Show ANOTHER LETTER FROM MR JOSEPH SMITH t ewas ewaa KIGHT RIGHT HE SHOWS AT THAT chat HE was WAS vian wrong gl lamoni 10 lowa lown wa I 1 1 oct 1883 ed editor desrea news you have been kind enough to publish and notice a letter from me will you publish tho the following that part of my non nonsense senses which beems beema to have stirred you the most is that I 1 do not admit that god cany cans can ean losy lony or has given the law called by you the revelation on plural marriage because to do so eo would be to be chargeable you write we deny it god does not change because he adapts his hia lawsto laws jaws to our oun clia cila changing laging conditions to nil nii our citations proving that god has always acte acted u on this principle principles mr smith ays not a word he is silent on tha the lord lords s own declaration in the doc trine and covenants which he professes to believe in 1 I the lord 3 command and revoke as it me goad 11 the revelation from which you quote shows the reason for th the a making of the declaration and that Is if a command be given to a people and that people are prevented by their enemies then it behoove th the nord lord to require that work no more at their handl handi s were you prevented by your enemies from carrying carr sing jing out the law of and was waa that prevention the he cause of tho the revocation of the law of gf 1831 and the tho giving of th the a so bo called re revelation of ot 1843 before ore OTC you can avail yourself of the statement that god adapts hla his laws to the changing conditions of hib his people you will need to by something more than thau an arber abber assertion that the conditions of the church in 1843 hid had changed from what whitt they were in 1831 1631 moreover you will neol to show change had occurred as made the law ot of 1831 inapplicable the citations you have ninde made from the scrip tures tares show this necessity the tho jaw of camual cama commandments command menta ments v I 1 under the mosaic economy was not compatible with the tha gospel economy the charge made by the prophet was that thai the people 61 changed the ordinance and broe broo iho tho everthia covenant s thib this ig 19 also charged jn in the argument 0 of the apostle A I 1 paul la in hia his fetter fetler r to onre Olle the hebrews brews the condition 0 of the veople people changed belore before the do lugo and that condition was one of di disregard ato f toabe the law of their creation the deluge deloge and destruction resulted the condl condi condition tiou tion of the people changed before moms moses and the carnal law and the condition re suited bulted in statutes and commandments that were not good I 1 in n each of these important changes I 1 in D the conditions of the veople people there was transgression in e esch ach the changed condition was one of disregard forthe for the law which had b bien been baen ien aen given them for their continued control and guidance in the change brorn from the tho law of christ the change of the priesthood upon apon which you lay jay eo much stress was but a restoration of what had been had in the beginning before transgression had wrought the changed condition of the people after christ came again a departure depa arture from the goabel thia thit forced again a 9 chang change ab of t he the condition and that was again a condition of transgression and corrupt corruptness nesa nefa the defor lations mat ions ione and the restoration of the gospel by the angel to man through joseph smith wab was a reinstating of thu tho original gospel the 9 everlasting gopel gospel there was no creating cr eating tating a new nev priesthood but a re committing of power to act in christs christ a name in gospel ordinance the same thing ii observable in the book of mormon history lebi lehi was waa led out from the midat midst of a corrupt people to him wag given no new jaw but an old one wid wis was revived the people forgot and dare gadded it corruption ensued the old law was reaffirmed the changed condition of tho the people did not clen cleb affect the lord to change the ruie rule of action mong them thom chedid he did not in either caso casa that of chrit lehl lehi or joseph smith adapt his law to tho the condition of the tho people ex es capt to provide a rule by which welch they might forsake their condition of eln bin falness and disregard for the jaw which had bad been originally given them and return to him in each and every one of these cheso dispensations there is no evidence that god made any attempt to adapt adopt the law of marriage to suit the conditions of the people but bat gave gavett the low laty to adapt t the lle ile people to the conditions of righteous neg nek of liro lire to which he proposed to lead them it would be far more consistent in you yon as an advocate ate for sno 0 o radical a change from the law given of god bod in so many instances as aa cited by me to one so opposite in its nature as its the one you now claim to govern in the marriage relation to show wherein the condition of the people had changed to warrant the change in the law rather than to indulge in epithets charging me with puerility and childishness in my statements and arguments mr littlefield in his hla issi last publish ed letter ietter repents repeats his question whether h I 1 am not convinced that my oather rather taught and practiced polygamy thia thio question I 1 answered respectfully and sent the reply to the utah journal for in insertion e r t I 1 on this reply t to 0 the published au question estion la Is returned to F a number of 01 r me declined I 1 gave plain rea rem reasons gong for my answer answers w which aich of course will not now appear it the ques question tion at isue was wab as you yon have stated it and the object was to get me on your record and my statements and ments were or of such a puerile nature how muhl much could your case have been injured by them and how much stronger might not that case have been bad your elde bide printed my weak re p alv X but butr mr editor permit me ma to say bay that an adage once onee trite among latter day saints 5 truth can lose nothing by examination 1 is aa n not 13 t forgotten by me and as aa I 1 have waited for vindication I 1 still bide in my y times time contented with the ruie rule of him who death all things well yours respectfully 9 0 josepn JOSEPH JOSE PH SMITH |