| Show LETTER FROM josefh JOSEPH sels seis SMITH 1 OF IOWA editor deseret we news in your issue for august ath la in az an editorial upon joseph smith and celestial marriage marriages which I 1 propose to examine and as you yon have chosen to supplement mr ii 0 Little littie fleWs reply which you deemed to he be ample to co crus crul crush ah me and my view you ought in the name of justice and truth which you pretend to love to permit me to place my statement before your readers it is ia not well known to your church that joseph joeeph smith taught and practised practiced plural marriage it cannot be and for the simple simplest of reason it was 99 taught seer beer secretly etly and practised practiced 11 secretly 34 it was known if at all to but few brig barn young so stated august 1852 and so states mr littlefield either they mistake or you yon do if mr littlefield was put or put him seit forward as the one to call out the leader ot of the josephite move ment mr testimony Is better than yours youre for whatever he may know on the subject subjects your testimony Is ia only hear hearsay bays saYs as 88 personally you yon know nothing about it it was not necessary that ii 0 LI littlefield should put out a letter for the purpose of getting me upon record on the point in question for 1 have been on record for twenty Y years yearb mrs wre and ho he will be a fortunate man in this controversy who can naine name latime time or place that I 1 have said or done that which would contradict the record the charging ot joseph smith the martyr with deceit hypocrisy and cowardice Is ia not my work wort and elder L 0 littlefield and you mr editor know that I 1 have denied hib bib being the human author of the doctrine of plura piara plurality lity of wives and the revelation which is ia claimed for its sanction upon the ground that he was not a deceiver was not a hypocrite and was not a aowad and for the reason that god gad way not a deceiver was not a hypocrite was not a changeable being I 1 have and do deny that he was the divine author of the revelation and the doctrine the tenor of your editorial is ia to defend against a charge of changeability on goda part said to have been made by me before you can truthfully say that I 1 have in any sense charged god with having changed you must first show that the revelation on which you yon predicate celestial marriage is from god this thia you cannot do should it be proved that joseph joeeph smith taught and practiced plural wit lifery eiry elry it does not prove that the doctrine ia 18 of god but simply proves what joseph smith did and if he be thus taught and practiced before the revelation was be did so eo without warrant and contrary to the law then prevalent you make him to be the sinner when you thus charge him I 1 deny ing his integrity besides this if you prove that joseph smith did go BO teach and practice before the cevela t tion ion was to be known to the people you throw strong upon e character of the evidence that he gave touching the divinity of the revelation because it takes on the nature of an export ex pott facto law and therefore to be received with great cnut caution lon ion if you are so anxious that the truth should be told why are you so willing to set me before your readers falsely Is not the fact tact that I 1 seem to oppose what wient my father taught and condemn what it is as seated he lle practiced enough in itself without that position being falsified by you I 1 have quoted the language of the books blohs the cormons mormons say eay they believe in regard to the character of 0 god for changeability and cited the argument the elders wertz wont ito to use the stand I 1 have taken 1 ia against the men who by the claim they make for acts and teaching make my father a man of duplicity and cowardice and it Is because I 1 am not willing to admit that he was thib this I 1 have hav e given as a reason for my stand against those men has bias blas or prejudice nothing to do with ith you or your fellows mr editor when yoh yoa you present and defend plurality of wives before you charge me with quibbling you will do well to get rid of the evasions remor resorted ted to destroy the force of the statement made by jacob truly david and solomon had many wives and concubines 3 which thing was abominable before me saith balth the lord there is not a line in jacobs charge that shows that it was for taking wives without gods goda command but was for having them at all where in the revelation on plural marriage la Is any commandment that it 8 should hould be kept hept secret why did joseph joaeph and hyrum publicly declare that the marriage law published in the doctrine and covenants of 1834 was the only one in the ova ola church why did john taylor dothe same thing in 1850 where la Is the word of the lord telling brigham young that the time august 1853 was the time when the revelation should be declared to the world what change took place in the conditions under which the church existed from 1831 to 1843 that warranted a change in the laws a we of marriage in that church it Is not shown that at that time there thera was any intention on the part of joseph and hyrum to remove beyond the jurisdiction of the monog amio amic laws of the states there has been no change in those laws hence no change in the conditions created by them under which the church existed there Ther ewas was no material change in the conditions in regard to such laws until the people were vere removed into a territory where there was no state ution if then the revelation was dependent upon conditions of that character it would have been more consistent to have waited until buch sueh removal had taken place before the revelation was given the fact that the ro revelation was wag given before such removal if given at all is evidence against any claim that the conditions resulting i from such removal make the cevela i tion valid there bisno Is no evidence on record that joseph smith ever advocated in public speech article or published letter the doctrine of plural marriage celestial marriage or polygamy if there is and the janews can produce it it will go farther towards convicting me of opposing doctrines advocated by him than any amount of calling nie mie me bad names and telling what an unworthy bon son I 1 lam iam am and pray prey tell us mr editor upon what does any kanj man the editor of the news mews for instance predicate his hib opposition to men or doctrines doctrine if not upon antipathies antipa thies and convictions I 1 have hava given can good reasons for my antipathy against the doctrine of plural wives and also for my nay convictions which are as strong as aa holy writ the friends of the doctrine have given me no reasons why I 1 should change my convictions nor has the accepted history of its workings made it lovely in my eyes that I 1 might have sympathy for it I 1 feel that in one bensa sensa I 1 have a warrant to permit my antipathy to bias my action it is found in revelations elat ions 2 15 so hast hnat thou riso aiso them that hold the doctrine of the which thing I 1 hafe hate not one of the quotations you yon make from the doctrine and covenants authorized the keeping of that plum plural littlefield wrote that t g because of the prejudices of the brethren and j the persecution he well knew he would have to meef mee meo he delayed to make it known it Is mr little littie field who charged cowardice on joeeph joseph my father and not I 1 JOSEPH buith SMITH lamoni lowa iowa august 1883 1683 |
