REVELATION.

Another charge is that the Presidents of the Church have not

received the revelations of the Lord which have been given to the

"Reorganization" through their president. The charge is false. The

Presidents of the Church from the Prophet Joseph until now have

received revelations from the Lord for the guidance of His people.

While all these revelations have not been placed in the Doctrine and

Covenants, they are none the less true. Not all the revelations given

to Joseph the Seer were placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in his

day, we have added many of his revelations to that volume since his

death; and there are others that have not been placed in it. Some of

them were for the Church and _not for the world_, and, therefore, are

given only to the Saints. But many revelations have been given to

the Church since the death of Joseph Smith, some of these have been

published, some have not. It has been my privilege to read and handle

a number of them that are still in the manuscript and have not as yet

been given to the world for a wise purpose in the Lord. But they are on

file and will be preserved.

A short time ago a number of Elders visited Lamoni and held meetings

there. The following issue of the Saints' Herald contained an

editorial, not very dignified, ridiculing them. It was written by the

associate editor. In part he said:

"It may be urged that these are young and inexperienced men. But

the dearth of spiritual power is not confined to these young men.

Joseph F. Smith, who is supposed to be a 'Prophet, seer, and

revelator,' when before the Senate Committee was asked by Senator

Dubois, 'Have you received any individual revelations yourself,

since you became president of the Church under your own definition,

even, of a revelation?'

"To this he replied, 'I cannot say that I have.'

"A moment later he added, 'Well, I can say this: That if I live as

I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of

the impressions of the Spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time,

_just as any good Methodist or any other church member might be_.'

"This seems to be in line with the experiences of his predecessors,

Snow, Woodruff, Taylor, and Young, who also posed as 'revelators,'

for during a period of over sixty years they have received nothing

professing to be a revelation, that was thought worthy of a place

in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants." (Elbert A. Smith, _Saints'

Herald_, 56:681).

This slurring presumption counts for naught, for the editor of the

_Herald_ knows nothing pertaining to the revelations we have received,

or what we think of them. Nor is he fair to President Joseph F. Smith

in this quotation from the record of the investigation, for it does not

convey the belief or knowledge, or the true expression of President

Smith, and was purposely misapplied, which a careful reading of his

testimony will show.

To presume to speak in the name of the Lord is a serious matter, and

woe be to the man who speaks in the name of the Lord when he has not

been commanded. It is far better never to receive a revelation than

to follow after those who receive "revelations" that the Lord has not

given. The "revelations" given by the Reorganite president to the

"Reorganized" Church, need only to be read to convince one of their

spurious character. They are weak, puerile, and it takes a very little

of the spirit of discernment to know what source they are of. However,

if they are acceptable to the "Reorganization," that is their business.

We are satisfied.

But the people who lack in discernment may be deceived through the

pretenses of men and accept for facts and revelations that which the

Lord has not commanded. If there are any who are honestly deceived

pertaining to the revelations of this man who presumes to be the

"President of the High Priesthood" and "the mouthpiece of God," we will

respectfully call their attention to one or two items in his pretended

revelations.

This is from section 116, "revelation" given May 4, 1865:

"Be not hasty in ordaining men of the negro race to offices in my

church, for verily I say unto you, All are not acceptable unto me

as servants, nevertheless I will that all may be saved, but every

man in his own order, and there are some who are chosen instruments

to be ministers to their own race. Be ye content, I the Lord have

spoken it."

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the Saints that the negroes could not

hold the Priesthood, for the Lord had cursed them as pertaining to the

Priesthood. This is supported by the revelation in the Book of Abraham,

which was translated by the Prophet. It reads:

"Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the

eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the

manner of government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

"Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged

his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly

to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first

generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even the

reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with

the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but

_cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood_. Now, Pharaoh being of

the lineage by which _he could not have the right of Priesthood_,

notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through

Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry." (Book of

Abraham 1:25-27).

The Lord did not tell Abraham that the children of Ham were cursed as

pertaining to the Priesthood, and then command Joseph Smith of the

"Reorganization" to be slow in ordaining them. In the "Reorganized"

Church they have a few, at least, of the negro race, that they have

"ordained to the priesthood" but it is contrary to the word of God.

This Reorganite revelation is spurious.

Here is an extract from another:

"The quorum of twelve, my servants, may choose and appoint one of

their number to take the place of my servant Alexander H. Smith,

and _if they shall choose William H. Kelley_, from among them

for this place, _it will be pleasing unto me_; NEVERTHELESS, IF

_directed by the spirit of revelation_ and _wisdom_ they _may

choose another_." (Sec. 124:3).

Can any sane man believe that the Lord gave this "revelation?" Did He

not know His mind and will, was not _His_ the "spirit of revelation and

wisdom?" or was there a disagreement on the point between the Lord and

the Holy Spirit?

Other extracts might be given from these alleged "revelations" showing

their inconsistency, but this will suffice. I have not given these in

the spirit of ridicule, but for the purpose of opening the eyes of

the blind that they might see, and seeing understand. Let our friends

straighten out a few things of this kind among themselves, then they

can the better attack us on the point of revelation.

At this point I desire to consider another matter. At the Salt Lake

Conference, held March 19, 1905, not long after the return of President

Joseph F. Smith from the investigation in Washington, he addressed the

Saints on the subject of revelation. In the course of his remarks, he

referred to his testimony and said:

"Now, with reference to the principle and doctrine of revelation,

it may be proper for me to say a few words on this subject while

I am on my feet. For me to say, which was the very end that my

critics and inquisitors were endeavoring to get me to say, in order

that I might be led into that trap which they had made for me, to

say that God had given to me a revelation upon some new doctrine,

or theory, or principle, or precept, or anything to be written,

to be observed, or handed down as a guide to the Church, would

have been untrue. I could not have said that, for He has not done

this. But has God revealed to me His mind and His will? Has He made

manifest to me a knowledge of His truth by and through the Spirit

of revelation? Did you ever hear of my denying that? No; no man has

ever heard me deny that.

"When I was baptized as a little child, right up here at the

junction of East Temple and North Temple streets, where City Creek

then ran, but where it is now covered and obliterated--when I was

baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints, God

Almighty revealed to me that I had done an act which He approved;

I received then and there a revelation from Almighty God, that

has been with me like a well of living water, springing up into

everlasting life in me, which has been a stay and a staff to me in

all my daily walks, at home and abroad. God revealed to me that

Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, that his message was divine,

that he was raised up by the power of the Almighty to lay the

foundation of this great latter-day work. The Lord has revealed to

me the truth that he sealed his testimony with his blood, that he

was true to the end, as was the Son of God, true until he cried,

'It is enough!' upon the cross. The Lord has revealed to me in

terms that are unmistakable and that are undeniable, that Brigham

Young succeeded lawfully and divinely to the Presidency of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the will of the

Almighty. I would not be without that revelation for all the gold

and wealth of the world. The Lord revealed to me in terms that

cannot be mistaken, by me at least, that John Taylor was inspired

of the Lord and was a Prophet of God, and was the lawful and divine

successor in the Priesthood and Presidency of the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints, to Brigham Young. The Lord revealed

to me that Wilford Woodruff lawfully and divinely succeeded John

Taylor, that Lorenzo Snow lawfully and divinely followed Wilford

Woodruff. I leave to you to say whether the Lord willed, and

whether it is lawful and right, that I should be in the position in

which God has suffered me to be placed. * *

"The Lord Almighty has revealed to me many things for my own

guidance, to assist me in the discharge of my duty, as an elder in

the Church, as a high priest in the Church, as an apostle, one of

the twelve apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints. And I fervently believe that God has manifested to me in

my present capacity, many glorious things, many principles and

oftentimes much more wisdom than is inherent in myself; and I

believe He will continue to do so as long as I am receptive, as

long as I am in a position to hear when He speaks, to listen when

He calls, and to receive when He gives to me that which He desires."

These remarks were taken up, twisted, and falsified by a Salt Lake

newspaper, which is so characterless and vile that it is without an

equal, and sent out into the world as a press dispatch, declaring

that President Joseph F. Smith had in the Tabernacle confessed that

he had lied before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections,

in relation to the subject of revelation when he was a witness before

said committee. They made it appear in their dispatch that he had

stated in Washington that he had not received any revelation, and in

the Tabernacle he declared that that was false for he had received many

of them. He testified in Washington as he testified in the Tabernacle,

that he had received revelation, as this will show:

Mr. Tayler: Did Joseph Smith contend that always there was a

visible appearance of the Almighty or of an angel?

Mr. Smith. No, sir: he did not.

Mr. Tayler. How otherwise did he claim to receive revelations?

Mr. Smith. By the Spirit of the Lord.

Mr. Tayler. And in that way, such revelations _as you have

received_, you have had them?

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. (Investigation, Vol. 1: 100).

Without waiting to verify this falsehood circulated from an unspeakable

source in Salt Lake City, the President of the "Reorganization," as

editor of the _Saints' Herald_ took up the hue and cry with evident

great pleasure and wrote an editorial consigning President Joseph F.

Smith to perdition as a perjurer in the following words:

"_Who Make and Love a Lie_."

"If President Joseph F. Smith has stated in public what it is

currently reported he has, that in the statements made by him

when a witness before the Senatorial Committee, whose sittings

for inquiry have lately been finished, the report of which in

regard to the unseating of Senator Smoot is awaited, he testified

to that which was not true, he has done an unfortunate and unwise

thing. There may have been some moral bravery in doing as he did

in stating that he was breaking the law of the State, the law of

the United States, and the law of God by continuing to live with

his five wives; and such boldness may have made some admirers of

the President of the Utah Church; but, when that president publicly

states that he lied when he gave his evidence before the Senatorial

Committee, those who may have admired him for his avowal of his

guilt will not, cannot admire him as a confessed perjurer. It may

be said that President Joseph F. Smith did not make oath to what

was false, as he was not sworn, that is, no judicial oath was

administered to him, but, when a witness chooses to affirm that

privilege is granted by the courts; the form of the affirmation is

much like this: 'I do solemnly affirm, subject to the pains and

penalties of perjury, that the testimony I shall give in the case

now pending * * * shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

but the truth.' If President Joseph F. Smith faced the committee

on such an affirmation, and gave false testimony, can it be called

anything but perjury? We think not.

"We were surprised when he testified as he did; we now are more

surprised to learn that he has said that he affirmed what was not

true. What can honorable men in or out of the Church think of such

a man? What reliance can be placed on what such a man declares?

If he sought by falsehood to avoid falling into a "trap" set for

him before the committee, by confessing that he did so falsify, he

has assuredly fallen into a more open and dangerous one." (Saints'

Herald, Vol. 52:314-315).

Immediately after this editorial appeared in the _Saints' Herald_ the

attention of the editor, Joseph Smith, was called to the fact that it

was based on a falsehood. Among others who requested him to correct

the wrong and injustice he had inflicted on his people as well as on

President Smith, was the writer, who immediately forwarded a protest

with a clipping from a non-"Mormon" Utah paper correcting the false

report. Others wrote to him on the same subject, but no satisfactory

correction was ever made. This was very unchristianlike conduct; surely

not the part of a prophet of the Lord! It is true, that in a later

editorial he quoted a portion of the remarks of President Joseph F.

Smith delivered at that conference, but without apology or correction

for bearing false witness. This is the comment following the brief

extract he saw fit to give:

"We give these extracts from President Joseph F. Smith's talk on

the afternoon of March 19, 1905, on the subject of revelation, as

they contain the statements on which the charge is based that he

contradicted and denied what he testified to before the Territorial

(Investigation) Committee, offering no comment upon them, leaving

those who read them to judge of them without the bias of an

expression from us."

Surely his sense of fairness after making such an accusation, should

have demanded of him more than this.

The following letter, which, under the circumstances, is worthy of

producing, was forwarded to him also requesting that justice be done,

but it was ignored absolutely:

"Salt Lake City, April 5, 1905.

"_Joseph Smith, Esq_.,

"_Editor, 'The Saints' Herald,'_

"_Lamoni, Iowa_.

"My Dear Sir:

"I was very greatly surprised to notice in the issue of the

'Herald' of March 29, 1905, your editorial entitled, 'Who Make

and Love a Lie.' I am surprised because of the plainly implied

accusation that President Joseph F. Smith is a maker and lover

of lies. I am surprised because of the unfairness of the article

referred to which will take for granted the statement of a

man's bitterest foe and place that statement before his people,

commenting upon it as if it were an admitted fact, without one

word of explanation from the person so wickedly accused, or a

single effort to present both sides. I am surprised because such an

article appears in a periodical which is the organ of a religious

organization claiming to have sprung out of the work founded by the

great prophet who, 'came up through much tribulation,' and who was

misrepresented through all his days upon the earth.

"I am surprised that a man whose early years were spent in the

sorrows and privations incident to the persecutions suffered by

a father whose whole life was spent in sorrow and affliction,

in consequence of the false testimony borne against him and the

constant misrepresentation of his mission, should allow himself to

pass judgment upon another before hearing his defense, and finding

him guilty of 'an unfortunate and unwise thing,' forgetting the

wise proverb, 'He who judgeth a matter before he heareth it, is not

wise.'

"It is true, the article begins with the expression--'_If_President

Joseph F. Smith has stated in public,' etc., etc., but the

remainder of the article clearly assumes that it is sure that

he _did_ so state, as note: "but, when the President publicly

states that he lied when he gave his evidence,' * * * those who

(previously) admired him. * * * * cannot admire him as a confessed

perjurer.

"President Joseph F. Smith has never stated in public nor in

private that he lied when he gave his evidence or at any other

time, and he is not a confessed, nor any other kind of a perjurer,

and I must repeat that I am surprised that any man claiming to be

fair, and to be an example of truthfulness, should follow in the

steps of men who indeed 'love and make lies,' as you well know.

"Does it occur to you that there is anything in the nature of

_loving_ a lie when a person repeats the lies of others and takes

pleasure in assuming the false accusations are true?--or that

there is anything in the nature of '_making_ a lie' when a person

takes the lying testimony of a man's foes and places it before his

people without giving them the opportunity of judging the matter by

knowing both sides?

"It was by such specious falsehoods that the life of the Prophet

Joseph was repeatedly placed in danger. It was by such false

testimony that the Son of Man was condemned by the Priests, the

Rabbis, the Scribes and the Pharisees.

"You ask, 'What can honorable men, in or out of the Church, think

of such a man?'

"Let me say in reply to your question:--honorable men and men of

wisdom, who love the truth, in or out of the Church, seek to know

the truth before joining with the rabble in the cry, 'Crucify him!

Crucify him!' and such men, who know the facts, and who love not a

lie, but love the truth and the Lord its maker, honor and revere

the man whom your article so subtly defames. They know him to be

an upright, true, pure, honorable man, whose simple life has been

before his people all his days, whose heart is true, whose tongue

is true, whose courage is undaunted, whose faith is unshaken, and

who is, in all respects, worthy of the love, confidence and support

of the people of the living God.

"In order that you may not fall under the dreadful charge of

'Loving and Making a Lie,' will you publish, for the information of

the readers of the 'Herald,' the other side of this matter if it is

furnished you?

"It is not my habit to take up matters of this kind, and if these

accusations had been made against myself, I should never have

noticed them, but knowing what a great injustice your article

does to a good and noble man--my true friend and brother--I felt

impelled to call your attention to it, in the hope that your sense

of fairness would cause you to do simple justice, and not join in

the hue and cry of those who 'Make and Love a Lie.'"

"Yours truly,

"THOMAS HULL."

He failed absolutely, when the evidence was furnished him, to justly,

honorably, make the matter right. There is some degree of commendation

due the man who maligns another if he is willing to make amends, and

we can honor a man who will correct an error when he discovers that

fact and is willing to make full satisfaction; but little respect can

be had for one who, after wronging another, will not attempt to right

it when he learns he is wrong. Abraham Lincoln said in his debate with

Douglas, that there was a _moral rule_, "That persons who tell what

they do not know to be true, falsify as much as those who knowingly

tell falsehoods." We leave the matter in the hand of a Just Judge, who

will judge all men according to their works.