songs of Solomon and the apocrypha old and new.

177: That is what the translation was?
 

177: Yes sir.
 

178: By whom was this translation made?
I understand it to be by my father.

179: Now were you accurate when you denominated it a translation and a correction?
I don’t know sir, anything about it. I only know what appears in the preface, and I give it to you as I found it, and the manner in which it was done I don’t know sir, I only give it as it came into my hands.

180: Are you well acquainted with its contents and what it purports to be?
I am so far as the using of it and the reading of it from time to time is concerned.

181: Well you are familiar with it?
Yes sir, reasonably so, but I would not say that I am as familiar with it as some would be with the Bible.

182: Can you state whether or not it purports to be a revelation coming direct from God through the medium of your father, Joseph Smith?
I understand it to be as I have stated a correction and translation of the old and new testaments by the spirit of revelation, by Joseph Smith, my father. The history of it states that the translation was finished in 1838, and it came into my hands or possession some time prior to the date of its publication in 1867.

183: It came into your possession you say?
Into my possession and that of others of the committee.

184: Well what history do you refer to?
The history of my father published in the Times and Seasons.

185: Was your father an Hebrew or Greek scholar or an Hebrew and Greek scholar?
I could not tell you for I don’t know anything about it only from hearsay.

186: Do you know of any revelation purporting to have been given to or by or through your father, commanding him to write out the Holy Scriptures by the Spirit of Inspiration?
I don’t know that I do specifically, unless mention is made of it in some of the revelations. We have already read two of them.

187: Contained where?
In the book of doctrine and covenants.

188: Now is there anything to indicate that this translation and correction as you call it, of the Holy Scriptures was finished before the death of your father, aside from his history of which you speak?
Nothing more than the fact of its being completed so far as we could discover when we came to examine the matter laid before us, – I should say presented to us.

189: It was completed so far s you could discover at that time?
Yes sir. All that we got into our hands appeared to be completed.

190: When did you state you found the manuscript from which this publication was made?
What is that?

191: When did you state you first saw the manuscript from which this publication was made?
Well I could not tell you. I have not stated anything about it I don’t think, but I will say now that I first saw it when it came into my hands, or the hand of this committee a few months before the date of its publication in 1867.

192: Well can you state about the time when you first saw it?
No sir, I can’t state that specifically, but I saw it at different times in my mother’s possession at different times, but I did not read any of it, – I simply saw the bulk of it, so to speak, in my mother’s hands. Now in reply to the last question, I believe it was, I stated that the first time I saw it was when it was delivered to the committee of which I was a member, and that I think was the first time I saw it to read any of it, but before that I had seen it but not to read it.

193: Did the manuscript that was delivered to you, purport to be a full and complete copy of the inspired translation?
It purported to be what it was, – correction and translation of the old and new testaments, just as we have it here in this volume which was presented here called the Inspired Translation or the “Holy Scriptures.”

194: Now you speak of it as a manuscript, – now was it in the form of manuscript all written out?
No sir, it was not.

195: Then in what shape was this manuscript?
A portion of it was in the form of leaves from a copy of the bible, and the corrections noted in it, or on the leaf, either on the margin or in manuscript attached to the leaves.

196: Will you please state how these leaves were arranged, and how the corrections appeared?
They appeared in consecutive pages, where corrections were of that character that they might be in the margin they were put on the margin, but if they were too extensive to go on the margin they were put on slips of paper and fastened to the leaves and marked.

197: And numbered?
Yes sir, some times, – when it was all very orderly from first to last and arranged in such a way that any ordinary person could take it and read it readily from first to last, – there was no trouble about that from start to finish, for it could be read right straight along.

198: You spoke of the corrections?
Yes sir.

199: What do you mean by that?
Well I meant that there were corrections in it, of course, – corrections in the text.

200: Well these corrections you speak of, were inserted in the translation when it was published were they not?
Yes sir, we published it just precisely as we found it, everything just as we found it, allowing for the ordinary mistakes of humanity, – printers and proof readers and such.

201: Did you find difference in the proof between this translations and the King James and other translations?
Yes sir, we do according to some translations more than others, and particularly in what is known as the King James translation in the book of Genesis.

202: Now as an example I want to call your attention to the thirteenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of Matthew as it appears in the King James translation and ask you to read that verse to the Notary?
The thirteenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of Matthew, as it appears in the King James translation, reads as follows, – “Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”

203: Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist?
Yes sir.

204: Now I want you to read from what you have denomi- nated, or what is denominated the inspired translation corresponding with what you have read from the King James translation, – read the verse that corresponds with it in the Inspired Translation as you term it so that the reporter may note it?
 

205: Read it so that the Notary may not it as you read it?
Do you mean the thirteenth and fourteenth verses?

206: The thirteenth verse? A”- But I say unto you who is Elias? Behold this is Elias whom I sent to prepare the way before me.” No that is the thirteenth verse The fourteenth verse reads as follows, – “Then the dis ciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist, and also of another who should come and restore all things, as it is written by the prophets. You see it takes these two verses here to atate that one.
 

207: Yes sir?
Or rather to correspond with the one i the King James translation.

208: Now do you recognize the language, – “and also of another who should come and restore all things as it was written by the prophets,” Now do you take that a a correction or an addition? on the margin, but if they were too extensive to go on the margin they were put on slips of paper and fastened to the leaves and marked.
 

197: And numbered?
Yes sir, some times, – when it was necessary. Very orderly the whole thing was. It was all very orderly from first to last and arranged in such a way that any ordinary person could take it an read it readily from first to last, – there was no trouble about that from start to finish, for it could be read right straight along.

198: You spoke of the corrections?
Ye sir.

199: What do you mean by that?
Well I meant that there were corrections in it, of course, – corrections in the text.

200: Well these corrections you speak of, were inserted in the translation when it was published were they not?
Yes sir, we published it just precisely as we found it, everything just as we found it, allowing for the ordinary mistakes of humanity, – printers and proof readers and such.

201: Did you find difference in the proof between this translations and the King James and other translations?
Yes sir, we do according to some translations more than others, and particularly in what is known as the King James translation in the book of Genesis.
The thirteenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of Matthew, as it appears in the King James translation, reads as follows, – “The the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”

203: Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist?
Yes sir.

204: Now I want you to read from what you have denominated, or what is denominated the inspired translation corresponding with what you have read from the King James translation, – read the verse that corresponds with it in the Inspired Translation as you term it so that the reporter may note it?
 

205: Read it so that the Notary may note it as you read it?
Do you mean the thirteenth and fourteenth verses?

206: The thirteenth verse?
But I say unto you who is Elias? Behold this is Elias whom I sent to prepare the way before me.” Now that is the thirteenth verse. The fourteenth verse reads as follows, – “Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist, and also of another who should come and restore all things, as it is written by the prophets. You see it takes these two verses here to state that one.

207: Yes sir?
Or rather to correspond with the one in the King James translation.

208: Now do you recognize the language, – “and also of another who should come and restore all things as it was written by the prophets, “Now do you take that a a correction or an addition? the witness on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not proper cross examination and calls for an opinion of the witness.
 

209: Answer the question?
What is it?

210: It says in there, – “And also of another who should come and restore all things as it is written by the prophets.” I asked you if you recognized that as a correction or an addition?
Oh I could not tell you. I could only give you my opinion of it, that is all.

211: Well please state what you know of it?
I would understand it to be a correction. You may call it an addition, but it is an addition to the language expressing the idea.

212: Can you point ot out in any corresponding verse in the chapter I have called your attention to in the King James teanslation?
No sir, I don’t know that I can.

213: You cannot do that?
No sir, I don’t pretend to be able to explain all these things. I do not assume responsibility for that. I only give it as I find it here, and that is the way we found it, and we have published it just as we found it without change or correction or erasure.

214: Well I am not complaining of you, – you need not make this long explanation, for I am not complaining of your action?
No sir, I know you are not and I am glad of it.

215: Well now I want to know of you as the head of the re-organized church of Jesus Christ and its, – and the expounder of its doctrines, and what I understand at least to be an expert in its teachings, whom you understand the expression “and also of another” to apply to?
I understand it to apply to Christ who would restore all things.

216: That is what you understand by that?
Yes sir, for Christ is the only one who, in my judgment, is competent to restore all things.

217: Now I want you to look at this for the same reasons that I have asked you to look at the other quotations, – for the same reasons that I have given to the others, simply because I have called your attention to it, – Now I want you to look at what is termed the fiftieth chapter of Genesis in the Inspired Translation and tell me if you are acquainted with it and its language? the witness on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not proper cross examination and calls for an opinion of the witness.
 

209: Answer the question?
What is it?

210: It says in there, – “and also of another who should come and restore all things as it is written by the prophets.” I asked you if you recognized that as a correction or an addition?
Oh I could not tell you. I could only give you my opinion of it, that is all.

211: Well please state what you know of it?
I would understand it to be a correction. You may call it an addition, but it is an addition to the language expressing the idea.

212: Can you point ot out in an corresponding verse in the chapter I have called your attention to in the King James teanslation?
No sir, I don’t know that I can.

213: You cannot do that?
No sir, I don’t pretend to be able to explain all these things. I do not assume responsibility for that. I only give it as I find it here, and that is the way we found it, and we have published it just as we found it without change or correction or erasure.

214: Well I am not complaining of you, – you need not make this long explanation, for I am not complaining of your action?
No sir, I know you are not and I am glad of it.

215: Well now I want to know of you as the head of the re-organized church of Jesus Christ and its, – and the expounder of its doctrines, and what I understand at least to be an expert in its teachings, whom you understand the expression “and also of another” to apply to?
I understand it to apply to Christ who would restore all things.

216: That is what you understand by that?
Yes sir, for Christ is the only one who, in my judgment, is competent to restore all things.

217: Now I want you to look at this for the same reasons that I have asked you to look at the other quotations, – for the same reasons that I have given to the others, simply because I have called your attention to it. – Now I want you to look at what is termed the fiftieth chapter of Genesis in the Inspired Translation and tell me if you are acquainted with it and its language? immaterial, and not proper cross examination, and calls for an opinion of the witness.
 

218: Answer the question?
Am I familiar with it.

219: Yes sir, – are you familiar with what is called the fiftieth chapter of Genesis in the Inspired Translation?
Why I have read it several times.

220: Did you ever look to see whether there is anything corresponding to it in the King James translation of the bible?
Yes sir, I presume we have at different times, especially when we were getting it ready for the press.

221: Well did you find anything corresponding to that chapter in the King James translation?
I would not say that we do specifically.

222: You would not say that there is anything in the King James translation specifically corresponding to it?
No sir.

223: In that chapter 50 of the book of Genesis to which I have called your attention I would be glad to have you look at the twenty sixth verse of it and read it to the reporter so that he may take it down?
The twenty sixth verse reads, – “A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choise seer unto the fruit of my loins.”

224: And not I would ask you whom you understand than word “seer” as used there to relate?
To whom, – who do I understand it to relate to?

225: Yes sir?
Well sir, I don’t know that I have any specific opinion about it at all.

226: Well have you a general opinion about it?
Well if I had a general opinion it would be specific.

227: Then what is your answer to the question, – is it that you don’t know to whom it refers?
I don’t know specifically who it refers to sir, but I may have my opinion about it.

228: Is it your opinion that it refers to Joseph Smith your father?
I have heard that claimed but then I don’t think I ever expressed an opinion about it.

229: Have you ever preached that you thought it refered to your father?
No sir.

230: Do your preachers refer to it?
No sir.

231: Do they ever preach it that way, as referring to your father?
I think I have heard one or two of them refer to it that way in theory.

232: You have heard preachers in your church refer to it that way you say?
Yes sir. 233 (Mistyped as 223)

232: Did you as President of the church correct them when you heard them preach it that way?
No sir, for it was not a matter of doctrine anyway, or a definition of doctrine, – it was merely an expression of opinion, and any man in our church has a right to express an opinion upon a matter of that kind if he chooses to do so.

234: That is the way it is?
Yes sir, our men are not in leading strings. We don’t try to hamper and stifle men’s minds in our church Colonel.

235: Well you are acquainted with the book of Mormon are you not?
I am to some extent sir.

236: Has it as has been given in testimony here, – ?
I am to some extent Colonel, but not so well as I would like to be.

237: Now I will ask you if there are quotations from the scriptures in the book of Mormon?
Yes sir, it is purported to be, especially in the book of Isaiah.

238: Were these quotations found in the book of Mormon taken, – do these quotations found in the book of Mormon appear to have been taken from the Inspired Translation, or from the King James translation?
As to that I could not tell you as to how many of them are specifically found in the King James translation. I believe that they purport to be quotations from Isaiah. I suppose they are quotations from Isaiah, and a good many of them I know are to be found in the King James translation, – or is identical with what is found in the King James translation.

239: Now do the quotations to which you refer, – do they correspond with the language used in the Inspired Translation?
Many of them do.

240: That is they correspond only in so far as the Inspired Translation uses the language of the King James translation?
The answer is so far as they agree in each of the three books, they correspond to that extent.

241: But do you find any of the additions and corrections that are found in the Inspired Translation as compared with the King James translation?
I don’t know that I do.

242: You don’t know about that?
No sir, but I would not say specifically in regard to that, without further examination.

243: Are you able to state now whether the inspired translation was adopted by the re-organized church?
I don’t know that it was specifically. It may possibly have been in the fall of ’79, but I could not say positively as to that.

244: May I call your attention to what purports to have been a sesolution, – I will say to what purports to be a resolution adopted by the General Conference of the church on September 13th 1889, – ’78 I mean?
 

245: Read that?
 

246: I am making my objection to one thing, – I mean I am asking my question with reference to one thing, and you are making your objection to something that you don’t want the witness to overlook.
Well that is a resolution that was adopted at the conference in ’78.

247: Well read the resolution that was adopted in 1878?
 

248: Well read the resolution which appears on page eighteen of exhibit “M” offerred by the plaintiff?
“Resolved that this body representing the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, recognize the Holy Scriptures, the book of Mormon, the revelations of God contained in the book of doctrine and Covenants, and all other revelations which have been or shall be revealed through God.s appointed prophet, which have been, or may be hereafter accepted by the church as the standard of authority on all matters of church government and doctrine, and the final standard of reference on appeal in all controversy arising, or which may arise in this church of Christ.”

249: Mr Smith, what was the authority you referred to for saving, – I believe you stated that there was a history that was authority for the statement that the inspired translation was completed in 1835?
 
The statement made in the reported history of my father that was published in the Times and Seasons.

250: That is your authority?
Yes sir.

251: Well what do you know relating to the authenticity of that history?
I don’t know anything about that.

252: You don’t know whether it is authentic or not?
No sir, but it purports to be.

253: What was the balance of the paragraph?
I can’t tell you. I don’t know about it. I stated at the outset that I understand it was completed in 1833, but I did not know it of my own knowledge as a matter of course, for in the very nature of things I could not know it to be a fact.

254: Do you understand from the same source that something was done with it after it was completed?
 

255: Answer the question?
What is it?

256: Did you understand from the same source that something was done with it after it was completed?
No sir, there is nothing more that I know of.

257: That it was sealed up, – was that it?
I don’t know that it was, – nothing more than it was put into custody and to be retained.

258: To be re-opened when?
I don’t know that it states that.

259: I will call your attention for the purpose of refreshing your mind to a paragraph on page seven hundred and twenty three in the second column of plaintiff’s exhibit “0”.
 

260: I will call your attention to that for the purpose of refreshing your recollection?
 

261: I am simply asking the witness to refresh his memory. Is that the history to which you refer?
What is that?

262: That paragraph to which I called your attention?
it may be. It probably is.

263: Now after you have refreshed your memory you can state in the same connection as to whether this Inspired Translation was finished, and as to whether anything else was said about it as to what was done with it?
I can state what appears there.

264: Well what is stated there?
Well it was sealed up not to be opened until it arrived in Zion.

265: Well is this as authentic a part of the history as the other part of the history which you quoted this morning? That is, is it as authentic as the other part you quoted this morning as to when t was finished?
I presume it is.

266: You consider that it is just as authentic?
Yes sir, I don’t doubt its authenticity.

267: No you were asked this morning I believe by the plaintiffs in this case to state if you know from whom the manuscript for this inspired translation was obtained, and you stated did you not that it was obtained from your mother?
Yes sir.

268: You stated that it was obtained from you mother Emma Smith?
Yes sir. The committee that published it obtained it from here.

269: That is a fact?
Yes sir.

270: Did you not also state that you were one of that committee?
Yes sir, I was a member of that committee and it was delivered to me in person.

271: It was delivered to you in person from your mother Emma Smith?
Yes sir. Her name was not Smith at the time that I obtained it from her. Her name was Mrs. Bidaman at the time that I got that translation from her.

272: Do you remember about what date that was?
No sir. I do not. If I had known that the date was required I could easily have obtained it.

275: Well you can probably approximate it, can you not?
I think it was some time in the fall of 1867.

274: Well how long was it on hand with the committee or anywhere else after you obtained it?
How long was it on hand?

275: Yes sir?
In what way, -the committee had it all the time.

276: I mean before anything was done with it, how long was it on hand?
Well we went to work on it right away at once. We were at work on it for some time, for it was some months before it went into the hands of the printers in Philadelphia.

277: Who went to work on it?
There was myself, Ebeneezer Robinson, W.W. Blair, and the clerks we employed.

278: You all went to work on it you say?
Yes sir.

279: Well what work was there to do on it?
We recopied it, -made a copy of it for the printers, that is.

280: Well did you make a verbatim copy?
Yes sir, we did so far as we possibly could do it.

281: Well did you make a copy in the manuscript?
Yes sir we made it in manuscript, for we had no typewriters then as we have now

283: Well when I used the word “manuscript” I use the word in its old signification?
Handwriting?

284: Yes sir?
Yes sir, it was copied in hand writing.

285: Well was it all copied in hand writing before it went into the hands of the printers?
yes sir.

286: By that committee?
Yes sir, or by person employed by the committee.

287: By them or by persons employed by them.
Well I should say by them and by persons employed by them.

288: When you made the manuscript, – wait a moment and I will get that right, – when you obtained the manuscript or the copy from which you made the manuscript, from which you made the manuscript copy, from your mother, what was its condition, – that is what shape was it at the time you obtained it from your mother?
Well it was a mass of manuscript or copy secured in a bundle by itself.

289: It was all by itself?
Yes sir.

290: Well now was it secured?
Wrapped up and secured with the requisite twine.

291: Was there any covering on it?
Yes sir.

292: Thee was a wrapper on it then?
Yes sir.

293: Was there any seal to that wrapper?
I don’t know that there was any specific seal to it.

294: I believe you stated, – I believe you did not state positively that it was sealed in any way at the time you got it?
No sir, I don’t know, – I will state now that I don’t know that there were any wax seals on it, but there may have been wager seals on the outside of the cover, and if so they may have been broken.

295: You do not recollect now though, that there was any seals on it?
No sir.

296: Do you know that your father had a seal that was called is private seal?
No sir. I don’t know about that. I could not say. There may have been and I think there was a church seal in the office, but I rather think he did not have what could be called a private seal of his own that he used for his own individual use.

297: You did not recognize any seal of that kind to the manuscript or on the wrapper that was around it?
No sir, there was not any seal of that character.

298: I believe that you stated that you had seen that manuscript prior to the time when that committee applied for it?
Well I don’t know that I have stated that to be the fact, but it is the fact. I have seen it as a bundle or mass, but not for the purpose of examining it, – I simply saw the bulk of it so to speak. I never had examined or read it though.

299: Did you ever open it before that time?
No sir.

300: Had it the appearance of having been opened?
No sir. Oh I could not say as to that. I said it had not the appearance of having been opened, but there is something I could not say, for it might have been opened for all I know to the contrary.

301: It was in the custody of your mother you say?
Yes sir.

302: And the committee got it from her?
Yes sir.

303: Will you state where she got it, if you know?
I suppose from my father.

304: Do you know where she kept it?
I can state where it was when I knew where it was.

305: Well where was it when you knew?
It was in her private bureau in her private room.

306: Do you know by what authority, if there was any particular authority, that she became the custodian of that manuscript?
No sir, I cannot say that I do know of any specific authority by which she had it in her custody, or how she was made the custodian for it.

307: Do you know whether or not it was claimed that she was to be the custodian of it?
I may have heard some such thing as that but I can’t say whether it was a claim or not.

308: You don’t know that she was ever made the custodian to retain possession and charge of it?
No sir, but I think it was a very good thing however to leave it in her charge, for she undoubtedly took the best care of it.

309: Yes sir?
Yes sir, I think that it was a very good thing that she had it.

310: You think, of course, that she was faithful in her charge?
Yes sir.

311: You do?
I do.

312: Well can you state, or do you know why it was that she delivered it up to the committee?
I know what she said about it.

313: Well state what she said about it, for I believe that would be competent?
She said that she had been entrusted with it, and she had kept it as faith- fully as she could, and she was glad to be relieved of its care, and she believed that she had put it into the right hands, and that the time had come for it to be published. That is what she said.

314: Do you know what was the cause of its being applied for through the committee?
Yes sir.

315: Well what was the cause?
There was a resolution passed through the conference authorizing the ap- pointment of a committee to apply for it, and to pub- lish it, if it could be obtained. i

316: That was the way the committee came to be appointed
Yes sir.

317: Do you know if there was anything behind the ac- tion of the conference that caused the conference to pass that resolution?
Nothing more than the desire we had that it should be published, and our believe that the time had come when it should be pub- lished.

318: That was the reasons?
Yes sir. That is all the reasons I know of.

319: Was there, or is there any authority in the book of doctrine and covenants, or any where else, that appoin- ted, or directed the conference toward the getting of that manuscript and its publication?
No sir, not that I am aware of.

320: There is not anything that directs that that should be done?
No sire, not that I am aware of, – nothing that specifically directs that it should be done. At least if there is anything I do not now recall it. We simply believed that it came in under our general work and we saw fir to secure possession of it and publish it.

321: Do you know whetther there is anything called a revelation in the book of Doctrine and Covenants that refers to the inspired translation?
Nothing more than the appelative, – the “Scriptures”. It is either the “Scriptures” or the “Holy Scriptures.”

322: I may be mistaken and if I am correct me, – I under- stood you to state this morning that there was a re- velation published in the book of Doctrine and Cove- nants, in pursuance of which this translation was made? Did I understand you correctly when I under- stood you to say that?
No sir, I think you asked me the question if there was any revelation to that effect, and I answered you that I did not know what there was, but there were references made to it which we had read.

323: This morning was that stated?
Yes sir, referring to it as identifying the Holy Scriptures, or the in- spired translation.

324: How was that?
Well you asked me to question if I knew of any re- velation commanding it to be done, and I told you that there was not any that I knew of.

325: Well that is what I have reference to, if you understand the revelation to which your attention was called this morning in the book of Doctrine and Covenants to refer to the making of this translation?
Well that is the question you asked me before and I answered no, that it referred to the article itself as we understand it to identify the work and in answer to the question as to whether I knew of any specific commandment authorizing or commanding the translation to be made, that was the question you asked me and I told you no.

326: Please refer me now to the revelation, to the date of the revelation or about the date of the revelation to which you referred this morning in your direct examination?
One is in section thirty, and the other is in section fifty eight. Perhaps the first one is in section thirty one, for I don’t remember exactly the dates.

327: What I was getting at Mr. Smith was to develop whether the revelation was received prior to the translation or subsequent to it?
Well that was the understanding I had of your question when you asked me before if I knew of any revelation authorizing this translation to be performed, and I told you that I did not. I believe that this here refers to the document or article.

328: What makes you arrive at that conclusion?
Well it says in section thirteen, paragraph fifteen, that is one of them.

329: Now it might not be objectionable even to the plaintiff’s attorney for me to inquire just this much further about this, as to whether the revelations which appear to be in the inspired translation and not is the King James translation of the bible. I mean the differences or changes that are in the inspired translation and not in the King James translation, were ever submitted to the quorums of the reorganized church for their adoption?
 

330: Well I did not say that he did, I don’t see that you ought to object to that question. What is the question? (Question No 329 was repeated to counsel)
 

331: Yes sir, that is my question, and I don’t think you should object to that at all, answer the question?
The revelations as they appear there have never been submitted to the quorums in the form which you ask.

332: They have never been submitted to the quorums of the church of which you are the President?
No sir, the book itself has been submitted to the church.

333: I think that I may properly go one step further, and enquire whether you did not state in your direct examination last February that the revelations to be authentic and binding upon the church must first be submitted to the quorums?
 

334: That all revelations and everything affecting the church had to first be submitted to the quorums for their approval, and if approved they became authentic, and if disapproved they were not?
I said then as I do now that that which purports to be revelations, before they can become binding as matters of law to the church, the rule is that they be submitted to the quorums and meet with their approval. That is what I stated then and that is what I state now.

335: They must first be submitted to the quorums for their approval?
Yes sir, for their examination and approval before they become law.

336: Now then are revelations considered as binding when they are submitted to the representative counsellings of the church, and endorsed in that capacity?
 

337: Yes sir?
That depends matters presented to the conferences may be adopted by them and thereby become standards of reference in the settlement of disputes or controversies that may not even be in the form of revelation, and in that way they become binding upon the church.

338: If they are not revelations they have the same effect?
If they have the effect upon the church of changing its organization or rules or laws, or anything of that kind, they have to be submitted to the church. Conferences may adopt resolutions governing its own work, and a resolution so adopted is binding upon the conference, but not as binding as a revelation, and it is not binding upon the church for the reason that it has not been submitted in the way that a revelation has to be submitted or anything that has the effect of changing the laws or rules of the church or affecting a question of doctrine.

339: Well now is it not a fact that you do not regard that inspired translation as a revelation?
What is that?

340: Is it a fact that you do not regard the inspired translation as a revelation?
We regard it, and take it for just what it purports to be, a correction and translation of the old and new testaments by the spirit of inspiration by Joseph Smith, and place it side by side with the book of Mormon and the Covenants.

341: Do you consider it infallible?
No sir.

342: Do you consider the Bible to be infallible?
No sir.

343: Then you do not consider the Bible to infallible?
No sir, we do not consider anything that passes through human hands to be infallible. We do not even hold the laws of the State of Missouri to be infallible. We do not believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible and therefore do not believe it to be infallible.

344: You don’t?
No sir.

345: And you express the same views with reference to the book of Mormon?
 

346: As to its fallibility or infallibility?
Understand me, – we hold that everything that passes through human hands to be fallible. We don’t believe that any thing that passes through human hands must necessarily be perfect, there fore we hold that everything that passes through human hands is mutable and therefore not infallible.

347: Well now is that your view with reference to the revelations in the book of Doctrine and Covenants? Is that you review with reference to the revelations as printed in the book of Doctrine and covenants which you have adopted?
Taking that book as a whole that is our view regarding it. Now let me illustrate, – in the Inspired Translation we find in the new testament scripture we find this kind of thing in reference to Jonah being three days in the belly of the whale, it says “as Jonah was three days in the heard of the whale, so shall the son of man, etc. now that is manifestly an error, and we do not therefore believe it, for it is so manifestly an error that it is not necessary to believe it.

348: And you find that in the new translation?
Yes sir.

349: In the Inspired Translation?
Yes sir.

350: Well is it correct?
Certainly it is not, – it is a typographical error.

351: Well did you ever look to see where that error arose?
Yes sir, we have examined, and it was not in the manuscript or in the copy that was furnished the printer, but it is an error in the proof reading.

352: That is where the error was?
Yes sir, in the proof reading. It was an error of the printer that set up the type that escaped the proof reader.

353: Well now do you, or do you not hold that that original manuscript, from which the inspired translation was made, was itself infallible?
No sir.

354: Then you don’t even hold that that is infallible?
No sir, we do not hold anything to be infallible that passes through human hands, I have told you that at least six time, – that we don’t hold anything to be infallible that passes through human hands, for they are all of them subject to human mutations.

355: That is a revelation to whom?
It is the translation and correction of the old and new testament made by Joseph Smith through the gift and the spirit of inspiration. Now to show you that human error has crept into even the King James translation as it is called, there is one place where it tells you that the disciples were all out on the water, and they were filled with water, and if that is so they were in a queer fix. If they were filled fear it would be a different thing, but it says that they were filled with water. Now you would not say that the human, – that the bible was infallible in that respect. Now in another place it says that they waked up in the morning, and it says that they were dead men, and in another place in Isaiah it says “I will” send them a servant that is blind and dead.” That is not infallible. I only quote these instances to show that everything that passes through human hands is mutable and cannot be considered as infallible, and to that end I could go on and offer further proof if it was necessary. As a further instance in the King James translation where it states that a son began to reign two years before his father. Now there may be errors of that kind in the inspired translation, and if there is any they are fallible, for they are the result of human agency, and therefore fallible. It is for these reasons that I hold that anything that passes through human hands is liable to error and hence cannot be claimed to be infallible.

356: Well will you apply the same line of reasoning to the plates from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon?
I will say this that the plates say themselves that if there are errors in them they are the errors of men.

357: And you say the same of the original manuscripts from which the King James translation was made?
Yes sir.

358: And the reasons and examples yo have given is what you predicate that opinion upon?
Yes sir I say that for the reason that we have no manuscript or any knowledge of any that goes very much back of the fourth century of the Christion era, and the most of them date from about the seventh or the eighth century, and surely all of these are subject to human mutations.

359: Now let me ask you this question, – is there anything in your church either in doctrine or practice or what is considered to be authority that you regard as infallible?
So far as our action or allegiance to any rule or doctrine of faith or practice is concerned, – so far as anything comes and is accepted by the church as a rule for its guidance either in faith or practice the matter of fallibility or infallibility does not enter into the question. There is no tribunal this side of the Judgment seat of God that can determine whether anything is true or is not true, but when anything is accepted of course it is binding upon the church, although we do not attempt to pass upon the question of fallibility or infallibility. We simple decide these matters according to the light that is given to us, and we are liable to be in error, for we recognize that this side of the judgement seat there is no tribunal that can decide that matter.

360: Nen belonging to your church now I believe profess to receive revelations occasionally?
Yes sir.

361: Are not such revelations not considered infallible?
 

362: They are not considered to be infallible?
No sir. If they are received from any source, or through any person and they purport to be revelations from God, we examine it and compare it with what we have received on the same subject, or what is in the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we find that it is not at variance with anything there, and it is then received as a revelation from God, why then it becomes binding upon us as a belief, and we conform to it, – that is we take it and give it the same force as the statute law.

363: Do you then regard it as fallible or infallible?
We take it without reference to its fallibility or infallibility. We do not attempt to decide that, for the fallibility or infallibility of its character is to be determined bye and bye.

364: At the risk of repeating a question that has been asked before probably, I will ask you if it is the position of your church that the authority of a revelation from God depends upon its endorsement by a man, or by any body of men?
 

365: Answer the question?
That which is or was presented to us as a revelation from God is examined, and if in our opinion it be subversive of that which has been received before as revelations from God and accepted as the doctrine of the church, then it is rejected.

366: You reject it?
Yes sir, we take the risk of rejection it in that case, although it may be from God. It does not derive its authority from God, – it derives its authority from our acceptance of it, – in other words its authority and force as a binding mandate upon us derives its authority or weight in that rerpect from our acceptance of it, – authority merges in it upon our acceptance, and not until then.

367: Now then you have stated in your examination in chief, – as I understand it, – you have stated in your evidence as I understand it that the re-organized church is precisely like the church prior to the death of Joseph Smith with reference to a certain doctrine or doctrines?
I made no such an answer to any such a question.

368: I did not say you made any such an answer to any such a question, – the question I asked you was if I understood you correctly when I understood you in your direct examination to say that the re-organized church at the present time, and always has been similar to the church prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
 

369: Now don’t you recollect that you did?
I think not.

370: Well may that not be one of the cases where fallibility sets in and prevails?
 

368: Well we will take what the witness says about it, for your recollection and mine differs as to that proposition?
Well sir, I will say this what I am mistaken if any such a question was asked me, for if it was I have no recollection of it whatever.

369: Well you say you have no recollection of such a question being asked you on your direct examination?
No sir, I don’t recollect it now if it was, but I am willing to answer the question however. I have no objection to answering it at all. Neither that or any other question.

370: Well what is your answer?
It may be so, but if it is, it is within the line of fallibility. My answer to that is the same in character as the other answers.

371: That brings us up to a great deal that was said this morning as I remember it in reference to secret societies in the church I believe?
Yes sir, I recollect that that question was up.

372: Now am I mistaken when I say that I understand you to maintain that there is no secrets in the re-organized church?
I have not said anything about it for I have not said there was or was not.

373: You have not?
No sir.

374: Well then my memory is certainly at fault if you have not?
You certainly are in error if you suppose or assume that I have, for what I said was that I knew of none that were authorized by the books, and none were existing as a duty and obligation on the part of the members that were imposed by the church as a duty or obligation on its members.

375: Now Mr. Smith you have reached exactly the point I want to get at, – ?
Recollect I say there is none that I know of, for I am speaking within my knowledge.

376: Well I want to predicate a question upon that, – and it is this, – whether though you claim that certain lines of conduct are not authorized by rule or precept, yet they may be practiced in the church?
I will say that there is no such a practice authorized or sanctioned by the church at all. The church simply does not propose to interfere with the privileges and desires of its membership in that respect. If they choose to belong to the Masons or Odd fellows or any other secret organization they are at liberty to do so as far as the church is concerned. That is their privilege and they can belong to the Knights of Phythias or any other organization so long as they preserve the rights of citizenship and general good conduct. The church doe snot propose to interfere with them for belonging to any of these orders.

377: Well that anticipates my question, for I was going to ask you if you disciplined them for belonging to these organizations?
No sir, I have never known of a case where that was done. I have never known of a case where it was necessary or where it was thought of. It is simply a question of personal privilege that the church does not propose to interfere with. The church as far as that is concerned neither teaches nor endorses nor sanctions nor condemns these secret organizations, – it stands perfectly neutral on that question.

378: is it not fact that you recognize a doctrine as authoritative which prohibits the revealment of certain things to the world at large?
I know of nothing that prevents me from telling everything I know to the world on proper occasions.

379: Does that answer apply equally to everything that was or is practiced in the church?
Yes sir. So far as I have any knowledge of it.

380: That has always been the case you say?
Yes sir. No man has ever been asked not to answer a question, or charged not to reveal anything he knows in regard to the church or its doctrines, practice or organiza- tion. That is the face Colonel, neither is there a rule in the church that puts a stopper on the tongue on any man or his conscience.

381: A man then is perfectly free in that regard?
He is.

382: I believe you have also stated, that there is nothing in your doctrine prescribing a penalty for indulging in those things that are found in some societies, – secret societies by the member of your church?
I will not say that, for I don’t know what obliga- tions are imposed on members of the church in secret organizations which they may join. I cannot say as to that, for I am not familiar with their practices in that regard. Now to illustrate I will say that any member that joins any secret society that is sub- versive of human rights such a practice is reprehen- sible by the rules of the church, and is condemned by the church, but the church don’t know what they are.

383: Now Mr Smith, if there was some doctrine or practice in regard to anointing the head with oil or other parts of the body, – some habit or practice, or form pre- scribing a certain kind of dress to be worn, an initia- tory rite, – have you anywhere in your church anything that fixes a penalty, so that the member participating in it shall be excluded from the church or otherwise punished for so doing?
If there was any rule of the church prohibiting anything of that kind, there would be a penalty attached, but as there is no rule there consequently is not any penalty.

384: You say there is no such a rule in your church?
There is no such a rule that I know anything about, further than the Doctrine and Covenants says “let your garments be clean, and the ornaments there- of the work of your own hands,” There is no rule that requires any person in an initiatory ordinance to wear any particular kind of a garment, or to be or- dained in any particular kind of dress made after any particular fashion.

385: Is there a principle recognized in your church that Christ himself instructed his disciples not to reveal certain mysteries of the kingdom?
We read the command of the Saviour to his disci- ples, and accept it for just what it purports to be. That is what we do, for there is no rule amongst us in reference to it at all.

386: Are not the teachings of Christ an authority with you?
Yes sir.

387: You accept the teachings of Christ as authority?
Yes sir, of course we do. They are an authority with us so far as they are applicable.

388: And are they not all applicable?
I presume not.

389: Are any of them fallible?
We are not disposed to state that that which came from the Saviour is fallible, Christ is the only law giver, – the only infallible law giver which we know anything about. We do not claim that he is fallible, but we do claim that the translation of his commands or words came through human hands, that the version we have of it that in so far as it has been affected by human agency is fallible, or may be fallible.

390: Is there not a statement in the book of Covenants that such things are not to be given to the world?
There is a commandment or statement in the book of Covenants that certain things that they had amongst them at that time, – whatever they were, – were not to be revealed.

391: Well do you recognize that statement as an authoritative law of your church?
I could not say, but I would know if I knew what those specific things are that were thus prohibited.

392: You have been enquired of as I see it at some length, with regard to what you knew as to your father’s conduct and habits, while you were a boy at home there in Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

393: Well that was enquired into very extensively?
It was inquired into, but as to whether or not it was extensively inquired into that would be a matter of opinion.

394: Well for that reason, may I not, with your approbation – pursue the inquiry a little further?
I have no objection sir, for I am here to answer any question you may ask me.

395: Mr Smith will appreciate the feeling which prompts me to ask the question in that way?
Well Colonel you will understand that I have no feeling in the matter, so proceed with your inquiry without regard to my feelings, for I have none whatever in the matter.

396: Well I thought you would appreciate the feeling that actuated me when I put the question in that form?
I repeat that I have no feeling, and I am here to answer any and every question that is legitimate, or that has any bearing in this case in any way shape or form. I will answer any question you put to me that meets with these requirements.

397: Well with that understanding we will proceed. At the outset of the inquiry it would be proper to inquire, wouldn’t it, as to what was your age when your father died?
He was killed in June and I would have been twelve years old the next November.

398: He was killed in June and you would have been twelve in the following November?
Yes sir. I was just lacking the number of months of being twelve years of age, that there is between June and November. He was killed on June 27th and I was twelve years old the following 6th of November.

399: Where were you born?
I was born in 1832 and my father was killed in 1844 on the 27th of June.

400: Now I am going to try and make my inquiries in unobjectionable language as regards the topics that I am going to inquire of you regarding?
I know you will do that Colonel.

401: Now if it be a fact Mr. Smith that your father indulged in the practice or practices, about which the inquiries have been made this morning of you, – is it now a fact that he would have taken special pains to conceal for you, his twelve year old son, and his ten year old son or his eleven year old son, or whatever your age was, – is it not a fact that he would have taken special pains to conceal it from you?
What is that I don’t just exactly get at what you mean?

402: Well I asked you if it is not a fact that if your father indulged in the practice or practices about which you were questioned this morning, that he would have taken especial pains to have concealed from you his ten or twelve year old son, the fact that he was indulging in those parctices?
I cannot answer that question Colonel.

403: You say you cannot answer that question?
No sir that is more than I can say, for anything I might say on that matter would be merely my opinion.

404: Well I think an opinion on that would not be out of the way?
Well when it comes to that I don’t know that I have any opinion on the subject, and all that I have to say that he would be a wise man who, indulging in that practice would keep it from his family.

405: You think it would be a wise man that would keep it from his family?
I certainly think that he would display wisdom, who practicing practices like that would keep it from his family. I would consider it an evidence of caution in him to do so that would be commendable at least as evidencing his desire to avoid trouble over the matter.

406: You think that he would be a wise man?
Yes sir, I know that if I was doing anything like that that I would try and keep it from my boys, for I would not want them to know anything of the kind, especially the elder one.

407: You would not want to let your boys know anything about it?
Certainly not.

408: Well now if your father was practicing these parctices would he not be likely to keep it from you if possible?
I have no answer to make other than I have. I know what i would do about it.

409: Well that rule of action would be equally applicable to his wife, – that is to your father’s wife, and your mother Emma Smith wouldn’t it?
Well I am only presuming in reference to this, so I will say that I presume so.

410: Well you need not make it as a presumption, – might not you state it as a fact from what you know of the shrewdness and ability of your father?
What is that?

411: I say you need not put it in the form of a presumption, for would you not state that that is the fact from what you know of the shrewdness and ability and general character of your father, – would you not say taking these things into consideration that the course you have stated as being the one you would pursue would be the one that he would follow?
I will tell you Colonel that so far as my knowledge goes, there was never anything of the kind known in the family, and I will say further that I believe that it was absolutely impossible for such things to have been without my knowledge.

412: Well I understand you have already stated that?
Yes sir, I have and that is the fact.

413: Well I will say this Mr. Smith that I have not the least doubt in the world as to your sincerity and implicit belief in what you state?
Well that is the fact, -I don’t believe there was ever such a thing dreampt of even before father’s death, and for that reason any other answer that I might give would be merely supposing a case which I am convinced never had the shadow of a foundation in fact. I cannot say what would be the action or judgment of my father in keeping it a secret. I simply state the fact that such a thing was never known in the family or even whispered or dreampt of, and what his motives were in keeping it a secret, supposing he actually practiced it, is something that I am unable to state. What might have been his methods and motives for and and of concealing it from the family, or keeping it a secret so the family would not know anything about it, I am not prepared to say, assuming of course for the same of argument, so to speak, that he had actually practice it and did keep it a secret from his family.

414: Now you have been testifying have you not with reference to your knowledge of these matters?
Yes sir, I presume I have.

514: Well don’t you know you have been Mr. Smith?
Yes sir, as far as my knowledge goes I have.

416: Yes sir, I take it so?
Yes sir, that is a fact.

417: Now what I am inquiring about is whether the presumptions are not all against your having any knowledge of these transactions?
I think not. I can’t see it in that light Colonel.

418: You think not?
Yes sir. You asked me for my presumption, and my presumption is that the absolute absence of any knowledge of that kind on the part of his family, leads me to believe that there is nothing in it, and that there is no truth in fact in it.

420: Well now assuming that he was guilty of these practices is it not a reasonable presumption that your father would have concealed it from his family?
No sir. Not under the conditions alleged, for it is charged that his wife know of it and consented to it.

421: Well viewing it in the light that there was no such a charge made, that she was privy to it, I am not proceeding upon the assumption that she was privy to it, -I am proceeding upon the assumption that she was not privy to it, and ask you if it is not the presumption that if your father was guilty of these practices, wouldn’t he have taken the necessary steps to conceal it from his family? In that connection I might say your father or any body else’s father?
Yes sir, I should think he would have done so if he was guilty.

422: And if he did do so, what he did was successful?
No sir, I don’t say that.

423: Well I say if he did do so he was successful in concealing it from his wife and family?
Yes sir, I would say that if he did do so he was successful in concealing it from his wife and family.

424: Well now that is an answer to my question?
yes sir, I hope it is.

425: And that is all you state in reference to it?
Yes sir.

426: Now is it or is it not a fact that your father had a guard there around the house during the last days of his life, -or perhaps I should say during the latter part of his life?
I never knew of any guard being stationed around the premises until after my father’s death, and know there was then when my mother was moved out of the Mansion house and lived across the road. There was a guard set there then. I know this, that the time of the attempted abduction to Missouri, there was for a few days parties on watch and in the house, but I never knew of any one being stationed around the house for what you would call a guard.

426: Then you say there was no guard?
No sir, there was no guard that I know of. There may have been individuals there watching, but I am confident there was no guard at any time only the time that I have spoken of, – that is, there was no one that was recognized by the family as men on guard. I know that it has been frequently stated that there was men on guard, but if there was at any time other than this time of the attempted abduction to Missouri, that I know nothing of it.

427: Now I would be pleased for you to answer this question, – whether your mother ever gave you directions at any time to look after your mother’s whereabouts?
Never unless she wanted him and sent me after him, and then I know I never found him any place but where he had a legitimate right to be.

428: Well did you always find him?
No sir.

429: Why not?
Well if he mounted his horse and went out in the country ten or twelve miles I could not find him. If he went out in the country on business of course I could not find him, but if he was called out of the office to administer to same one or some of the duties of his position then of course I would not find him. My father was a busy man, and there was not much of his time spent in idleness, and I don’t think he had much time other than that necessary to attend to the legitimate duties of his position. 430

429: Sometimes you say you would not find him?
Yes sir, and I never was sent for him except in proper hours either.

431: I believe, – at any rate I will ask you the question as to whether or not the re-organized church has published a biography of your father?
A biography of my father?

432: Yes sir, an auto-biography of your father and of yourself?
The office has published a book in which there is a chapter written by myself.

433: What is it about?
Something in regard to my own history.

434: And of course you maintain that is true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Yes sir, so far as I know it is true.

435: Is it or is it not a fact that you knew prior to your father’s daeth that he was charged with the practice of polygamy?
I knew nothing about it prior to his death. I simply saw it as it was stated in the Times and Seasons.

436: Well what was that?
What was called the John C. Bennett arraignment.

437: That was with reference to the charges made by John C. Bennett?
Yes sir.

438: Were you familiar also with the charges made in the Expositor?
I never saw the Expositor at that time. I never saw it until after his death. I will say that I never at any time saw but one copy of it until the time that I saw the copy that was published here last spring. I saw one, or a part of one of the original papers before that.

439: What was the substance or character of the charges that you saw in the Expositor prior to his death?
I did not see it prior to his death. I said I saw it after his death.

440: After the death of your father?
Yes sir.

441: How long after his death was it that you saw it?
Oh I could not say how long it was.

442: You can’t say when it was, only that is was after his death that you saw it?
Yes sir.

443: Was the publication that you saw made prior to his death?
I think not.

444: Where was it published?
I think it was published in that paper that was destroyed there.

445: That is the Expositor?
Yes sir.

446: Were you or were you not present at the time of the destruction of the office of the expositor?
I was not.

447: Did you hear any statements made at or about that time by your father, with reference to the destruction of the Expositor?
Did I hear any statements from him?

448: Yes sir?
I remember hearing him tell a crowd of men on the street that they had done that which would cause us trouble. That is what I heard him say.

449: How many men was there in that crowd?
There was some forty or fifty.

450: That is all the statement that you heard him make, is it, with reference to the destruction of the press?
I don’t know what it referred to. I only inferred that it referred to that from the circumstances.

451: Well what else was said in that speech that you remember?
Well you could not call it a speech, for it was not made in the form of a speech. They were on the street, these men were, and had come down the street together, and I heard him make that statement to them.

452: And you did not know what it was he referred to that would cause or make trouble?
No sir, not from anything he said, but as I have already stated, I inferred that it referred to that matter of the destruction of the office. I knew that from the excitement that prevailed there. Now that is what I thought, but it is only my belief. I might be fallible about it Colonel,-I don’t pretend to state it as a fact, but only as a conclusion of mine, which of course is liable to error.

453: I understand you to say that you knew the time and the day when the office was destroyed?
Yes sir. I knew it as a passing event though I was not present. I think there is no doubt but that was the fact, for I saw some of the type from the office that was picked up after it was destroyed. Now Col- onel, that was the way I knew it, simply as a passing event, or an event that had already occurred, although I was not present. Don’t imagine that I am defending the act, for I would not defend such an act though it was committed by anybody. It was a wrong thing to do and not defensible on any ground whatever, no matter who did it.

454: Did or did not Melissa Mott ever live there at your father’s house before his death?
Yes sir.

455: She lived there before your father’s death?
She did.

456: for how long did she live there?
For about eight or ten months. (457 is missing)

458: About what age was she at that time?
As near as I can remember she would be somewhere from eighteen to twenty two.

459: At the time she lived there she would be about somewhere from eighteen to twenty two?
Yes sir.

460: What did she do there at your father’s house?
She did some work there, – boarded there and went to school for about 10 months I think.

461: What time was it that she lived at your father’s house?
Well I believe it was pretty close towards the close of his life that she lived there.

462: Pretty well towards the close of your father’s life?
Yes sir.

463: You also stated that Lucy Walker was there at your father’s house?
Yes sir.

464: What age was Lucy Walker when she lived there?
Well she was somewhere about from fifteen to six- teen years old, – I think she was some five and a half years older than I was at the time.

465: How long did she remain there at your father’s house?
Well I could not state positively, but I should think she was there about a year and a half, or such a matter as that.

466: What house were you living in at the time she lived there, – was it the old house or the Mansion house?
Well she was with us when we lived in both houses She was there at the time we left the old house and moved into the Mansion House. I remember that she did dining room work there in the Mansion House.

467: What time did she leave your father’s house?
Well it was some little time before father’s death, – I could not say exactly as to the time, but it was some little time before father’s death.

468: At about what age was she when she left there?
She was about seventeen.

469: So that when she testified about the matters which you have been testifying here, – when she testified that these things occurred she was a girl about from sixteen to seventeen years of age?
She was about fifteen or sixteen years of age, – somewhere from that to seventeen.

470: Soon after that time she left Nauvoo, didn’t she?
No sir.

471: Well soon after your father’s death she left Nau- voo, did she not?
Yes sir, I think it was pretty soon after that. I think they left there in the spring of 1846, – that is a portion of the family and herself left.

472: Did she marry Kimball at Nauvoo?
Well I could not tell you when she married him, for I don’t know.

473: You don’t know when she married him?
No sir.

474: Did you know the Partridge girls?
Which ones, – I knew two of them.

475: Did you know Emma Partridge and Eliza Partridge?
I knew Eliza and Emily Partridge.

476: Did they live there in your father’s family?
I think they did.

477: Well do you know whether they did or not?
I think Emily did at one time, and also Eliza, but that is not so steadily in my memory as Lucy Walker.

478: Well you recollect that they lived there in your father’s house for awhile?
yes sir, I think they did.

479: Were they young ladies at the time they lived there?
Yes sir.

480: Well about how old were they if you remember?
Well Eliza was old enough to be called an old maid, and Emily was verging on twenty or twenty two or twenty three, – some where along there. I remember them very well for Emily was a very intelligent young woman, intelligent and bright and came of a good family and was in every way a very nice appearing young woman. I remember that.

481: Did Maria and Sarah Lawrence ever live there at your father’s house at any time?
Not that I know of.

482: Do you say that they never lived at your father’s house?
I say that they never did that I know, – not to say lived there, but they have visited there, and stayed there for awhile on a visit for I remember seeing them there but my recollection is that they were there simply on a visit. I knew them very well as also their step-father and brother and mother.

483: Do you know when the Lawrence people and the Partridge people left Nauvoo?
I do not. I do not know the precise time that they left there.

484: You do not know when they left there?
No sir, I don’t know whether they left there in 1845 or waited until the exodus in 1846.

485: What time did your mother leave there?
We left there on September 12th 1846.

486: Did your mother ever return there again?
Yes sir. We left on September 12th 1846 and returned there the 19th of February 1846 and returned there the 19th of February 1847.

487: How long did you live there after you returned?
My mother lived there until she died there.

488: Did she die in Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

489: I would be glad to get it in the record what time she died?
She died in April ’79 I believe. It was the last day or April ’79 that she died.

490: Was she there when the committee applied to her for the manuscript?
Yes sir, she lived there all the time, – that was her place of residence up to the time of her death. She lived there all the time from the time of my father’s death up to the time of her death, with the exception of the interval between September 12th 1846 to February 19th 1847.

491: Where did you live during the time?
I lived there until January 1866 when I moved to Plano, Illinois, and from there I moved to Lamoni where I have been located ever since, and am there now, – that is that is my home.

492: Were they not away from there a part of the time, – a few months at one time after your father’s death?
How is that, – I don’t understand that?

493: Were they not away from there at one time for a few months after your father’s death?
Only from September 1846 to February 1847.

494: They were away from Nauvoo during that time?
Yes sir.

495: Do you know where these manuscripts were during that time?
I expect I do.

496: Well do you know where it was?
She had it with her.

497: Your mother did?
Yes sir.

498: Are you sure of that?
Yes sir. I remember that she took everything with her.

499: What day did you leave Nauvoo, and how did you leave it?
We left Nauvoo on the 12th of September on the steamer “Uncle Toby” commanded by Captain Grimes. The good folks drove us from there, – they drove us out of there, and they had connon on the banks of the river, and told Captain Grimes they would blow him out of the water, or his boat out of the water I should say if he landed us there, so he could not land us there, so he landed us at another place, and we went from Nauvoo to Fulton, in Whitesides County, and went back to Nauvoo from there by team in February 1847. Captain Van Tyle who had the house rented, was at that time making arrangements to leave there, that is to leave Nauvoo, and he intended to take the furniture with him, but we dropped down on him and stopped that, and three days after we reached home we were in possession of the house.

500: That was when you came back to Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

501: Do you know whether your father was a member of or adherent of any secret societies? Any secret order of any kind?
I have so understood.

502: Well what did you understand about that?
I understood that he was a mason.

503: Well that is my opinion too, – I am not giving that as testimony though?
I think he did, for I remember one time being sent to carry a message to him, and when I got to the place where he was I found a tyler with a sword at the door.

504: Well Mr. Smith, that was not at home, was it, – any where at home?
Yes sir, it was. It was right there on his own premises.

505: Where was it?
It was in a room over the store. It was a hall that was there over the store, and in the block in which he lived. Now I don’t know whether he was a member of the Masons or not, that is of my own knowledge I don’t know it, but I have been assured by a good Mason that he was. 506 (Mistakenly listed as number 5061)

505: I understood you to say that you don’t know anything about how these things proceed?
No sir, I don’t know anything about the Masons, Knights of Pathyas, Odd Fellows or Red Men or any other society of that kind, but I understand from reading their books something about them, and I have read the expose of the Masons.

507: Where was that hall located that you speak of?
It was on the north-west corner of the block, – the same block that my father lived in, – the city block as it was called.

508: What sort of a road was there from the residence to it?
A first rate, good, hard gravel road.

509: The residence was some ways from the street was it not?
Yes sir, it was a little ways from the street.

510: Were they both in the same enclosure?
Yes sir, they were enclosed with the same fence, but the store faced flush on Water Street.

511: They were both then in the same block you say?
Yes sir.

512: And this hall was over the store?
Yes sir.

513: What means of access was there to the hall, – how did you get to it?
You went up through the store to the hall. You went into the store and went up the stairway on the inside of the building.

514: Was it your father’s store?
Yes sir. Now it is only fair to state to you that the Masons built a building called the “Masonic Hall” afterwards, and a man by the name of Helm that was Grand master of the State of Illinois, his name was on the impress of the lodge there, as being the man that organized the lodge and the building was about half a mile from my father’s residence on the main street of the town.

515: Did you, or did you not state that you were acquainted, or had some knowledge of the charges made against your father was reference to other women besides his wife?
I know nothing about it only what was in print.

516: You ascertained nothing of that kind while you were a boy at your father’s house?
No sir.

517: Nothing of the kind?
No sir.

518: Now I am not inquiring as to whether you ascertained it by sight or not, but whether you heard any charges of that kid?
Nothing only what appeared in print, -that is all I knew about it.

519: I am confining my inquiry now to the time prior to your father’s death?
I know nothing whatever about it, and have no knowledge of ever hearing anything about it at any tie prior to my father’s death.

520: I am inquiring now as to whether you head any rumors with reference to polygamy, -any rumors as between other people, -whether you heard any rumors about polygamy prior to your father’s death?
I did not.

521: You did not hear your father’s name connected with that?
No sir.

522: Nor any one else connected with the church?
No sir.

523: Did you have any knowledge as to whether polygamy was at all practiced in the church there or by any members of the church prior to your father’s death?
I have not.

524: What do you know, if any thing at all, about its being practiced there at Nauvoo after your father’s death?
I know only by hearsay.

525: What is that
I know only from what they said about it.

526: You know only from what they said about it?
Yes sir, what they said, and from taking cognizance of what transpired. I remember that I heard plenty of rumors after his death, especially in the fall of 1845 and spring of 1846 when they were getting ready to go west.

527: That is when you herd it?
Yes sir, that is when I hear most about it.

528: Was William Smith connected with these rumors in any way?
I think so.

529: Do you know whether he was or not?
I say I think he was.

530: Was Heber C. Kimball also connected with these rumors?
Yes sir.

531: Was Orson Pratt?
No sir, I never head Orson Pratt’s name mentioned.

532: Was Willard Richards?
No sir, not that I know of.

533: You did not hear his name mentioned in that connection?
No sir, not that I remember of now.

534: Was Mr. Page?
John?

535: Yes sir?
No sir, I don’t think that John E. Page was ever connected with it in any way. I don’t think that his name was in any way at any time ever connected with these rumors. If his name was ever connected with them I don’t remember about it now.

536: Did you ever make any investigation with reference to these rumors surrounding any of these parties I have mentioned, with reference to ascertaining their truth or falsity?
I did not a the time though I afterward became cognizant of circumstances that satisfied me in regard to it.

537: Well what was the result of your investigation with reference to William Smith?
I never made any inquires in regard to it.

538: Did you not write to Jason Briggs upon the subject of the charges of that sort against William Smith, and did you not get a letter in reply, -did you not get a letter in reply to your letter?
I will say that I don’t remember writing to Jason W> Briggs in regard to it. I don’t remember anything about my writing to him, but i recollect of his writing in regard to some conduct of William Smith’s that was said to have taken place at Binghamton near Amboy, but what the nature of the correspondence was I would not hardly dare to say now, for I can’t remember la about it, but that was the effect of it.

539: Do you say you never wrote to Jason W. Briggs upon the subject of William Smith’s connection with polygamy, and asking him for documents upon the subject or any other testimony with reference to the at charge against William B. Smith?
I say I don’t remember what it was. I remember that I had a correspondence with Jason Briggs, but what the nature of it was I would not say. Jason Briggs I believe is still living and so is William Smith.

540: That is all.