| Show reply erny TO MR sie sll SMITHS SC WE publish today to day a letter received from joseph smith ol of lamon iowa lowa purporting to be a reply to an edit editorial arial in the which appeared in our daffy daily issue of 11 auguar lib and ana the bemi weekly ol of august ath mr air smith smiths s letter should be examined before this thib article is read reference to the editorial in ques tion alon shows shoat J that we considered the position taken by brother lyman 0 littlefield in his correspondence with mr smith which we reproduced from the columns columna of the utah journal nour TOur rais nals giving both sides aides of the controversy had been established beyond reasonable doubt namely that joseph joeeph smith the prophet both bolh taught and practiced practised the system of plural plura marriage which has become one 0 of the permanent institutions of this church we gave reasons for this conclusion and stated that there was no dispute about the fact among the saints in utah mr smith argues that the church cannot know that his father taught and practiced practised plural P lural marriage marr marn lage jage because it was taught secretly and that mr testimony Js ia better than ours oura bemuse because ours is only hearsay 11 does he mean to say that no one can know of a thing that he has not seen Is ie it trae true that it is ia impossible for anyone any one to know that joseph smith the prophet taught plural marriage without having heard him teach it how then does doea he be know that his bis father received visits from the angel who revealed the gospel that he translated the book of mormon was ministered to by peter reter james and john and other ancient worthless worthies and that he accomplished the great work entrusted to him by the almighty did mr smith see his father receive these manifestations I 1 did he hear the angels in hia his father can he testify to an es ese eye a or ear knowledge of anything in his hib fathers history do not thousands who never saw the prophet bear witness that they know joseph smith received the gospel from the angel spoken of in revelations xiv 6 67 j Is their testimony of no value because they were not bleat with hia hla acquaintance can mr sn smith ath be a lawyer and not nut know better than to use ube s such ch logic does he not know that there is such a city as melbourne in australia without having seen it has he ever looked down the crater of vesuvius and yet does doea he not know that it exists and sometimes belches forth fire can not a jury reach a sure gure and definite conclusion without a shadow of doubt from evidence without baing being eye oye witness to a single oc cc currence or being cognizant cognisant of a single fact connected with the case la Is knowledge never arrived at except through seeing and hearing tiie tile thing or person whose existence exie exit tence is to be known this church has among its leaders many men to whom the prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage and aud who entered into its practice under hia hta directions and his personal ders onal administration of the ceremony we vo have been familiar for many years with ladies who claim to have been married to the prophet joseph and many others who testify that he sealed them to their husbands as plural wives we W 0 have the affidavits of both men and women woman to these and other facts is proving that joseph the prophet Prop hec both taught and practiced practised plural marriage A number of these affidavits were published in the DESERET elenix EVENING M NEWS bews of oct 1879 the ladles ladies and gentlemen re referred ferrea to 0 o are known to no DC in all things re liable labie they are worthy latter day saints living their religion and devoted to the truth and to the mission bion sion and memory of the martyred marty red baer added to countless evidences from nauvoo saints male and female in ale aie who were familiar with the facts we have the testimony of a host that they know by the bame esme spirit and in the same way by which aney know the first principles of the gospel are true that the revelation on celestial marriage was given by the lord to joseph smith and that it is true and tor ton the exaltation of those who receive it in thio tile spirit thereof if ibis it Is possible poa sible for people who ne never haw saw joseph the prophet to know that ho he received the gospel from the angel it is equally possible for them to know thae thai he received the revelation on celestial marriage without ever seeing him or hearing him speak mr smiths logio would nullify his own testimony concerning the divine mission of nis lils father and ancl exclude all knowledge of anything in heaven or on earth but that which the eye has been seen or the ear has heard if mr testimony is better than ours and we have not pretended to the contrary therefore remark is it must be because he was an eye witness to the fact under dispute and this should bettle bettie the controversy if he was not personally cognizant zint of the fact his testimony is no better than ours it his testimony is ia better than ours it is because he was wag so BO cognizant and thus the fact is established when mr smith attempts to be hypercritical he should usie uee more caution his logic amounts to a practical admission of the point in dispute As to the matter of record we have mr smith now on our record where we can refer to his state statements menti and sophistries sophis tries when we so desire and having him there unequivocally we all know just where he stands stand that Is ia the value of his letters lettera in response to mr littlefield his attempt to shift t the charge of hypocrisy and cowardice against his father and of the same thin things ga as well as changeability against god gods from his own lips to ours or mr lit tie tle fields felds cannot be ba properly char acted zed in kind language was there ever greater impudence or plainer falsehood he denied a certain fact alleged by mr that is that his father taught and practiced practised plural marriage and he went on to say that if etwas true it proved his father was waa a hypocrite a deceiver and that if he taught t in secret it was because he was afraid he said further 1 I am not so eo particularly strenuous to assert my fathers innocence he may have been guilty I 1 prefer not to believe it but if ho he was wall I 1 shall not evade the issue nor my duty as I 1 know it because of that guilt speaking of the power conferred upon one man in the revelation on celestial marriage he declared it offers to such a man an eunity and an inducement to prostitute hla his prophetic prop hetio character to greed love of power and the lust just of the flechl nesb that may not be resisted joseph smith may not long have been free from such influences and it is possible that the eleven months that he exercised it if your theory is a true one witnessed his corruption in regard to the almighty and his right to give a different law at a late date to one given at a former period he remarked I 1 admit gods power to change I 1 do not admit his right to change his law without reserving to myself the right to declare him ch changeable ge against the teachings oln oan of hib hia own word I 1 do not hollm bellm that god goa has the right night to lie ile I 1 do not believe that jesus christ his son has the right to lie ile I 1 docot do not believe that either has the right to bay say tha tono thing la Is heavens law in 1831 and that another and contrary thing is heavens law in 1843 now observe that all these epithets and charges are his none non of them aro are made or admitted by bro littlefield field or the deseret NEWS we do not entertain the idea for a moment that there was any guilt hypocrisy cowardice or duplicity in inthe the prophets teaching and practice of plural marriage nor any changeableness in the almighty in riving giving onslaw one law atone time and a different law at another time the charges aro are mr smith smiths Is the language Is ia his no one but he has applied it to hia father or to the great eternal father the evidences are buch such that we are positively certain of the facts claimed ed and he maintains that if they are true his hla father was guilty and god is changeable wo deny that his charges are correct and he bo tries to make us responsible for them and the shameful language he used against his father and against the almighty we proved by copious quotations from the bible bibie and doctrine and covenants that Godat various times has changed his laws to bult buit the conditions of his people lust just exactly as aa he did in regard to the marriage law he commanded tho the Nep hites to have no more than one wife but at the same time intimated to them that in a certain contingency he would command them otherwise in the rise of this church only one wife was permitted but afterwards the lord revealed through his servant joseph the tho law under which his servants eor hen vanta should marry more wives than one mr smith insists that this makes god a changeable being we deny it god does not change because he adapts his laws to changing conditions to all 0 our ur citations citation proving that god hag hay always acted on this principle mr smith bays baya not a word he ia silent on tile lords own declaration in the doctrine and covenants which he professes to believe in 1 I the lord command and revoke as it me good II 11 according to bla his theory the bible the book of mormon and the doctrine Dac trine and covenants all make mabe god a chang changeable eabe being the fault is not in the books but in mr smith smiths a extremely foolish and highly blasche I 1 notion an I 1 expressions the mosaic code wab was the law of god at one time and at another and later dato date dutoit it was waa in many important respects entirely changed paul in hebrews vii vil v 12 says for the priesthood being changed there is ia made of necea necessity eity elty a change also of the law circumcision was commanded of god at one time but paul said eaid if ye be circumcised christ shall 11 1 1 profit you yon nothing jesus himself told the Nap hites and yo ye shall oner up unto me no more the shedding of blood yea yes your Bacri skeri and nud your burnt offer ings inge shall be done away 21 iii nephi ix 19 lg yet the law of Moses which jesus said he revealed required such sacrifices now bear bean mr smith 1 I do not nat believe that either god Godor or jesus christ his bon eon hal has the right to say that one thing la Is heaven heavens Is law in 1831 and that another and contrary thing Is heavens law jaw in 1843 1813 11 that is the difference between mr smiths smitha views and of paul the savior and this church will mr smith say bay that it is paul and jesus that make god a changeable being or will he bee see his error and confess it if god can cau change his law so BO that what was heavens law up to the time jesus went into the ministry was not heaven heavens a law jaw when he began to preach pre ach the gospel and yet not bo be a changeable being then thence he can give one law in 1831 and another and different diu din erent law in 1813 and not be a changeable being As we showed in the article that mr smith pretends to review but about a part of which he merely quibbles god does not change in hla his nature or essence because ho llo changes his requirements mr smith does not attempt to rebut the charge of quibbling but abka aska us to get rid of evasions resorted to in regard to the saying of jacob about david divid and solomon we are not aware of any such evasions who has resorted to them he does not say let net us look at the matter a little in jacobs discourse to the Nep Nephi hites tesy tess reference is made to things done by david and solomon which were an abomination before the lord the bible 1 I rings kings I 1 xv 6 5 hays david did that who which I 1 h w was waa as rg right I 1 h t in the eyes ol 01 ot 1 the tho lord and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life save bave only in the matter of urlah uriah the hittite here is an apparent discrepancy between the book of mormon and the bible the revelation on celes caes marriage makes the matter clear A it shows that david solomon and other servants ber eer vanta of god who had wives and concubines sinned only in those things which they received not of god david sinned only in the case casu of urlah uriah and his hla wife take scrip ture with scripture revelation ro with revelation and everything is ia plain except to those who do not wish to sees preter see lee and who like mr smith prefer not to belove behove the questions asked by mr smith in regard to keeping the revelation on celestial Morri corriage marriage age secret for a time have been au answered vered repeatedly until the due time of the lord came to make public him hia word and law tha the old oid rule and law prevailed and none other was known in the church john taylor did no t make any specific statement anthe matter in 1850 nor say what has been bien attributed to him by mr smith this also has been clearly explained the change in the conditions about which mr smith makes further quibbles were in the people to whom the lile law was given they were not prepared to receive the greater law before it was revealed even hven then it was only explained to those thom who it was considered were able to bear it joseph the beer seer declared publicly at the very time of its manifestation that it if he were to tell what god had revealed to him some who professed to be his beav beat friends would beok sech his lifo life joseph prom proceeded eded on the rule that god gave as early as 1830 to keep heep from the world those thom things which it was not wise to declare and give milk to thole those who were not able to bear meat lest iest jest they perish I doc doe doc doe and cov bee bec six 2122 21 22 As to the doctrine of the nicolai tans that thal was in favor of acom a community of or having all wives in common which is as hateful to us as to the lorland Lor dand is as far from tho the sacred doctrine of plural marriage as debauch debauchery ery eny Is from per feet chastity mr smiths childish remark about an law which has no illo bearing on the question is too frivolous Iriv olous to notice and it if he will take the trouble to read acad carefully our advice to him about antipathies antipa thies and convictions he will see that his remarks and query are entirely out of place As he wishes to know it blas bias or prejudice has nothing to do with our oar defense of plurality of wives we say we it has hab not anything to do with it our oar bias and prejudice like those of the tha apostles and leading elders to whom joseph the seer ecer taught that doctrine were through tre altion rend dind early training mg opposed to it our advocacy then comes through thorough conviction of its truth and di vinay vindy in spite of former bias and prejudice but if we were led by bias bles or prejudice that would not justify mr f mith smith 3 in giving way to it and shutting abutting his eyes to evidence that no ed mind could resist we are well aware that whether joseph smith did or did not teach and practice plurality of wives that does not settle the question of he the divine origin of the doctrine but that wat wab the tha point of controversy on which all the correspondence has turned and upon which charges of wilful falsehood and deception have been made by mr smith against president young president taylor and other men of god it was therefore a propst thing that this question should be put right before the tha public although it la Is not a matter of doubt among the members of this church who are as well satisfied fled fied that the revelation on celestial marriage cama camb from god through joseph smith the prophets tas th eyare that he received the plates from the angel adgel moroni and translated them by the tha gift and power of god and |
