| Show more ilore STRONG EVIDENCE ii 0 little kittle FIELD MAKES mares ANOTHER reply TO 10 JOSEPH fi brith bilth mr joseph smith lamoni iowa sir your latest comma communication ni cation catlon though a long one contains contat ni but few points that have not been considered and tomy to my mind satisfactorily facto rily disposed or of it reminds me ota ofa of a Ja lawyers special plea in the ingenuity with which it dar keneth counrel count el by words without know inow ledge 11 I 1 shall not attempt to reply to your paragraphs seriatim sefa seia balim tim but will simply take up those that seem to require from the manner in which they are presented a patel passing tig consideration you claim that adam noah nosh and lehi were each the husbands of but one wile wife we grant that wo we cannot prove from the Scrip scriptures tarea turea that they had bad more than on but we wa can prove that men equally beloved and favored of god and bearing mast important comm lEsions to mankind did observe the law of plural m marriage ari and further that the nord lord never rebuked or found fault with them because of this practice yo you U mention the dispensation of lebi lehi p as 8 being mon in ln contradistinction wo refer to the parallel work commena commenced eed ced by the founders of the Jare Jarell gite to art kation ion lou who were vero volna voina I 1 1 I 1 mists goi made the tho polygamist abraham timm tino tather father of ha peculiar 6 chosen people and gave him a p pron ro fa mise miso that in him and hla hia sead seed should all the families of the tho earth be blessed he called the mist moses mosea to be its great leader leaden leac ferand lenand and lawgiver when he made israel a nation he conTe conversed teed rEed with both these men face to face and never a word is to be found of condemnation from his divine divino lips lipa because they had more than one wire wife in fact in the law of moses he polygamy by express regulations regulation 4 think of it yo ye who oppose polygamy lyof of god regulating bin hin by what an out outrage ragel what an abdur in one of hia his laws hwe ho he saye baye if a man have two wives one aee beloved and another hated bated and they have tonno borno him children both the beloved and tha tho hated and ff the brat bornton born son be hers that was hated bated I 1 rhen rhon it ft shall tw be when he mabeth hia his sons to inherit thad hal which he ha hath thau that he be baynot may nou not make makke the eon eoa ot of the beloved firstborn first born before the son bon ot of the hated bated wh ch la Is indeed the first born but ha shail shall acknowledge the donovi th the hated bated for the firstborn first born by giving hm ham aw a y double portion of alt ait that he be hath bath for he is the of his bis strength the right of tho the firstborn first born rs is hig big god would noi not no make a distinction with regard to polygamist it la Is re 1 served for fon you to hav bas e the quett question lon ion f able honor of doing thia this thing I 1 mittit go on tiling up example to example of holy men of god loci his chosen eer her who practiced athla lw law but it la Is nu necessary unnecessary as aa you must be with these in a al aa T well weli ell eli as aalam I 1 am but I 1 ven tare the that thai 1 can duce duee a domn doan where it can ca be directly pro gen fen that the isorda favored had more than one wife to every ons ona whom you cana positively demoa to have been polygamy Poly gomy was waa the ru rule lenot nod not the exception c in ancient anci ancl tnt israel 7 in your rea rel reference to lamech you sou so word you sentence as to convey the idea that hp ho waa was a murderer bo be cause causa he was waa a polygamist lat it if this was not the intent why mention T him at all or why mix up ua 9 bloodguilt inces and his hla po lygum but you know better ane the translation ot of the holy scriptures leh ieh if ed by jou ayou you individually being one of the Publik publishing hIng Co cocca jom mCA mittet gives gevea the true reason reabon andal and aad you are well aware it had nothing 1 to do with polygamy and now i ask what about cale caie the first murt murl mur murt l T derei why not ascribe cribe the tha bloody death of ablo abio to plural it would be quite as aa consistent aa some bome of your other reasoning just t as well make polygamy rest responsible for the death 0 abla ele tit by P for that of lamecha victim or would it 16 not be ba ai a good re moning reasoning to ascribe it to monogamy monog amy I 1 think EO indeed one american writ erand he not a mormon argues that f such wa was the case that monogamy was directly answerable answer nula aula for and crime 0 you strongly urge that goj would be a changeable being if the law of celestial marriage emanated from him I 1 cannot admit it your reasoning la 13 imperfect godbay god haa given such lawa laws to his people foi fon J their gul guld jance nce as aa were best beat adapted to cheif their circumstances re he ha has fed them with milk or strong food as aa aai nai 1 they were abe abie to receive restive it the savior in bis bia bermon sermon on the mount contrasts the law ol of the old and new dispensations god gad chang or of in the spirit of these if IB ruc rua tiona tlona jebus jesus amongst other otner thinka on that occa 1 slon sion said ye have heard thai that it huth buth beau baid said an at eye ere for an eyo eso and a tooth for lor a 4 tooth but j I 1 I 1 s tay a unto you louy abat yo deslat not evil bugs duts bug but whosoever shail shall smite emite on oa thy right hek turn to him the othor othon also yo ye have hame heard hoard that it bath been bald said thou rhou ahalt shall leve reve thy neighbor aud hate hato thine enemy but I 1 bay say unto 3 jou you out lovo dovo your enemies bieu biess them thom that curse you da rood good to them thac thau hate bate you IOU and pray mor fon them which despie T fully use j ou aud pergo perso cute cuto yeu do theeb teachings ebow any du in the great creator Cre you would scarcely casert asseri such a thing yet euch would woul 1 bo be the result of the position taken by you yoa neither do his instructions to debrent erent people i at Terent di ditT erent frent times under different lerent dlf circa instances regarding the tho law of cf marriage make any change in him che rho eternal principle Js is not chang ed simply more ct cr legs leaa la Is revealed as m tho the people are prepared for it leu led me also cito cite you to the jorj of tho the lord to ell EH iligo priest of 01 1 drao brao thi lord gos go of israel batth salib 1 I wd indeed abat thy house and tho the house of thy I ither rither thoad walk before me forever but now the tha lord lond batih batth be it tar far from nie me for them thom that homr mo me I 1 wiil wih honor and th thit despise me shill be esteem eB teemed e pl debold the osy aay hae ome eme me that test 1 I tid kid wid out cut air 01 thine arm army and the arm aren of thy home bouse that there shall not bo be an old man la iri thine houie bouso there Is a at parallel be teon teen this tipra of A tho iho lord to to the hoube house of EH ell and that regarding p plurality lural rural of which came to th the a people ople opie of lehl leni both were given be because cause of the abbee of gods law but nat in the latter case there to la the remarkable provision pyo pro n for tor it I 1 will saith gaith the tho lord lard ot of hoek hosts galm ralea up seed eed unto me I 1 will aul command my people opie ople otherwise they bhail shau hearken to thebo thebe khing thing do you mr smith mean moan to tell the world that god would uso ubo pol poi polygamy Y as a means to raise up a seed unto him if it were the abomination tianyou you yon represent yet th thib this ispas pas sage dage can mean nothing else than that for good and sufficient reasons for the time being monogamy ny was to bo be the law unto the Nep hites hiter but when goda people wore were sur suj sufficiently advanced in the laws of life and the principles of heaven then the other clemand would be given for the express purpose of raising up a holy beed reed unto him until that higher law was given the Nep hites were to observe the mono gamio law jaw if this is not BO whit lithe value of the expression otherwise they ishall hearken to thoe things furthermore I 1 lam iam am of the opinion that I 1 can draw stronger indirect pro proof orom from the book of mormon that the tho jaw of plural marriage was revealed to and practiced by the no philes in later yearb years than you can to the contrary you claim I 1 have done the very thing for shadowed by jacob when I 1 refer to what is written in the scriptures concerning david you ini int mistake stake the latter day saints do not ground their faith in the divinity of the law of celestial marriage marring e on anything baid said to or done by david wo we bate it on the word of the lord to your martyred marty red father but if wo we wished to appeal to gods holy word regarding those mens mons men mon we should be ba doing nothing inconsistent or unlawful or be in any wise acting as did the Neph Nep hites ites itea of jacobs day they sough bought tto to excuse them selnea in committing commuting whore whoredom doin dorn B because of the things which were written concerning david and solomon hib his son bon we havo have no excuses to make for whore doms we well know that the lord god deligh teth in the chastity of women 1 and n no 0 people in the world prize thib thle virtue BO glo highly aa vla we do or are as severe upon the adulterer and whoremonger nor can we find in the handed down to us any excuses for this grievous sin therefore tho the remarks of jacob cannot have reference to 10 any people who act as aa we do we ve simply appeal to gods word tur tor support for obeying gods goda law jaw it appears to me that your espres sion slon fortunes of war on which your argument binges regarding the wives of C baul baui that were given to david is ia a very inapt end and un fortun ate one david did not succeed baul baui asking as king of israel by war or conquest but by the holy anointing put upon him by Samu elthe eithe prophet of god gud he was wat no alien conqueror who drove the Israelit elsh eish ruler from his throne but a youth of one of Is rael foremost tribes who succeeded to fo the kingly state by and he thin nothing but what god bestowed upon him bim kinn king dom power wives leopla were all given him of heaven god sayche gave david thebo theeo wives vives you yoa argue to the contrary it Is ia you and the lord lond for it I 1 prefer to believe him whose word Is truth and again let iet me ask what means bhe ahe lords statements to david after telling him that he had given him his masters house wives etc if that had been too little I 1 would moreover have given unto thee such and such things according to your construction it would be nece necessary wary to have raised up another king unto israel and then have david conquer him and take his wives or have permitted him by the fortunes of war to rob the monarchs mons rohe rohs of other ianda lends of their famille families 3 such a construction st cllon is preposterous but the only escape I 1 perceive out of the difficulty created by your unwillingness to accept the word of god as it is written let leamo me also ask you what you are ara going to do rubout the Ig lords portion of the captive women which were given by hla nia command to certain persons mentioned in the thirty first chapter of numbers if polygamy be an abomination thia this is a very strange proceeding on his part F urther further you contend that david did not noi re belve his wives by the same methods as the elders of israel do today to day hta hia his is another of your mistakes id fd received his wives through and other servants of god into this thia 9 f israel have rec received elved doseph your oather tather this ministry there Is not a shadow of difference dime diXe rence between the two examples david received lis nib wives as aa we receive ours or as righteous young king of israel received his hia from the hands of Je holada jehoiada gods goda high priest that Is the way it if you yon are wise walk yo ye in it and remember when you speak bf plural marriage us as a crime a bin against uddo god an abominations and much eite elee that is evil you become a of the scriptures and are reviling that which when observed according wco aco to gods goda jaw has always had nis his HI a approval and never from genesis to Bo revelation from nepal to moroni is there a word of condemnation of its practice ej only of its ita abuse when degraded and prostituted prostitutes as monogamy also frequently is to gratify the passions of men not to raise seed to the biord lord are aro we to receive Jehova hs word or yours youre are we to believe his plain and direct statement that ho gave david the bitell wires of saul or are we to give creden credence ceto to your feeble sophis sophistries tries trieb regarding the fortunes of a war that never took place S baul baui aul was fighting the philistines not david when he was killed hilled if anyone was entitled to his wives according to the practice which you yon assert it was the king ot of that people not the man whom god had bad anointed as sauls successor the law of celestial marriage is not for the world but for gods godas people all others are axe governed by the usages of the civilization in which they dwellie dwell be it or but without Jehova hs sanction Is not celest celestial Is marriage the world Is constantly confounding the two 11 systems the essence and virtue of celestial marriage is that it extends beyond the veil into the eternal world other I 1 marriage single or plural is 13 of no force or binding power in the gret great hereafter it is not recognized there because not per performed formea formed by heavens authority herein is the difference re ce and all polygamy such as aa that deni dent ed by your father illicit in intercourse tere purse unlawful connections or eions are as aa repugnant nt to the gospel now and w worthy orthy of our condemns cond emna tion today to day as aa when ed by joseph and hyrum smith and deni den by I 1 ed by president john taylor xa let t me also remind you that the article on marriage that formerly appeared in the append appendix tz to th the book of doctrine and covenants and which you misuse so BO largely in your argument menta is not a revelation from flom god it does not come with thus fabb a tb the lord and has none of ita its bind ing force at any ra rate to I 1 presume you will not argue that the lord was bound by it neither was his church even if your cons truo truc tion be cr correct after a revelation had bad been given which modified its declarations it if there be a hidden meaning in it then it la Is simply on a par with the policy which caused abraham to bay eay of earah sarah on certain perilous occasions bhe is my bister sister 11 you yon take strong ground with regard to submitting the moe revelations of god to the various quorums of the priesthood for acceptance there were many revelations given to your father ol of which you yon kno kuo know w nothing nor were they ever sub isted to any but bat those whom they concerned they were no llo less jeb leb the word and will of the lord tor for all that but in the case cabe 0 of the revelation on celestial it was submitted by your father to the quorum of the twelve apostles and waa was accepted by tho the members of that quorum of that we have abundant testimony it was waa abo aba aso submitted to the high council at nauvoo and accepted by that body though three of its members individually indis rejected it on oa thia thib point poin t we have the testimony and affidavits ot of members of the council who were present on the occasions occasion one of whom elder thomas grover still lives la in utah ufah and he can be cro cross crosb s a examined if you wish to do so T the he |
