Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Priesthood, 1890.” You can view other years here.
Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.
PRIESTHOOD, 1890.
1890: ca. 1890: Call for missionaries from the Seventies.
SEVENTIES COUNCIL ROOMS.
Nos. 512 and 513 Constitution Building,
Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah, _________189___
To the Presidents of the ________ Quorum of Seventies:
Dear Brethren:–I am directed by the First Council of Seventies to ask you to select from the members of your quorum _____ good, faithful brethren who you consider worthy and qualified for missionary service.
After you have canvassed your quorum and selected the names of the men you think most suitable for missionary labor, you should present their names to the Bishop of the Ward where they reside, that he may certify to their standing in the Church, and their general worthiness. So many of the brethren as are considered worthy by yourselves and their Bishops should then be personally consulted by your Council and their feelings ascertained as to their willingness and ability to go on a mission if called. But they should not be approached in relation to the matter until it is ascertained from a personal interview with their Bishop that nothing stands in the way of their going on the score of unworthiness. Having by this process found the number we have called for, you will forward their names to this office, being careful to state their names in full, together with their ages, nationality, what languages they can speak, and their post office address. Each name forwarded should also be endorsed by the Bishop where the brother resides, and also by the President of the Stake.
The First Council expect you to carefully carry out these instructions and use discretion in the selection of names to fill this call, as we shall expect every one whose name you send to this office to be prepared to go on his mission when called; but the brethren should make no definite arrangements about leaving home until notified by letter from the President of the Church.
Very truly your brother,
/s/ John M. Whitaker
General Secretary.” (Levi Edgar Young Papers, Utah State Historical Society, B12, Box 8, Fd 12, John M. Whitaker to the Presidents of the ___Quorum of Seventies, undated)
12 Jan.: Don’t leave anything out when dedicating bldg.
[Wanship, Utah] “At 2 p.m. meeting again was held and after singing a hymn Bro. Seymour B. Young (as it was E. R. Young, Sr’s. wish that he should do so) offered the dedicatory prayer; after doing so, however, I called his attention to the fact that he failed to dedicate the new books for the stand and the sacramental service. He therefore made another prayer for these.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 12 Jan., 1890)
15 Jan.: “The Judiciary of the Church.”
“Simple and inexpensive though the processes of the Church judicature may be, they are based upon the precedents of the past. ‘First be reconciled to thy brother,’ ‘Let not the sun go down on thy wrath,’ ring in the ears of him who has offended his brother. These simple precedents, need no calf hide to cover them, yet how effectively they point to the proper action to be pursued for the adjustment of wrong committed!
The primary rule of gospel jurisprudence is to try the reconciliation ‘between him and thee alone;’ if that fails, the kind offices of the teacher are then available. (See Doc. and Cov. Sec. 20, verses 53, 54, 55.) In this office there exists the grandest opportunities for men to distinguish themselves and add lustre to their names, if in this position of mediator and the grand office of peacemaker, they have power to heal the cruel wounds in the hearts of their brethren and reconcile them again.
Upon the failure of brethren to settle a matter in dispute between them, it is the duty of either of them to visit the other, taking with him the teacher, or the teachers of both parties may be present, whose duty and high privilege it is to act as mediators and peacemakers. They are not a court in any sense of the word, they hear not testimony, they have no judicial or executive power in the least, but they have a grander, higher privilege: that of the persuader to right, the peacemaker. In this position, humble though it may generally be esteemed, lie opportunities for the play of a power born of a knowledge of human nature, and of the rights of society springing from a love of one’s kind.
I once heard it advanced as an objection against a High Councillor occupying his seat that he held the position of presiding teacher of the ward in which he resided; to which the president of the High Council responded, that in his opinion, the Elder in question would win more lustre in the position of teacher and reconciler of the brethren than in helping to render a decision binding its observance with a penalty. [Note the tendency to punish failure to abide by the counsel of the court, rather than to punish the original sin.]
There is much of truth in this idea, for in the performance of a right act, under the force of an attached penalty (no matter how gently or forcibly that power exerts its influence) the free will and the free exercise of the mind are more or less intruded upon.
When members of the Church pass by the teacher, and his humble efforts fail to work a reconciliation, they then, in their approach to a judicial court, surrender the presidency over their own actions into the hands of others; for the next recourse is to the Bishop and his counselors, who sit as a judicial court to try the case at issue on a formal written complaint or charge.
Now the disputed question becomes a matter of public record, and in its publicity there grows up in the minds of the parties litigant a more severe strain and mental conflict for the maintenance of their individual rights, real or imaginary as the case may be.
In regard to the presentment of the charge there is no disgrace to the innocent in seeking their rights; by so doing they make no surrender either of their own judgment or presidency in the settlement they seek to obtain. The courts of the Church are established for the maintenance of the rights of its individual members, and while it may inflict pain on the worthy brother to bring his erring neighbor before a tribunal of the Church, it becomes his duty so to do, not only for his own protection, but for the protection of others against the evil conduct of him who might continue on in his course of injustice and crime.
And, again, while it is the teacher’s duty to see that no hardness exists in the Church, the preferring of the charge against the erring brother for the wrong done another is not their duty, but that of the aggrieved member, for unless he fully and freely forgives the offense in his brother, and a reconciliation takes place, hardness of heart would exist, beyond a doubt, between the parties; which new phase of wrong it would be the duty of the teacher to correct or charge each party with before the Bishop’s court, and not the original wrong which endangered the hard feelings existing between them; which action, however, would of course bring the original dispute before the court for settlement.
In offenses partaking of the nature of drunkenness in which the offender sins against the peace and dignity of a neighborhood, it is the duty of the teacher to take the initiative, and if in his judgment the offender needs so severe a check, he should at once charge him with unchristianlike conduct before the Bishop’s court in order to maintain the purity of the Church.
The Bishop’s court is composed of the Bishop and two high priests (his counselors). A written complaint or charge having been forwarded to the Bishop (who, after having ascertained that the teachers have exhausted their kind offices,) he appoints a time for hearing the case, of which the parties interested are informed.
Upon the day named the Bishop and his counselors, attended by the clerk of the ward, meet at the appointed place and, having ascertained that all parties are present and ready for the investigation, the proceedings are then entered upon and the court opened by prayer.
The complaint or charge is read by the clerk, to which the defendant pleads. The testimony of the witnesses is then heard–the plaintiff’s first, then the defendant’s; after the testimony is all rendered, the accuser is given an opportunity to make remarks pertinent to the case; the accused is then heard in self-defense.
The Bishop’s counselors then in turn speak on the case and are expected to review it and throw all the light upon it they can in plainness and simplicity, that the Bishop, aided by their views and his own wisdom, may grasp all the varied aspects of the case, and thus render a decision that shall comprehensively cover the equities of the case. The extreme penalty by which the obedience to the decisions of this court may be secured is excommunication.
The power of the Bishop’s court to excommunicate is limited to lay members and bearers of the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, for he sits as a common judge under the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood only. Therefore, he can only disfellowship those erring members of his ward who bear the higher or Melchisedek Priesthood; reporting them to the High Council, a higher court composed of High Priests who, after consideration of the written reports of the Bishop’s court, and finding the conditions demand their action, they then pronounce the delinquent member and bearer of the High Priesthood excommunicated.
Appeal lies from the Bishop’s court to this court known as the High Council, which exists in every properly organized Stake of Zion. It is composed of the presidency of the Stake and twelve other High Priests chosen for the purpose. These fifteen men comprise a court of appeal. They have no original jurisdiction unless it should be in some matter of importance in which great interests are involved, when by consent of the Bishop in whose ward the defendant may reside and the High Council, also agreement of the parties in dispute, cases may have original hearing before that body, without having been first heard by a Bishop’s court.
The conduct of the High Council is as follows: The president sits at the head of the hall with his counselors on his right and left. The twelve High Councillors are arranged on the right and left of the room according to the numbers they have drawn by lot, the even numbers on one side, the odd numbers on the other.
The president, when the council have assembled to try the case, first ascertains if all the parties involved are present and ready for the hearing; if such is the case, the council is opened by prayer. The question of the number of speakers to be heard on the case is then taken under consideration and decided upon. If the case is considered a difficult one a larger number of speakers may be heard on each side, but in no case shall more than three speakers be allowed on each side. These speakers are of the twelve High Councillors who act in this position in turn or in regular order.
The even numbered speakers watch the case on behalf of the accused and prevent insult or injury to him or his cause; while the odd numbers look to the interests of the accuser. The parties litigant are accommodated with seats by their respective speakers, who are more immediately placed at their service, still on no case may the councillors of either side fail to show up or draw forth the truth irrespective of the interests of either party.
The clerk of the council then reads the papers pertaining to the case, as heard in the Bishop’s court. These papers or minutes should contain the names of the parties in dispute, a copy of the charge, the answer thereto, the names of the witnesses heard, also a brief account of the testimony of each witness, containing those portions of testimony most pertinent to the case, and the decision.
The case is then proceeded with. The charge is read to the accused, who then makes answer. The witnesses of the accuser are then heard and are allowed to make a direct statement of what they know in the matter, after which they are first questioned by the councillors of the even numbers for the accused, afterwards by those of the odd numbers for the accuser.
Then the witnesses of the accused give their evidence in the same manner, are first questioned by the councillors of the odd numbers, then by the even numbered councillors. After the evidence has been heard from the witnesses of both sides, the councillors or speakers of the accused, standing in their alloted places, review the case, in accordance with the light of truth and the intelligence they possess with partiality to either side. They are followed in turn by the speakers for the accuser, who speak also governed by the motive that the truth may be established.
The accuser and accused then are given an opportunity to explain themselves and cause to the council, followed by a review of the case from each of the president’s counselors; at the conclusion of their remarks the president, after making allusions to the case as he may deem proper, renders the decision according to the understanding which he has of the case, and then calls upon the twelve councillors to make manifest by the uplifted hands whether they sustain the decision rendered by him or not.
But should the remaining councillors who have not spoken, or any one of them, after hearing the evidences and pleadings impartially, discover an error in the decision of the president, they can manifest it, and the case shall have a rehearing. And if, after a careful rehearing, any additional light is thrown upon the case, the decision shall be allowed accordingly. But in case no additional light is given the first decision shall stand, the majority of the council having power to determine the same.
There lies still an appeal from the High Council to the First Presidency of the Church, and although the council of the Twelve Apostles under the direction of the First Presidency have heard a few cases, appealed to them from the High Councils of the Stakes, it is oftener the practice for the Presidency to return the papers of appeal and case to the High Council from which they emanated, with instructions to give the party appealing a rehearing; particularly instructing close attention to the points upon which the appellant might base his claims for appeal, additional testimony, etc.
On the failure of the accused to present himself at the appointed time set for the hearing of the charge against him, he is held for contempt of court, and cited to appear and show cause why he should not be so adjudged. If the accused does not appear and show cause to the satisfaction of either of the courts to whom contempt is shown, they may take such action as they deem wise in the matter, even to the excommunication of the offender. The same proviso in the case of the High Priesthood governs the Bishop’s courts, also in their action in contempt cases. In matters which are accessible by the laws of the land for adjustment, as pertaining to property rights, it is the rule that these courts of the Church should first be resorted to by members of the Church, and if the erring brother fails to respond to the decision, then, and not until then, may the plaintiff proceed against his brother by the law–then he is at full liberty to recover his rights by the aid of the law of the land.
Paul said in his day to the members of the Church of Christ: ‘Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust and not before the Saints?’ From this we must conclude there were organized courts for settlement of disputes between the Church members in Paul’s day.
Again, in 1683, the First Assembly in Pennsylvania arranged for three peacemakers in each county to arbitrate difficulties and prevent lawsuits, (see Early History America, page 505).The processes of Church jurisprudence of the Latter-day Saints are not at variance with Constitutional law or the action of the judiciary of the land, it matters not what may be said by those who have not studied the rules of our Church government in regard to the charge of our Church rule superseding the laws of the land. Such is not the case, nor the teachings of the Church or its doctrine; for the Doctrine and Covenants expressly commands that the murderer, the robber, the thief and the liar shall be delivered up to the law of the land.
And again, pertaining to property rights, there is no collision with statute law in the rendition of the mode of settlement of either Bishop’s court of High Council, for it is well known that such adjustment as they may make has no binding effect unless the parties to the controversy should go before the proper court–either probate or district–and there have record made of their action in the matter, which, although arrived at by a court of arbitration for and in their behalf, becomes their individual agreement and disposition of the case, if they so choose to adopt it. Thus the sovereignty of the law of the land is not impaired or treated with contempt by the Church government, but is supported.
The form of the record of trials as observed by some High Councils is as follows:
The name of the parties litigant.
The charge in full.
The answer thereto in full.
The names of the witnesses.
The decision in full.
Space is left for briefly recording the ultimate of the case whether the provisions of the decision were fulfilled, or other final disposition by excommunication, etc. The papers and testimony of each case may be preserved for a certain length of time, placed in a large envelope, filed and numbered, to correspond with the number of the case as recorded in the record book.
The final disposition of a case may be the earlier known by the decision bearing in its text a definite time for the performance of the requirements of the decision, and thus wisely counteract indefinite delay and procrastination by the party or parties at fault.
There is a consideration which, in all fairness to the common judge (the Bishop), should exist for his support and protection, seeing he comes in such close contact with the people in his temporal duties. This is that a charge cannot be heard against him only before the Presidency of the Church, all in accord with the provisions contained in verse 22 of section 68, which reads: ‘And, again, no Bishop or High Priest who shall be set apart for the ministry (the Bishops) shall be tried or condemned for any crime save it be before the First Presidency of the Church.’
The writer was present at the trial of a Bishop of Utah county, some years back, at which Prest. Brigham Young presided at the investigation. Several of the Apostles wre with him, sitting in conjunction with the High Council of Utah Stake. Some three days were occupied in the trial.
Since then the Bishops have increased in great numbers, and the area of territory over which they preside has greatly extended even beyond the bounds of Utah and is still extending. Therefore, modification of this rule, in accord with its spirit, may prevail, to allow one or more of the Apostles being detailed by the President of the Church to sit with the High Councils in such cases; or the High Council may hear the case by the appointment of the First Presidency.
The individuals comprising the members of these several courts receive no compensation for their services in sitting on cases in dispute between the members of the Church. In the early settlement of Utah, before party feeling had acquired its present power and influence, in many instances Gentile merchants submitted their cases for settlement to the decisions of the High Council of the Church, so much were they held in respect as a medium for obtaining a just and equitable settlement.
From the manner of the organization of these courts the freedom from the hope of gain in the men comprising these several bodies, it would seem the most direct and simple method of obtaining justice upon any question that might arise between men which they, through their opposite views, were not capable of deciding.
Boards of arbitration have ere now been found of great value in settling questions of great national importance between various nations of the earth. An appeal to reason, to justice and equity, is far better than the appeal to arms with all its destructive hell-born force.
Paul’s simplicity (?), for so some of us call it today (by our acts), was not so named by the Saints with whom he labored in those early days, but the simple souls accepted his teachings. Nor was William Penn counted an old ‘fogie’ for assenting to the action of peacemakers, whose duty it was to save the expense of lawsuits among the people of Pennsylvania. The Latter-day Saints today, together with Paul and William Penn, may not be admired for their simplicity, but their modes of obtaining justice, if followed today, would make our school houses larger, and our court houses less.” (Albert Jones, “The Judiciary of the Church,” JI 25(2-4):36, 69-71, 105-106; 15 Jan., 1 Feb., 15 Feb., 1890)
1 Feb.: Training of young men in the Aaronic Priesthood.
“President Angus M. Cannon regretted to say that there were very many young and efficient brethren (those who would be a great help and support to their Bishops) who were still unordained to any office in the lesser Priesthood, notwithstanding the counsels and instructions given on this subject. Young men should be called and trained to work in the harness and not be left to roam the streets and hills idling their time away. The reason that some of them are not active workers in the Priesthood and able assistants in the cuse of God is because of neglect in many instances on the part of those whose duty it is to look after this class. The Bishops have been asked time after time to bring these in and teach them what was required at their hands. We have neglected our duties in some particulars, and the Lord will hold us amenable for it. A resolution was passed by the High Council some time since to the effect that the Bishops of the Stake use great diligence in training the youth of Israel in the duties of the Lesser Priesthood; all that can be ordained to the Priesthood should be ordained, and in recommending such to receive the Melchesedek Priesthood evidence of their worthiness for their promotion should be fully considered. Gather the young in and teach them how they can obtain salvation and make themselves useful.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake monthly priesthood meeting of 1 Feb., 1890; DW 40(7):228, 8 Feb., 1890)
1 Feb.: Can sisters preside at Primary?
“A question regarding the right of sisters presiding at the Primary Association was submitted.
President [Angus M.] Cannon answered by saying that the sisters certainly had the right to preside at these meetings on all and every occasion, and that they should not be interfered with in this respect by any one of the brethren as long as they were doing good and teaching correct principles. He had never heard anything from them but this. He did not assume to preside at these meetings when he had visited them and did not think that other Elders had. He favored ward primary conferences being held, as this question was also asked, and remarked that the sisters should be encouraged in every good work.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake monthly priesthood meeting of 1 Feb., 1890; DW 40(7):228, 8 Feb., 1890)
23 Feb.: God told me I would be an Apostle.
“It seems to me there never was a time that I as an individual felt more the need of the guidance and help of the Almighty than I do in these days. It is a very responsible station for a man to stand as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, to stand as one upon whom the responsibility rests of counseling the people, of directing them and of imparting to them such instructions as are needed by them; and I naturally shrink from this responsibility. I never did desire prominence among men. The Lord revealed to me when I was quite young that I at some time would be an Apostle. I never told it to any human being; but on more than one occasion I have gone out and besought the Lord to choose some one else, and to relieve me of that responsibility. I have besought Him earnestly, time and again, that if I could only get my salvation and exaltation without being called to that high and holy responsibility, I would much rather He would choose some other person.” (Discourse in the Tabernacle, 23 Feb., 1890; DW 40(12):377, 15 Mar., 1890)
1 Mar.: Elders’ recommends not approved.
“President Angus M. Cannon remarked that it had come to his knowledge that the Presidency of Elders’ quorums were issuing recommends to brethren moving from one place to another, after the manner in which the Bishops of wards gave notes of standing to members. He did not understand how this practice of recommending Elders was brought about. The late President John Taylor had expressed his view on this question when it was brought before him, which was that when men were ordained Elders they should receive a certificate of their ordination, and that this entitled them to recognition wherever they went, in connection with the Bishop’s note of standing. A Bishop’s note of standing or recommend was all that was necessary to transfer a member of the Church from one place to another, and this rule should not be departed from. Where brethren have not received their certificates of ordination they should obtain them, and the presidents of quorums should see that they are issued. The presidents of the quorums in this Stake will please see to this and furnish every Elder with his certificate. It is reported that young men come to the Priesthood meeting and are recommended to be ordained Elders who afterwards neglect their duties, such as attending quorum meetings and otherwise magnifying their office. Any person thus guilty of omission is a covenant breaker, and should be labored with in a spirit of kindness. Efforts should be made to save them, but if they prove incorrigible they should be cited before the Bishop’s court and dealt with as the law of the Church directs. Men who are guilty of wrong doing are not worthy of our fellowship.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake monthly priesthood meeting, 1 Mar., 1890; DW 40(11):366, 8 Mar., 1890)
2 Mar.: Home Missionaries.
“[115 Home missionaries were sustained during the Stake Conference.] [President Angus M. Cannon speaking.] This is a large Stake, there being forty-four wards in it and we therefore require a large corps of home missionaries, which we have.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake Conference, 2 Mar., 1890; DW 40(11):364, 8 Mar., 1890)
2 Mar.: 44 wards in Salt Lake Stake.
“[President Angus M. Cannon speaking.] This is a large Stake, there being forty-four wards in it and we therefore require a large corps of home missionaries, which we have.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake Conference, 2 Mar., 1890; DW 40(11):364, 8 Mar., 1890)
2 Mar.: Negligence of Bishops in ward teaching.
“[President Angus M. Cannon speaking.] The organization of the wards should be complete and kept in thorough working order, the Priests and Teachers doing their duty to see that the Saints are instructed and that no iniquity exists. I do not remember when I was last visited by a teacher, it is so long since. I wish Bishops who are short of help in that line would call to their assistance some of the young men who are growing up in their midst and who are liable if not called into service in the Church to fall into evil habits. I wish also the Bishops to see that the transgressors in their wards are dealt with, and that those who are found unworthy of a standing are severed from the Church. I regret to see a disposition on the part of many of the Saints to barter away their possessions. Think of the scenes through which the people have passed before being led to this land, and of the marvelous manner in which the Lord has blessed this country for the sake of his people, and then ask yourselves if they are justified in selling their heritages. When I think of the tendency in this direction which is being manifested I am reminded of the prodigal son who plead with his father to give him his portion and, having obtained it, squandered it in riotous living, and then returned to his father, famished and naked and humbled. Some might feel to ask now, as did the faithful son mentioned in the parable, why it is that those who have sold their possessions, engaged in riotous living, and disobeyed counsel, are still fellowshipped and sustained, as if their acts had always been worthy; but they might be answered as was the prodigal’s brother. ‘All that I have is thine.’ The leniency shown the prodigals, would not detract from the glorious reward in store for the faithful. Let us repress the scandals which are being circulated in our midst and purge out iniquity from our midst. Bishops, trim up your Wards. Presidents of quorums, labor with your members who are slack in regard to their duties, that they may be led to reform, and the blessing of God will attend you.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake Conference, 2 Mar., 1890; DW 40(11):364, 8 Mar., 1890)
8 Mar.: A cause for excommunication.
“A CAUSE FOR EXCOMMUNICATION.
The dispatches a few days ago stated that E. B. Esher, Jr., of Chicago, son of a Bishop of the Evangelical Church, has been formally tried and expelled from that church, mainly on account of having instituted a civil suit against a co-religionist without first resorting to ecclesiastical tribunals. It is safe to say that not a single newspaper in America, of any intelligence or influence, will deny the right of the Evangelical Church to do what it did, on any ground of interference with the civil authorities. Yet should a ‘Mormon’ ecclesiastical tribunal go so far as to merely temporarily disfellowship so prominent a member for precisely the same breach of church discipline, the incident would be seized upon and magnified into conclusive proof that the ‘Mormon hierarchy’ was an imperium in imperio, independent of and defiant towards the civil tribunals, given to treasonable practices and designs, etc.
No reason is given why the ‘Mormon’ Church should not be permitted to exercise the same power and discretion in enforcing church discipline, or in excommunicating members who rebel against the same, that other churches have. No such reason exists, having any foundation in intelligence or justice, and yet the fact that its discipline requires disputes between members to be settled by church tribunals is constantly cited as proof of its law-defying and treasonable character. The injustice of such treatment towards the ‘Mormons’ is too apparent to require comment or illustration.” (Editorial, C. W. Penrose, editor, DW 40(11):353, 8 Mar., 1890)
5 Apr.: Financial pressures on Apostles.
“Moses Thatcher followed for 20 min. and referred to financial affairs. He hoped the day would soon come when the apostles would be relieved of financial affairs connected with the community and be permitted to devote themselves exclusively to the ministry. As for himself, it would be the happiest day of his life if the Presidency would today relieve him of his positions in various businesses and call him to go abroad or labor at home in his Priesthood.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 5 Apr., 1890)
7 Apr.: Age of baptism, ordination.
“Father [Geo. Q. Cannon] said it was very improper for children under 8 yrs of age, who seemed to be appproaching death, to be ordained to the Priesthood; it was also wrong for children over this age who were sick and had not been baptized to be ordained. Under no circumstances should children of a less age than 8 years be ordained or baptized.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 7 Apr., 1890)
8 Apr.: Absence of unity among the Twelve.
“At 7 p.m. I met in the Historian’s office, where Pres. Lorenzo Snow had requested our quorum to meet. There were present L. Snow, F. D. Richards, M. Thatcher, F. M. Lyman, J. H. Smith, H. J. Grant, J. W. Taylor, M. W. Merrill, A. H. Lund, myself and J. W. Young. Bro. Snow stated that he desired the quorum to meet together occasionally to talk over different matters and to unite our hearts and feelings together. Where ill feelings existed we should express them and have our differences amicably arranged. The brethren all felt that the union which should prevail in our quorum did not exist, and were glad that Pres. Snow had been moved upon to call such meetings as were suggested. It was thought best for us to fast and meet tomorrow, and spend the day in expressing ourselves fully and freely. At this John W. Taylor arose and said he could not meet as he had hard feelings against Father because the latter had expressed his disapproval of the settlement that was made with John Beck in the Champion mine affairs, and John W. felt that Father had accused him of misappropriating funds and he would not rest easy under the imputation. Bro. Thatcher felt that John W. should visit and talk with the offender privately in this matter, and seek reconciliation between themselves. In this view all agreed and John promised to see if this matter could not be settled in the morning before 10 a.m. to which time we adjourned.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 8 Apr., 1890)
“From 7 a.m. till 10 o’clock I was busy at the office looking over the mail and attending to other matters of business. At the latter time I went to the Historian’s office where all the brethren met who were present last evening.–After the singing of two hymns and prayer Pres. Snow arose and expressed his pleasure at our fasting (which we all did this morning) and our meeting. He said: Everyone of us who has not already had the experience must yet meet it of being tested in every place where we are weak, and even our lives must be laid on the altar. Brigham Young was once tried to the very utmost by the Prophet, and for a moment his standing in the Church seemed to tremble in the balance. Wm. Smith, one of the first quorum of Apostles in this age had been guilty of adultery and many other sins. The Prophet Joseph instructed Brigham (then the Pres. of the Twelve) to prefer a charge against the sinner, which was done. Before the time set for the trial, however, Emma Smith talked to Joseph and said the charge preferred against William with with a view to injuring the Smith family. After the trial had began Joseph entered the room and was given a seat. The testimony of witnesses concerning the culprit’s sins was then continued. After a short time Joseph arose filled with wrath and said, ‘Bro. Brigham, I will not listen to this abuse of my family a minute longer. I will wade in blood up to my knees before I will do it.” This was a supreme moment. A rupture between the two greatest men on earth seemed imminent. But Brigham Young was equal to the danger, and he instantly said ‘Bro. Joseph, I withdraw the charge.’ Thus the angry passions were instantly stilled.–John Taylor also was similarly tested by then Pres. B. Young at the time the St. George temple was dedicated. The United Order was then a favorite theme of Pres. Young, but in his views John Taylor did not fully coincide. Because of this the latter was most terribly scourged by the tongue of Pres. Young in the temple before all the people. Bro. Taylor was then President of the Twelve. It looked for a time as though these two great men would separate in anger, for Pres. Y had forbidden John to travel through Kanab and Panguitch Stakes and organize them with Bro. L. Snow as had been intended, and said he had better return home and make wagons until he knew what was right. Bro. Snow saw the danger and knew the disposition of the two men. He therefore visited Pres. Taylor and after considerable argument induced him to go and visit Pres. Young. They were coolly received at the latter’s house, but as soon as Pres. Taylor said, ‘Bro. Brigham, if I have done or said anything wrong I desire to make it right,’ every feeling of anger vanished and these two men were reconciled. Thus the Lord will try us wherever we seem to be strong and those who today seem to be very prosperous financially may meet constant reverses until they will be forced to acknowledge that in and of themselves they are nothing. Thus it becomes us to be humble in every particular.–Apostle F. D. Richards spoke next. He said: When some of the brethren in Nauvoo were sent out to collect funds for the building of the temple part of their collections stuck to their fingers. Because of this Bro. Joseph said he thought it best to put the brethren under bonds to make correct returns, and this plan would be commenced with the apostles. Bro. Brigham arose and said he did not propose to be thus treated. If the brethren could not trust him he would not go out to collect. Nothing further was said in this forenoon meeting concerning the subject, but in the afternoon when the assembly again met Bro. Brigham took a seat in the congregation. Bro. Joseph after going on the stand looked about and not seeing Bro. Y. in his accustomed place, inquired for him. On being told that he was seated below, the Prophet called out, ‘Oh, Bro. Brigham, come up here, we want you.’ Improper feelings were soon allayed, and the brethren were sent out under bonds, Bro. Brigham among the rest.–Bro. Richards reported his feelings and condition. He had been married to 10 wives, one of whom has left him. He is not wealthy but in comfortable circumstances. His love for the brethren is very great.–Apostle Moses Thatcher felt well in the work and desired to be pardoned for any offense he had ever given to the brethren. He feels that the great danger to this people lies in the accumulation of wealth in their disunited condition. To the people it looks as though the authorities were divided in business matters, for they stand at the head of rival businesses. For his part he would be glad to be relieved of all business responsibility and lay his property at the feet of the apostles.–Bro. F. M. Lyman was the next speaker: he felt that he had failed in many particulars to do as he ought, but he desired to improve. He had felt very anxious to do something for his father who had died out of the Church. He had labored very hard and for years before he succeeded in releasing his own mother from the errors into which she had fallen by the teaching of his father in regard to Spiritualism. Now, however, he had succeeded in winning nearly all the family back to the Church. He wept in talking of his father.–At this juncture Pres. Snow arose and said he had been thinking last night before retiring as to the condition of Amasa Lyman, and he felt convinced in his own mind that he would be permitted to associate with the Prophet Joseph to whom he was a true and devoted friend during his life. Of course he would be required to pay the penalty for his sins, but this being done he would be rewarded for his good deeds.–When Bro. Lyman completed his remarks it was 2.15 p.m. Bros. Thatcher and Grant were not excused to attend a Z.C.M.I. directors meeting, which occupied 1 1/4 hrs. The remainder of us stopped in the room. When these brethren returned we clothed in our robes and F. D. Richards prayed as we knelt and Pres. Snow at the altar. We then dressed in our usual clothing and prepared to eat the Lord’s Supper in the same manner in which the Prophet Joseph said it was eaten by the Savior and His disciples at Jerusalem, and as Joseph and the brethren did occasionally at Nauvoo: we had several loaves of bread and bottles of wine. The former was broken and we ate and drank till we were fully satisfied. I took a very small quantity of wine.–About 5 p.m. our speaking was resumed. Bro. John Henry Smith & Heber J. Grant each spoke concerning their financial and family affairs and expressed their love for the members of the quorum. It now being 7 p.m. an hour’s intermission was taken for exercise. When we again convened Bro. Merrill spoke second: He related how wonderfully God had preserved and guided him in youth and watched over his advancing years, so that he was able to remain as the only representative of his stock in the Church.–John W. Taylor spoke first: he related how he received a testimony of the divinity of the work while engaged at his father’s saw mill some years since in Summit County. In a vision he saw the place where he had been at work cutting logs gradually lit up by a brilliant light which seemed to emanate from the east. This light continued to increase in intensity and with the increase he seemed to be pushed further away from its source. Finally he clasped his arms around the stump of a tree for the purpose of keeping himself in position. He saw the Son of God appear in the brilliancy of the ight and then his hold upon the stump began to slip, and he knew that should he release his grasp he would be thrust back with such violence that he would be dashed to pieces. As he was holding with grim desparation he awoke. His father told him that the interpretation of the dream was that the bright light was the truth which would banish all truth-haters from before it, and the tree stump to which he was holding was a similar representation to that of the rod of iron in the Book of Mormon. Bro. Taylor related several other manifestations of God’s goodness to him in answer to his prayers.–Bro. Anton H. Lund told how he joined the Church when a mere child and was sent out to preach and distribute tracts when 13 years of age. He labored thus as a missionary for 5 years before emigrating. One day when the Elders were being sent out to sell tracts none wanted to go with ‘the boy,’ but the results of the day’s labor proved that the child had been most successful. The Lord blessed him abundantly in his labors.–I spoke about 20 min. and told the brethren I felt unworthy of my high calling, but hoped the Lord would assist me to magnify it. I hoped to overcome my disposition to speculate, and place myself in a free position as far as finances are concerned. I envied the patience of Pres. Snow; the ability to say only good things of every person as Bro. Richards; the financial talents of Moses Thatcher and H. J. Grant; the winning manners of F. M. Lyman and J. H. Smith; the inspiration of John W. Taylor; the humbleness of M. W. Merrill and A. H. Lund; the suavity of John W. Young, and the goodness of all. I asked for the patience of the brethren in my behalf.–Bro. John W. Young spoke of his family affairs which had not been and were not now agreeable. In fact his family troubles (doubtless the suing for a divorce of his favorite wife Luella) during the last three months had done more to humble him than anything else in his whole life. He believed that good would come of his seeming misfortunes.–We adjourned at 11.30 till May 20th to convene in this same room.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 9 Apr., 1890)
17 Apr.: Need for Priesthood to minister to members.
“Thereafter we had considerable talk about our missionary labors among the Saints, and Pres. Woodruff expressed his feeling that the Apostles should spend a great part of their time among the Saints in order to suppress the growing feeling of indifference that is manifesting itself in some places towards the Gospel. John Henry Smith expressed fears that about half the Church would apostatize in a short time unless more labor was done by the Priesthood among the Saints.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 17 Apr., 1890)
20 Apr.: Dissenting votes for bishops.
“These brethren were set apart at the close of the forenoon services I being mouth in the case of the two new Bishops. This business being done, there being but two dissenting votes in all the presentations–one each against Bros. Cobley and Keetch, I addressed the Saints for about 50 min.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 20 Apr., 1890)
3 May: Ratification of ordinations after the fact.
“The action of the Presidency of the Stake and the High Council in authorizing the ordination of eighteen young brethren to the office of Elders since the last Priesthood meeting was unanimously endorsed by the assembled Priesthood.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake monthly priesthood meeting, 3 May, 1890; DW 40(21):697, 17 May, 1890)
3 May: Ordaining young men to the Aaronic Priesthood.
“[Joseph E. Taylor, counselor in the Stake Presidency, speaking.] The necessity of ordaining the young to some of the offices in the lesser Priesthood he strongly urged, in order that they might prove themselves worthy of the higher Priesthood when they arrived at an age to warrant their ordination thereto. He remarked that many a young man among us had been ordained to the higher Priesthood when he was totally unprepared to assume the duties of the office.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake monthly priesthood meeting, 3 May, 1890; DW 40(21):698, 17 May, 1890)
3 May: Don’t let Sunday funerals interfere w/other mtgs.
“[Joseph E. Taylor, counselor in the Stake Presidency, speaking.] He reminded the brethren of the counsel given of late by President George Q. Cannon in regard to not allowing funeral meetings to interfere with our Sabbath schools and also the counsel given by our late President John Taylor, and by President A. M. Cannon to not allow them to interfere withour sacrament meetings. This counsel was not observed as strictly as it should be.” (Report of Salt Lake Stake monthly priesthood meeting, 3 May, 1890; DW 40(21):698, 17 May, 1890)
12 May: When should grave be dedicated?
“Bro. Bennion sprang the question which was the better way to dedicate the grave before the coffin was lowered or afterwards. I told him I like better to dedicate it before. Bro. Stevenson said that was the way it was done in Salt Lake City.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 12 May, 1890)
26 May: Voting for a new bishop: most votes wins.
“At 4 p.m. we met in the Koosharem meetinghouse. . . . There were some thirty of the priesthood present and some Indians from the Indian farm some four miles south of Koosharem. Bro. Lyman informed the congregation that we had come to counsel with them in regard to appointing a bishop. We wanted them to suggest the names of the best men they could think of. They should write three names on a slip of paper. They did so and when we counted we found that Edward A. Bagley had received 23, Geo. Hatch 18 and Bro. Edward Torgeson, 13. Edward A. Bagley refused at first to act but Bro. Lyman urged him to receive the call. He accepted and chose George Hatch and E. Torgeson for his counselors. . . .
[27 May] We had meeting and yesterdays proceedings were ratified by the people.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 26 May, 1890)
1 Jul.: Authority of the Apostleship.
“Those who entertain the thought that the sustaining of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators is likely to cause confusion have a mistaken idea of the order of the Priesthood. President Brigham Young, during his lifetime, set forth with great plainness the authority of the Apostleship. We do not quote his exact language; but he said that when a man was ordained an Apostle he received all the authority of the Priesthood that a man could hold on the earth in the flesh. It comprehended all the offices of the Priesthood.
This being so, if all the Apostles but one were to be slain, or were to die, that one would have the authority to organize the Church in its fullness, and to fill all the offices of the Priesthood. In other words, such an Apostle could organize a First Presidency, a Council of Twelve Apostles, and fill up any other quorum in which there might be vacancies; because, as an Apostle, he would hold all the keys and the authority necessary to enable him to do this.
The Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ordained Apostles before the organization of the Church. By virtue of that authority Joseph acted. He received keys to perform various works from those who had held these keys in previous dispensations. Before his death he conferred these on the Apostles. They received them in their fullness, as he had received them; and his martyrdom did not deprive the earth of that authority which had been restored from heaven. It still remained, and is with us to this day. He was a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. His brother Hyrum, who had been his Counselor and was afterwards Patriarch, was a prophet, seer and revelator. The Twelve Apostles were prophets, seers and revelators.
But because they held this authority and had these keys sealed upon them by the Prophet Joseph, it did not follow that each man would exercise the authority that belonged thereto, in giving revelations to the Church. Oliver Cowdery was the fellow-Apostle of the Prophet, having been ordained at the same time that he was. The Lord, in speaking to him says:
But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church, excepting my servant Joseph Smith, jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses;
And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.
And if thou are led at any time by the Comforter, to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.
But thou shalt not write by way of commandment but by wisdom:
And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church. (Sec. 28:2-6)
Oliver was authorized to speak or teach when led by the Comforter, by the way of commandment unto the Church; but he was forbidden to write by way of commandment–that is, to give revelation. He could write as wisdom dictated, but not as the head of the Church, there being only one man at a time who has this right.
In the seventh paragraph of this same revelation the Lord says:
For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.
When another was appointed in the stead of Joseph, he would have the rights and the authority which Joseph had. President Brigham Young was appointed of the Lord to occupy this position; and though the other members of the council of the Twelve had been ordained Apostles, yet they could not, consistently with the law of God and the order of heaven, act in the same capacity that he did.
Latter-day Saints should understand this point, and it is by the observance of this that confusion is prevented in the Church of Christ.
Speaking to Oliver Cowdery at one time, the Lord says:
It shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thoushalt teach them, by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given.
All the Apostles, as well as many others, have this privilege.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 25(13):404-405, 1 Jul., 1890)
20 Jul.: Questions concerning priority of Seventies.
“After lying down a short time I felt better, and went to a meeting of the 77th Quorum of Seventies in the 5th Ward meeting house. In addition to the brethren who are here from Salt Lake City Apostle F. D. Richards was present. There is contention in this quorum which needs adjustment. . . .Secondly, the authority of the Presidents to preside was in question, some feeling that one President had no more authority than another to preside. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of the Bishop over Seventies was discussed, some considering that he had no control over them at all. Bros. [B. H.] Roberts, myself, F. D. Richards and F. M. Lyman spoke on these points, after Presidents Moench and Nye had made brief statements concerning their troubles. . . . The second subject was settled by telling the brethren that the senior president in point of ordination always presides in the meetings of the quorum. Though all the Presidents hold the same or equal authority, yet order must be maintained by the senior always acting as the leader.–The third answer was that the Bishop does not preside over Seventies in a quorum capacity, yet he presides over them as members of his ward, and as such they should ever be willing to render him obedience.–All agreed, by lifting their hands, to discontinue these profitless bickerings.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 20 Jul., 1890)
6 Aug.: Members of 12 to live as long as they desired.
“While seated at the table Pres. Snow stated that it was the privilege of each member of this Quorum to live upon the earth just as long as he desired providing he would keep the commandments of god, and be ready at all times to make such sacrifices as Abraham made. He felt to suggest that at our meetings we bless each other. . . . We will yet have to see Jesus so as to be able to give the testimony to the world which he will require us to bear. . . . The whole quorum now laid their hands upon my head, and Pres. Snow pronounced a blessing. Among other things he told me I might live to seen the Savior, the triumph of Zion and many other great events connected with the latter-day work. In fact, every righteous desire of my heart he promised me through my faithfulness.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 6 Aug., 1890)
10 Aug.: Counselors to SS Pres. not released w/Pres.
“After meeting I explained to Bro. V. D. Cram, the Stake Supt. of Sunday Schools, why the 1st and 2nd Ass’t. Supts. and Secretary of a school or Stake were not released by a vacancy being created in the office of Supt. These officers are not in a position similar to that occupied by the counselors in the First Presidency, but they are set apart to their callings independent of the Supt. except that for the sake of order their positions are defined.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 10 Aug., 1890)
10 Aug.: Rebaptism following masturbation.
“A brother Earl, son of Sylvester Earl, one of the Pioneers, came to me after meeting and said my remarks in meeting had so touched him that he desired to make a confession to me and receive my counsel. He was left while very young to himself and without proper care or instruction. He was occupied in herding stock and here acquired the habit of masturbation. He practiced this for some time and even went so far as to have connection with animals. He is now married and has children, and has completely conquered his passions, which he also did before his marriage. Yet of late the knowledge of his sin has so operated upon his mind that he has at times been on the verge of despair, and because of his feelings he has refused to act as a teacher in Huntington and has even ceased to partake of the Sacrament. He said I am the only person in the world who knows of his sin besides himself. I told him to confess his sin to God and seek His forgiveness and then when he felt that the proper time had come to be rebaptized and perform his duty as a Saint. He said his temptation to sin had commenced when he was ordained an Elder by his father when a mere child. But he now felt the blessings of God upon him for his prayers were answered, and he felt that the Lord had prospered him. I told him to strive against his feelings of despondency which came from Satan, and would ruin him if he continued to give way to them. He felt comforted and promised to follow my counsel.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 10 Aug., 1890)
11 Aug.: Dissenting vote in stake meeting.
[Castle Dale, Utah] “At the afternoon meeting the authorities of the Church and Stake were presented, and with one exception sustained. When Orange Seeley’s name was read as 1st Counselor to Pres. Larson, one lady voted against him and then arose to explain that she did this because he had cheated her out of some land, by filing on a piece which she supposed she had entered, and he discovered that she had made a mistake in her entry and immediately took advantage of her error. He says his son is the person who did this, but of course, Bro. Seeley has control to a certain extent of his son’s actions. The lady was told to make her complaint in private and not in a public meeting, and when Bro. [A. H.] Lund spoke he told the Saints that when contrary votes were called for in a meeting it was not that our grievances might be named, as no person had a right to speak or disturb a meeting without the consent of the presiding officer.–When quite was restored I spoke for 40 min.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 11 Aug., 1890)
3 Sep.: Set apart to attend college.
“Went to the Gardo House at noon, rubbed Father’s face, and assisted him in setting apart Willard Croxall to go to the Pennsylvania College to study Natural History, Literature and perhaps a language.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 3 Sep., 1890)
4 Sep.: Set apart to travel to the East.
“Returned to the office and worked a short time, and then set apart Lucy B. Young to go on a visit to the east to see some relatives, acquaintances and friends. She desired a blessing before leaving home.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 4 Sep., 1890)
20 Sep.: Nominations for bishop.
[Kanab, Utah] “At noon we went to Pres. Woolley’s house and administered to Sister M. E. Little and a child. We then held a Council and decided to let the Priesthood of this Ward meet tonight, and nominate the men whom they would like to have as their Bishopric. . . . At 7 p.m. the High Council and Priesthood met in the Academy. Bro. Lyman said he desired the brethren to make nominations for Bishop and Counselors, and we would then select those whom we thought to be the proper ones. There were 10 nominations made, and in the subsequent vote there were 22 in favor of John Rider for Bishop, 21 for Joel H. Johnson, 8 for Wm. T. Stewart and 8 for Asa W. Judd. None of the others received more than two votes. Bro. Rider being a High Councillor could not be made a Bishop. Two of his votes were therefore cast in favor of Wm. T. Stewart, and 19 in favor of Joel H. Johnson. The apostles and Stake Presidency then withdrew to consult, with the result that Joel H. Johnson was presented and sustained as Bishop. Votes were then taken for 1st and 2nd Counselors, as Bro. Johnson did not desire to make his own selection, and Alfred D. Young and Asa W. Judd were chosen. Meeting then closed. Many expressed satisfaction at the plan of making the selections and the men chosen.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 20 Sep., 1890)
30 Sep.: Suspension of the law of baptism in some cases.
“[Lorenzo Snow speaking in meeting of the 12] God has a right to suspend His law, as He has done in the inspiration under which Pres. Woodruff wrote the manifesto, and as the Savior did when He suspended the law of Moses and permitted the disciples to pluick corn on the Sabbath day when they were hungry. They very important law concerning baptism is at times suspended as in the case of married women whose husbands are opposed to the gospel, or minors whose parents object to the baptism of their children. I can see great good and no inconsistency in this matter.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 30 Sep., 1890)
1 Oct.: That the Apostles might see the face of Savior.
“[Meeting of the quorum of the 12, Lorenzo Snow praying and speaking] Prayer by Lorenzo Snow in which he asked that if it was the Lord’s will, we might be permitted to see his face even as Joseph and Oliver, and Moses of old did. . . .
Pres. Snow said that the Savior will undoubtedly come to visit His servants many times appearing as an ordinary man before He appears in glory and with his angels. On one occasion fourteen Elders, including the Prophet Joseph, were engaged in prayer when a personage passed through the room. He glided past about five feet above the floor. Next came a man in ordinary dress who walked through. The first, Joseph said, ws the Father, and the second was the Son.–When Oliver Cowdery in Joseph’s presence gave the charge to the first Quorum of Apostles in this age he told them they should pray to see the Savior, for this was their privilege to see and know Him.–If we are faithful we will yet have a similar power to that possessed by the Savior to make and save worlds, but we will also have to pass through a similar experience.” (Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Abraham H. Cannon diary, 1 Oct., 1890)
7 Oct.: Home missionaries to root out evil.
[Meeting of 1st Pres., Quorum of 12, 1st Council of 70, Presiding Bishopric, Stake Presidents] “[George Q. Cannon] A strict system of Home Missionary labor should be instituted in the various Stakes. I favor a plan similar to that which has been adopted in some places of calling men on missions to devote their whole time for a certain season to visiting and living with the people. Thus they can become acquainted with their daily life, and correct evils which exist.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 7 Oct., 1890)
7 Oct.: What to do with old bishops.
[Meeting of 1st Pres., Quorum of 12, 1st Council of 70, Presiding Bishopric, Stake Presidents] “[George Q. Cannon] Where Bishops or other officers in the Church are incompetent or too aged for active labor, they should be relieved in a kind manner and their places should be filled by abler men.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 7 Oct., 1890)
7 Oct.: New system for collecting funds proposed.
[Meeting of 1st Pres., Quorum of 12, 1st Council of 70, Presiding Bishopric, Stake Presidents] “[John W. Taylor] ‘I believe that if a regular system of collecting means were adopted, we could obtain much more than we now do by our spasmodic efforts, and the people would feel better about donating. When a teacher in the 14th Ward Matthias Cowley and I adopted a plan of having small books wherein we entered the names of all donors with the amount given to the temple, poor or defense fund. We got the people to promise as little or much as they felt able to give regularly, and then we called upon them once each month. The result was that many who had done nothing, commenced to do a little, and thus they became interested, and finally they got into the habit of attending meetings. From a condition of debt the Ward succeeded in getting funds on hand. Now, I am personally willing to do a little regularly rather than a great deal at once, and this is the way nearly all the people feel.’ His motion was carried to have a committee appointed to prepare a system for collecting funds which can be generally adopted. Pres. Woodruff appointed John W. Taylor, Heber J. Grant and Matthias F. Cowley that committee. Pres. L. Snow and Moses Thatcher thought that the apportionment of needed amounts to the various Stakes and Wards was the most effectual method of collecting means; but all these collections should be made through the influence of the Priesthood.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 7 Oct., 1890)
16 Oct.: 1st Pres. advice in financial matters?
“Father expressed his desire to see the day when the influence and counsel of the Presidency and Twelve shall be sought and felt in financial as well as spiritual affairs.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 16 Oct., 1890)
25 Oct.: Programs as response to secular schooling.
“Salt Lake City, Utah, October 25, 1890.
To the Presidents of Stakes, Bishops, and all whom may it concern:
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
The all-absorbing motive that led the great majority of the Latter-day Saints to forsake their homes in the various nations to dwell in these mountain valleys was an ardent desire to serve the Lord more perfectly and with a better understanding. In too many instances, in the course of the years, this grand object has been lost sight of in the toil for daily existence, and less noble aims have largely taken the place of the endeavor to learn the ways of the Lord and of the effort to walk in His paths. This benumbing influence on our spiritual life is widely felt in our homes, and more particularly affects our children, whose faith in the great latter-day work has not been developed and strengthened by the experience which their elders have had in lands beyond the borders of Zion. Nor does the training which our youth receive in the district schools increase their feelings of devotion to God and love for His cause, for, as is well-known, all teachings of a religious character are rigorously excluded from the studies permitted in these institutions.
To lessen this great evil, and counteract the tendencies that grow out of a Godless education, the Church schools of the Saints have been established. But while these accomplish great good, the sphere of their usefulness does not cover the entire field. There are many places where Church school cannot, at present, be established; and also many Saints in those places whre such schools exist who, for various reasons, cannot send their children thereto. For these causes we have deemed it prudent to suggest to the various local authorities other measures which, while not occupying the place of Church schools, will work on the same lines, and aid in the same work in which the Church educational institutions are engaged.
We suggest that in every ward where a Church school is not established, that some brother or sister or brethren and sisters well adapted for such a responsible position by their intelligence and devotion, as well as their love for the young, be called, as on a mission, by the Bishop, after consultation with the President of the Stake, to take charge of a school wherein the first principles of the Gospel, Church history and kindred subjects shall be taught. This school to meet for a short time each afternoon after the close of the district school, or for a longer time of the Saturday only, as may in each ward be deemed most consistent with the situation of the people and most likely to secure a good attendance of the children. In some cases it will be found that the children are too wearied after their usual daily studies to take interest in a class of this kind; in others Saturday may prove to be an unsuitable day.
Where arrangements can be made it will, as a general thing, be well to secure the district school room for this purpose, so that when they take place in the afternoon, these exercises can commence immediately after the regular sessions and before the children scatter; but where this is done care must be taken to keep the two entirely separate, so that the law may not be infringed upon. Where the regular school room cannot be obtained, some building conveniently situated and as near as possible, should be secured in its stead; the object being to secure the attendance, as far as possible, of the children of all the Latter-day Saints; a strenuous effort should likewise be made to gain the heartyi co-operation of the parents, as without their aid the school will measurably fail in the object of its creation.
We deem it desirable that every school thus established should be under the guidance and direction of the General Board of Education; and those brethren and sisters who accept this call will receive a license from that board to act in this capacity. Suggestions with regard to the studies, etc., will also be issued by the general board, and other means be adopted to place these classes in harmony with the methods of the Church school system, of which, in fact, they will form an important part. Where it is found necessary to pay the teacher a small stipend for his services, the General Board of Education should be consulted through the Stake Board; but it is thought that the incidental expenses for fuel, etc., may, without inconvenience, be met by the ward, or by the people whose children are benefited.
With a constant desire for the progress of all true education,
We remain, with much respect,
Your Brethren in the Gospel.
Wilford Woodruff
Geo. Q. Cannon
Jos. F. Smith
First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (1st Pres. Circular Letter, 25 Oct., 1890; Original Broadside, Huntington)
1 Nov.: Similarity between former and latter-day church.
“It is a strange thing that a Bible-believing generation, or a generation which professes to believe in the Bible, should contend against and persecute a people like the Latter-day Saints. There is not a single feature in the religion of the Latter-day Saints that cannot be easily sustained from the Bible. There is nothing in the teachings of the Savior and of His disciples that is left out of the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only are the same doctrines taught and the same ordinances administered, but the same methods of preaching the gospel today in the Church of Christ are as they were in His Church which He established when on the earth. Everything that we know connected with the organization of the Church, with the doctrines taught and ordinances administered, goes to prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God; for without direct communication from the Almighty no man, however talented, could have framed a system of religion so exactly similar to that which the Savior taught to mankind. . . .
The Church of Jesus Christ today is precisely similar to the church in the days of the Lord and His disciples. If the two be compared, they will be found to be exactly alike, and yet with all these evidences of the divinity of this work, men who profess to believe in and trust the Savior, reject the gospel, and not only reject it, but they persecute those who believe in it. . . .
We have the same ordinances administered and doctrines taught today in the Church of Christ that were taught anciently. We have the same method of preaching the gospel, and we have the Church organized precisely as it was in the days of the Savior. If a Latter-day Saint were to be thrown into the company of Saints who lived in former times, he would find himself in perfect agreement with them.” (George Q. Cannon, “Similarity Between the Former and Latter-day Church,” JI 25(21):658-659, 1 Nov., 1890)
29 Nov.: Setting apart of female obstetricians.
“About 11.30 a.m. Chas. W. Penrose and I met at the Historian’s Office and set apart three ladies to labor as obstetricians among the Saints. They have completed their course under Dr. Romania B. Pratt.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 29 Nov., 1890)
2 Dec.: Question of seriousness of adultery.
“The question of forgiveness for the sin of adultery was considered at some length, and examples were given of the views entertained by the various Presidents who have led the Church. All consider it a most grievous sin, but the strictness with which the law of excommunication has been enforced has varied. There seems to be more leniency in this regard at present, and some of the brethren seem to feel that this laxity is doing injury among the people by causing them to look upon this sin as being of no very grave import. Bro. Snow said he expected to see the day when a man’s blood will be shed for the crime of adultery.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 2 Dec., 1890)