Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Temples, 1893.” 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.
TEMPLES, 1893
1893: “Monster Bath-tub” at Columbian Exposition.
“The Standard Manufacturing Company also show what is said to be the largest bath-tub ever made. It is a replica of a dozen made for the Mormon temple at Salt Lake City, and is 10 or 12 feet long and proportionately deep. Unfortunately no information as to the nature of the religious ceremony in which these 12 monster bath-tubs figures is given.” (Barr Ferree, “Architecture,” Engineering Magazine 6(1):100, 1893)
“A genuine masterpiece of the artificer is this [baptismal] font, viewing it from whatsoever standpoint we may; for it is large without being oppressive and pleases not less with the massiveness of its construction than with the chaste elegance of its design. By the simplest sort of a contrivance it can be filled with water, or, the water being in, it can be emptied–the entire proceeding requiring but sixteen minutes. The perfection of these arrangements suggests a thought as to the ingenuity employed in other plumbing appliances, and we now examine more closely the numerous colossal bath tubs that are located in the contiguous apartments. Hot and cold water are of course at easy reach; there are also improved appliances as to the overflow, small basins within the larger tubs, etc.” (“Owing to the conditions which existed, and the general desire to learn something of the appearance of the Temple within its walls, the Church authorities decided to issue an official description of the interior of the building, which was published in the Deseret News on the evening of April 5 [1893].” Reprinted in Contributor 14(6):288, Apr., 1893)
30 Jan.: No provision made for dressing rooms.
“We found to Day in Examining the Temple that the Architect had made No provision for Dressing Rooms in the Temple. I was quite unwell through the night. Did not sleep well.” (Wilford Woodruff diary, 30 Jan., 1893)
Mar.: People expect great manifestations at SL dedication
“Words are inadequate to express the joy which fills the hearts of the Latter-day Saints in contemplating the dedication of our great Temple in Salt Lake City. This has always, and especially within the last year, prompted the most diligent labors of the workmen who have been engaged on the building, and the most strenuous exertions on the part of the people to raise the necessary means with which to meet the obligations necessary for the accomplishment of this work. All deserve in this respect the highest credit, and now that we are upon the threshold of this important event, it is well for us to consider our condition, to see whether or not we are prepared spiritually for so great an event. Some people expect great spiritual manifestations to be given during the services which are to be held–in fact, many will be disappointed unless marvelous things are witnessed by the Saints. Those who expect them, however, must realize that it depends greatly upon themselves as to what they shall see or hear, or the benefit which they will derive from these meeting in the house of God. If their hearts are right before the Lord and they have truly repented of all their sins by putting the same far from them and making amends for wrong-doing as far as it lies in their power, their hearts will be gratified by the spirit and influence which will prevail in that holy structure, even though their eyes do not behold anything supernatural or their ears hear anything out of the common order of things.
There is no doubt but what the angels of God will be in and about that building. Perhaps the eyes of some Saints will be opened to see them; perhaps the ears of some will be attuned to hear heavenly choirs singing; it may be that heavenly light will surround the persons of some who attend. But while one faithful person may be able to see or hear these things because of his or her preparation for them, a companion by his or her side may fail to hear or see anything unusual because that individual is not prepared for the occasion. This was the case in the dedication of the Manti Temple, as also in the other temples which have been dedicated since this Church was organized. Some people saw and heard marvelous things while others found no more interest in the proceedings than is common on such occasions. We must conclude that in some instances the cause was in the persons themselves. Sometimes, however, the best of people are not blessed with remarkable manifestations, but their faith is sustained by the inward peace and joy of the Holy Spirit.” (Editorial, Contributor 14(5):235, Mar., 1893)
3 Mar.: Nuttall’s comments on Salt Lake Temple.
“Went through the Temple think the Celestial room is too gaudy – The Font is too small.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 3 Mar., 1893)
5 Mar.: Recommend necessary to attend Temple dedication.
“[Wilford Woodruff to Rudger Clawson] Dear bro: It must be remembered that none will be admitted to the dedication without first having obtained an ordinary recommend from their bishop, countersigned, as usual, by the President of the stake. Your brother, Wilford Woodruff.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 5 Mar., 1893)
12 Mar.: Requirements for temple recommend.
“Attended Conference on the morning of these days. The Stake Bishops as far as I heard represented their Wards and the various organizations in fair running order, and all evinced a desire to improve and do their duties. They and the counsellors to the Stake Pres gave some very good counsel and exhortations, speaking on the importance of Tithing, Temple offerings, raising up our Children in The Ways of the Lord, Also on chastity and the importance of living so that we could be worthily reccomended to the Temples to receive blessings for ourselves and Kindred Dead.” (Charles L. Walker diary, 12 & 13 Mar., 1893)
14 Mar.: Reversed decision on recommends for dedication.
“I attended meeting of the Apostles. It was decided to allow all the Saints to go to the dedication who had a standing. It had before been decided that a regular recommend was necessary.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 14 Mar., 1893)
18 Mar.: Plea for personal worthiness in temple patrons.
“I went to the office. I wrote some addition to the Prayer. I listened to a Communication from Prest Cannon to be published to the Saints before the dedication that they may Confess their sins and make reconciliation one with another befor they go to the Temple. I went to the Temple with my Councillors & went through it from top to Bottom. We are in hopes to get it ready for Dedication but it is a load upon us.” (Wilford Woodruff diary, 18 Mar., 1893)
“Then must those who are unworthy cease to expect a blessing from their attendance at the Temple while sin unrepented of still casts it odor about them, and while bitterness or even an unforgiving coolness exists in their hearts against their brethren and sisters. . . .
We feel now that a time for reconciliation has come; that before entering into the Temple to present ourselves before the Lord in solemn assembly, we shall divest ourselves of every harsh and unkind feeling against each other; that not only our bickerings shall cease, but that the cause of them shall be removed, and every sentiment that prompted and has maintained them shall be dispelled; that we shall confess our sins one to another, and ask for forgiveness one of another; that we shall plead with the Lord for the spirit of repentance, and, having obtained it, follow its promptings; so that in humbling ourselves before Him and seeking forgiveness from each other, we shall yield that charity and generosity to those who crave our forgiveness that we ask for and expect from Heaven.
Thus may we come up into the holy place with our hearts free from guile and our souls prepared for the edification that is promised! Thus shall our supplications, undisturbed by a thought of discordd, unitedly mount into the ears of Jehovah and draw down the choice blessings of the God of Heaven!
As your brethren, sustained by your vote and in your faith as the First Presidency of the Church, we have this to say to the Latter-day Saints, in our individual as well as our official capacity: If there is a single member of the Church who has feelings against us, we do not wish to cross the threshold of the Temple until we have satisfied him and removed from him all cause of fellings, eitehr by explanation or by making proper amends and atonement; neither would we wish to enter the sacred portals of that edifice until we have sought an explanation, or amends, or atonement from any against whom we may have either a real or fancied grievance.
In now announcing this course for ourselves, we say to all the other officers of the Church that we desire them to follow our example. We wish them from highest to lowest and throughout all the Stakes and Wards of Zion to take heed of this counsel. Let them invite all who may have feelings against them to come forward and make them known; let them then endeavor to correct any misapprehensions or misunderstandings which may exist, or give redress for any wrong or injury that may have been done.
We say the same–and when the officers have taken the course indicated we wish them to say the same–to the individual members of the Church. We call upon them to seek to have the fellowship of their brethren and their sisters, and their entire confidence and love; above all to seek to have the fellowship and union of the Holy Ghost. Let this spirit be sought and cherished as diligently within the smallest and humblest family circle as within the membership of the highest organization and quorum. Let it permeate the hearts of the brothers and sisters, the parents and children of the household, as well as the hearts of the First Presidency and Twelve. Let it mellow and sofetn all differences between members of the Stake Presidencies and the High Councils, as well as between neighbors living in the same ward. Let it unite young and old, male and female, flock and shepherd, people and Priesthood in the bonds of gratitude and forgiveness and love, so that Israel may feel approved of the Lord, and that we may all come before Him with a conscience void of offense before all men. Then there will be no disappointment as to the blessings promised those who sincerely worship Him. The sweet whisperings of the Holy Spirit will be given to them and the treasures of Heaven, the communion of angels, will be added from time to time, for His promise has gone forth and it cannot fail!
Asking God’s blessing upon you all in your endeavor to carry out this counsel, and desirous of seeing it take the form of a united effort on the part of the whole people, we suggest that Saturday, March 25th, 1893, be set apart as a day of fasting and prayer. On that occasion we advise that the Presidencies of Stakes, the High Councils, the Bishops and their Counselors, meet together with the Saints in their several meeting houses, confess their sins one to another, and draw out from the people all feelings of anger, of distrust, or of unfriendliness that mey have found a lodgment; so that entire confidence may then and there be restored and love from this time prevail through all the congregations of the Saints.” (First Presidency Circular Letter, 18 Mar., 1893. In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:242-244)
“[Wilford Woodruff to Rudger Clawson] Dear bro: . . . it was unanimously decided by the brethren present that greater leniency should be shown to the people, and that all having a membership in the church, who so desire, should have the privilege of being present [at the temple dedication]. Wilford Woodruff.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 18 Mar., 1893)
24 Mar.: No hard feelings for those attending dedication.
“About noon we held meetings in the Deseret News and Juvenile offices with the employees to learn if any hard feelings existed among them, and if so, to settle them. This is in accordance with the suggestions of the Presidency, so that the Saints may attend the dedicatory services in the Temple without hard feelings one towards another.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 24 Mar., 1893)
25 Mar.: Many rebaptisms prior to Temple dedication.
“The reports from the various meetings of the Saints indicate that the fast and subsequent meetings have had a very excellent effect upon all who participated. The result in some cases is that a large number of people have applied for baptism for past sins and to renew their covenants.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 25 Mar., 1893)
1 Apr.: Proof slips of dedicatory prayer.
“Read the proof slips of the Dedicatory prayer of the Temple.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 1 Apr., 1893)
5 Apr.: Non-members permitted to tour SL Temple.
“The eyes of every civilized nation were directed toward the work the Mormons had been able to accomplish. No building existing upon earth has attracted such universal attention at the time of the crowning ceremony of its completion. A great anxiety–it was more than curiosity–was manifested by those who were not members of the Church to view the interior of the sacred edifice. The First Presidency decided to gratify this desire so far as they could in the short time left and under existing circumstances. In harmony with this determination, about a thousand non-Mormons, including prominent business men and government officials, with their wives, passed through the building on the evening of April 5th, and gazed enraptured upon its beauties.” (“The Salt Lake Temple,” Contributor 14(6):286, Apr., 1893)
6 Apr.: GA’s recertified prior to dedication.
“Prior to the morning meeting in the temple I was interviewed by Brother Francis M. Lyman at the request of Lorenzo Snow, President of the Council of the Twelve. It seems that all of the brethren, each and every one, had been interviewed and had to pledge himself to keep all the commandments of the Lord–the law of tithing, the Word of Wisdom, etc.–before they would be admitted into the temple for the dedication. Brother Lyman called at my home and told me of this, and that President Lorenzo Snow had vouched for me as being worthy, and that it was unnecessary to have me interviewed, which pleased me very much.” (Heber J. Grant diary, 6 Apr., 1893; quoted in IE 44(11):693, Nov., 1893)
6 Apr.: First day of Dedication.
“The dedication of the Temple Commenced at 10 oclock. Near 3,000 Assembled at the upper room.
I attended the Dedication of the Temple. The spirit & Power of God rested upon us. The spirit of Prophesy & Revelation was upon us & the Hearts of the People were Melted and many thing wer unfolded to us. We Met in the Afternoon at 2 oclk & we had a glorious time. W Woodruff & G Q Cannon & J F Smith occupied most of the time. W Woodruff offered up the prayer in the forenoon & G Q Cannon in the Afternoon.” (Wilford Woodruff diary, 6 Apr., 1893)
“The period which has elapsed since I last wrote my journal on April 34d, has been to me a very eventful one. The general conference began on April 4th and lasted two days, during which time some very choice instructions were given. The attendance of the Saints was unusually large. . . . On April 6th the dedication services in the temple were held at 10 a.m. All of the Presidency and Twelve with their families were present, and quite a large number of the Priesthood. The wives of deceased apostles were also present. The assembly room was filled to its utmost capacity. Pres. Woodruff offered the dedicatory prayer. Remarks were then made by himself and counselors. During the time of the services the wind outside blew a perfect hurricane, doing considerable damage throughout the city, and in various parts of the country.–The first service was the pattern for all the other services which were held in the temple, consisting of two sessions a day, and one day three. Also when the Sunday schools were admitted on two different days, three sessions per day were held, at each of which each of the apostles spoke briefly. . . . Many remarkable things were seen and heard in the Temple. Andrew Smith, Jr., said he saw on the stand with the brethren Pres. Young, a number of the Twelve who are dead, and several other brethren whom he did not know.–A little nine year old boy also told his mother that he saw angels in the room and on the stand. Numerous parties saw brilliant lights, and heard singing and instrumental music. One rough young man from Brigham City, a son of the late Judge Wright, and the leader in the escapades of the young men at his home, said he saw a bright halo about the head of Pres. Woodruff, and the spirit of the Temple was so strong in him that he went to his home and started a reformation among his companions, which Pres. L. Snow things will effect great good.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 18 May, 1893)
“On April 1st, together with others, I was appointed to serve as a committee to receive recommends and distribute tickets to those who should attend the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple. Bro. John Nicholson was chairman of the committee. Our duty was to guard against imposition and, if possible, detect those who might try to get into the sacred edifice on false pretentions or on tickets belonging to other members of the Church. Our work commenced on April 6th in the forenoon when the first meeting of the dedicatorial services was held. On that occasion the Temple was filled to overflowing and besides the 2300 people who were admitted to the first session, a number of others who had been invited were not admitted owing to the lack of space. Under the direction of Pres. Wilford Woodruff the services were commenced by the Tabernacle Choir singing, ‘Let all Israel join and sing,’ after which Pres. Woodruff made a few opening remarks and then offered the dedicatory prayer, which consumed three-fourths of an hour. After that Pres. Lorenzo Snow led the congregation in the shout ‘Hosannah, hosannah, hosannah, to God and the Lamb, Amen, amen, amen.’ These sacred exercises were accompanied by simultaneous waving of handkerchiefs by all the people assembled. The Hosannah Anthem, composed by Evan Stevens, was then sung by the Tabernacle Choir and afterwards the assembly joined in singing ‘The spirit of God like a fire is burning.’ Remarks were then made by Presidents George Q. CAnnon, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith. The latter especially spoke with great emotion and power, alluding in plain terms to the situation of the Church at that time and the great privilege the saints had in dedicating this temple just forty years after the corner stones were laid. He also spoke of the united condition of the general authorities of the Church and of the nature of his own feelings which were deeply stirred, and many of the congregation were moved to tears. In response to a request made by him for an expression as to whether those present felt that the Lord had accepted of the house dedicated, a tremendous and unanimous shout of ‘Yes’ was given. The spirit of God filled the house during the services. The choir sang the anthem ‘Arise ye Saints,’ and the benediction was pronounced by Apostle Lorenzo Snow.
Thus was dedicated the largest and most magnificent Temple erected by the Latter-day Saints in the 19th century. Glory to God in the highest.
The prince of the air, as if displeased with what was going on, opened a terrible wind storm, accompanied with hail and sleet; and while the glorious services were going on inside the building, the elements outside roared with such violence and force that the like was not remembered by the oldest inhabitants of Utah. Several buildings were blown down in the vicinity of the city and much damage done throughout the valley.
In the afternoon, commencing at 2:15, the second dedicatory meeting was held in the Temple, attended mostly by saints from distant stakes of Zion. Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon offered up the dedicatory prayer. Lorenzo Snow led the Hosannah shout, and the choir sang the Hosannah Anthem, assisted by the congregation. Remarks were then made by Geo. Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow.
The dedicatory services were repeated twice a day until April 18th, the different sessions being attended by saints from stakes who had been invited to come on days previously appointed. Some of the sessions were given especially for the benefit of Sunday School children. As an examiner of recommends, I had the privilege of attending nearly all the sessions which were held. Besides the General Authorities of the Church there were a number of others who attended most if not all the sessions, but we estimated that about 2,250 different persons attended each meeting in the Temple, making about 70,000 members, and 10,000 Sunday School children (not admitted on other occasions) who attended. The speakers without any exception spoke with great freedom, and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and on many occasions the saints shed tears of joy. Men–strong-hearted men–who had perhaps not wept for years, were melted to tears under the softening and mellowing influence which prevailed, and many whose testimony concerning the Latter-day work was weak previously, quickly waxed strong, and many hearts were led to thank God as they never thanked Him before. The members of the First Presidency, and the Apostles especially manifested that spirit of love, humility and kindness which impressed all who heard their voices. Jos. F. Smith in particular was powerful in all his administrations and spoke (in my estimation) as he had never spoken before. The manner in which he called on the different assemblages to express their feelings in regard to the Temple, and the hearty response which was given, was most impressive. Pres. Woodruff was wonderfully strong in voice and otherwise efficient and inspired during the first days of the dedication, but he finally became exhausted and weary, and was unable to attend the last services. Pres. Cannon, in his logical and original way, advanced glorious doctrines, which made all who heard him rejoice. As to outside manifestations several of the saints testified that they saw angels and heard heavenly voices at different times during the services.” (Autobiography of Andrew Jenson, pp. 204-206)
7 Apr.: The spirits rejoice more than we.
“President Woodruff said: ‘I feel at liberty this morning to reveal to this assembly what has been revealed to me since we met here yesterday morning. If the veil could be taken from our eyes and we could see into the spirit world, we would see that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor had gathered together every spirit that had every [sic] dwelt in the flesh in this Church since its organization. We would also see the faithful Apostles and elders of the Nephites who dwelt in the flesh in the days of Jesus Christ. In that assembly we would also see Isaiah and every prophet and apostle that ever prophecied of the great work of God. In the midst of these spirits we would see the Son of God, the Saviour, who presides and guides and controls the preparing of the Kingdom of God on the earth and in heaven. From that body of spirits, when we shout Hosanna to God and the Lamb, there is a mighty shout goes up of Glory to God in the highest, that the God of Israel has permitted His people to finish this Temple and prepared it for the great work that lies before the Latter-day Saints. These patriarchs and prophets who have wished for this day rejoice in the spirit world that the day has come when the saints of the Most High God have had the power to carry out this great mission.
There is a mighty work before this people. The eyes of the dead are upon us, the eyes of the heavens are over us; and I want to say that this dedication that we have come here to attend is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. The spirits on the other side rejoice far more than we do because they know more, they understand more of what lies before the great work of God in this last dispensation of the fullness of times. These things have been clearly manifested to be my the power of God.'” (3rd session of Salt Lake Temple dedication, Bergera notes)
“[Salt Lake Temple dedication] In the forenoon the Sanpete people had some 600 admitted. Bro. Woodruff: ‘I will tell you what has been revealed to me since yesterday: Joseph Smith and the saints of this dispensation, the saints of the Christian Dispensation, the prophets Elijah Esaiah [Isaiah?] and the good of all ages have been gathered and when the shout went up from this Temple they carried it on to the throne of God.'” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 7 Apr., 1893)
7 Apr.: Endowment of power promised.
“To those who come thus worthily these services will prove a source of strength in the work of righteousness; they will be an endowment of power to every soul who shall partake of them.” (Franklin D. Richards, at the 3rd session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, 7 Apr., 1893. Bergera notes)
7 Apr.: Baby born in temple during dedication.
“An unusual incident occurred in the Temple on Friday, April 7, shortly after the close of the evening session. Benjamin F. Bennett and his wife, Emma, had attended the meeting. The journey from Provo had doubtless hastened an event that had not been expected on that particular occasion. Before Mrs. Bennett could leave the building she gave birth to a son. She was attended by Mrs. Julina Smith; and as soon as mother and child could be safely moved they were taken to the residence of Andrew J. Gray and given all necessary care. On the evening of Saturday, April 15, the infant was carried into the Temple, to the room where it first saw light in mortal probation, and was there blessed by President Joseph F. Smith, the name conferred being Joseph Temple Bennett.” (“The Salt Lake Temple,” Contributor 14(6):301, Apr., 1893)
8 Apr.: God accepted the SL Temple.
“[Wilford Woodruff] announced that it had been shown him that God had accepted the temple and forgiven the sins of the people.” (8 Apr., 1893; The Journal of Jesse Nathaniel Smith, Provo, Jesse N. Smith Family Organization, 1970; p. 393)
8 Apr.: Vision of Lamanites in SL Temple.
“April 8, 1893 Sunday. Received special permits for myself and my sons . . . to attend all the temple services. . . . Pres. Wilford Woodruff said . . . of seeing a vision of thousands of the Lamanites enter the temple by the door in the west end of the temple and would do as much ordinance work in an hour as the other brethren could do in a day.” (Journal of Jesse Nathaniel Smith, p. 393, April 8, 1893, in “Temple Manifestations,” by Joseph Heinerman, p. 119)
8 Apr.: 1st ordinance in SL Temple.
“I went to the Temple at 7 oclock in the evening. The brethren had not come so I went to the apostles and spent half an hour in sacred meditation. I then went down and found the Celestial Room lighted up. It was a scene like fairy land. So beautifuol. I saw the first ordinance went [?] performed in the Temple, an adoption of Bro. Flakes son from Snowflake. Jos. F. Smith officiated and Lyman and J. H. Smith were present.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 8 Apr., 1893)
9 Apr.: Hosannah shout.
“Pres L Snow asked the boys & girls to shout as there were some present who would make this shout when the Savior comes.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 9 Apr., 1893)
15 Apr.: SL Temple fulfillment of Isaiah and Micah.
“The completion and dedication of the Salt Lake Temple is a work of immense importance, both to the living and the dead. In contemlating the vicissitudes through which the Church has passed during the years consumed in its erection, a remarkable spectacle is presented. . . .
The prophets Isaiah and Micah both say that ‘the house of the Lord shall be established in the tops of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills: and the people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in his paths.’
Certainly there has been no structure erected by man since the utterances of these prophets that so completely fulfilled the prediction as does this Temple which is now completed. Is it too much to say that this building which the prophets saw in vision, and concerning which they spoke and wrote, is our Temple here? All the conditions mentioned have been and doubtless will be fulfilled.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 28(8):258, 15 Apr., 1893)
16 Apr.: First meeting of 12 in new Temple.
“[Sunday] In the evening the Apostle met for the first time in their new room in the Temple. What a lovely room it is, how nice in all its appointments and how well furnished. The apostles have furnished it themselves. I have promised one hundred and fifty dollars towards it. Two thousand dollars have been subscribed by the quorum.
We knelt down around the table and Bro. Snow offered a very earnest prayer, asking the Lord to make that room a room of inspiration, a room where the Spirit would delight to dwell, also asked the Lord to spare the life of Bro. Moses Thatcher.
It was a beautiful sight to see the apostles kneeling in that beautiful room and all felt the inspiration of the prayer.
There is a feeling that Bro. Moses will not stay long with us. I heard that he vomited a gallon of blood yesterday.
Bro. Richards spoke on the delight he felt in meeting with the apostles. He felt warmly towards all the members, and said he: ‘If I have appeared cold it is not the heart but the manner.’
Brigham Young: I feel very thankful to behold what I see tonight. We are enjoying the fruits of the labors of our predecessors.
F. M. Lyman: When I see so few members left in the quorum of those that were acquainted with Prest. Jos. Smith I tremble at the thought that they may soon leave us and we be left without their experience. He had enjoyed the company of Franklin Richards when treavelling with him as he found him full of experience and information. Paid a glowing tribute to the memory of Erastus Snow.
J. H. Smith gave us some of his experiences with President Young. He had been very free to ask him questions, and the President took pains to answer him. He was present at a conversation between Prest. Young and his father when the question of moving Bro. Hyde and Orson Pratt back in the quorum came up. Geo. A. Smith said: ‘Prest. Young: I have always counselled against making this change, hoping that Brother Hyde might die and thus be spared that humiliation, but seeing how sick you have been for some time I feared the consequences if you should have died. I shall no longer oppose the move.’ J. H. Smith said: ‘My great fault is insubordination but I strive to school myself against it and want to be one with you. I love you all.
Geo. Teasdale spoke on the great privilege he esteemed it to be present. The Lord had shown him may manifestations that had been strengthening to him. He loved Bro. Woodruff like a father yet the Lord had shown him that he was to be adopted to the Prophet and on a new-Years day he was given to Eliza R. Snow wife of Joseph as son. He had at once felt a love as son to a mother.
Brother Heber Grant next spoke. He had often wondered why the Lord called him to this office and once while riding over the burning sands of Arizona on a mule, it came to him by revelation that he had not been placed in the quorum on account of his own merit, but on account of his father’s merit and of that of the prophet, his mother being a wife of Joseph. He had passed through deep waters since former time he met with the quorum. He had a mission given him to raise means for the Temple and yet he asked to be allowed to take his girls east that they might sooner get over the grief of losing their mother and he thought it would be a resto to him but he had found it anything but rest. It had been a sore trial to have the children suffer as they had with diphtheria. He had been pleased to hear the rumor that he would go to England on a mission, but he feared from what he heard to day that this would not be the case. We adjourned till tomorrow night. Going home Heber and I walked together. He said he wanted me to come to his house and get acquainted and put up as he had a spare bed.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 16 Apr., 1893)
18 Apr.: Temple dedication to initiate a quite reformation.
“This afternoon I may be called to speak. What can I say that will edify the congregation of God? I believe this Temple Dedication will prove to have a reformatory character among the people. It will not be a reformation that under religious excitement may be disgraced by extravaganzas but will show its effects in the way all true reformation should be shown namely in a change of heart. The many thousands of saints will leave these sacred premises with resolves to serve God better than in the past. One principle more than any other has been dwelt upon during these services it has been the principle of forgiveness. This is enimently proper. When we enter into the House of God we enter as it were his presence or the presence of holy being that represent him visible and invisible. We were told this morning that without we entered that house with broken hearts and contrite spirits we can not obtain the blessings of God. If we are in that frame of mind we can not harbor hatred to our brother for what little he has offended against us is so trifling in comparison with what God has forgiven us that it would prove us the most arrant hypocrites to hate or not forgive our brother and ask God to forgive us. Let us all make up our minds that we will serve God as Joshua of old and carry it out.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 18 Apr., 1893)
19 Apr.: Angels, visions in temples.
“I have received the administration of angels – When the Lord sends Angels it has been for a purpose and to accomplish something which cannot be done otherwise – In the Kirtland Temple many personages appeared and it was necessary for them to do so. Peter, James & John appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Was it necessary for Angels to appear in the Temple now to impart the same things which have been given to the Church? When Joseph Smith gave his last address, he stood, upon his feet for three hours, the place was filled with the Spirit of God. You want the Holy Ghost to lead & guide you. You do not need the administration of Angels – There is not a man who has the Holy Ghost that the adversary can make him do anything wrong – You teach the people to get the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of the Lord, and keep it with you and you will prosper. President Young & others have come to me in vision – While in Arizona they came to me in a splendid conveyance – The visions made to me during the dedication of this Temple have been marvelous in the union of the Saints.” (Wilford Woodruff, in L. John Nuttall diary, 19 Apr., 1893)
19 Apr.: Temple is accepted, your sins are remitted.
“Pres. Woodruff made a few remarks and concluded by saying that he would like to hear the brethren express themselves in relation to the dedicatory services of the Temple. . . . After all had spoken Pres. Woodruff arose and said in substance: Brethren your offering is accepted of the Lord and I testify to you, as the President of the Church, in the name of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that this Temple is accepted of the Lord, that your sins are remitted and will be blotted out of the book of remembrance forever.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 19 Apr., 1893)
20 Apr.: Largest prayer circle ever formed.
“Pres. Cannon remarked that he had seen the Lord Jesus and talked with him face to face, and could therefore testify that he knew for himself that Jesus lives. At the close of the meeting the brethren were instructed to dress themselves in their temple robes which they did and led by the First Presidency and apostles proceeded to the Celestial Room. Where they formed in circle. It was the largest pray[er] circle ever formed in the church.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 20 Apr., 1893)
“30 persons were here who were present at the laying of the corner stones of the Salt Lake Temple I being one of the number; 27 who were acquainted with the Prophet Joseph Smith in his day & time; 8 who had eaten with the Prophet at his table; 6 who were in Kirtland Temple in the Prophets time; 1 baptized by the Prophet (Elder C. F. Middleton). . . .
The Circle formed today was the largest ever formed in this dispensation He [Jos. F. Smith] said the sins of the brethren were forgiven them, they would remember this day and that they were one of the 115 privileged and blessed. . . .
Prest Woodruff said he had seen Presidents Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball since they had gone behind the veil. The former had told him to tell the Saints to obtain and keep the spirit of God, otherwise they would be in danger. He testified that only on one previous occasion had he felt the spirit of God more powerfully manifest than during the dedication of this Temple. that was when the Prophet Joseph delivered his last address. The Prophet in that instance stood on his feet three hours, and the spirit of God was present like a flame of fire. No angels had appeared during the dedication proceedings; but the visions of his mind had been opened by the power of God.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 20 Apr., 1893)
“The brethren met again. The twelve met with the Presidency to consider what way to conduct business. It was agreed for the Twelve to speak each 5 minutes. The question arose if the President’s room could contain a circle as large as this. I suggested that we meet in the Celestial Room which was adopted.
Lorenzo Snow: Spoke upon the important step we were about to take namely the partaking of the emblems of the body and blood of Christ. Quoted the passage ‘I am from above but my power lies beneath,’ meaning the priesthood which is the power he uses upon the earth.
Franklin Richards: ‘By the quthority of my Church is Godliness brought to pass.’ What a fulness of joy we possess. The disintegration lately so threatening is healed. Go out in the earnestness of the spirit and spread the good influence among the people.
Brigham Young: I am in accord with you all. If we understood the presidency as they understood God we would make greater progress.
F. M. Lyman: Better days are dawning for us. We are learning lessons which we thought we had learned but hadn’t. We must follow the Presidency, we can not get around it. We must learn the keynote and give heed to it.
J. H. Smith: If I have thought wrongfully or judged unjustly of any of you I am sorry for it. I have suffered much because my brethren could not see the course the Presidency wanted them to take. I bear witness that the Presidency have been guided by the Spirit in their course.
Geo. Teasdale: Nothing is so sweet as the inspired words of the servants of God. We must seek to have the Spirit of God. I pray for it night and morning and when I walk in the street.
J. W. Taylor was much struck with Bro. Lyman’s remarks. We were chosen before the Foundation of the World to be the ministers of God. I approve heartily the course of the Presidency when I can not do so I will resign my apostleship.
Heber J. Grant spoke before J. W. Taylor. He was glad that Prest. Woodruff assured us of the forgiveness of God for I have not sustained the Presidency as I should in all things. The quotations Bro. Smoot made were to me the gems of yesterday’s meeting. You should carry the Spirit you now enjoy to the people.
M. W. Merrill: In my labors as a Bishop and other positions in the Church I have learned that we can not be at variance with one another and enjoy the Spirit of God.
A. H. Lund: I can not express my feelings. What a good promise Bro. Woodruff made us that our sins were forgiven us. We can now commence a new having received a spiritual renewal. The watchwords of Prophet Joseph given us by Bro. Smoot were very choice. Follow the Priesthood and fear no consequences. Do not cut off the blessings of God by opposing our leaders.
Abraham Cannon had never felt so humble as when he considered the deference paid him by the brethren although so young.
J. W. Hess of Davis Stake felt in full accord with the authorities.
Prest. Jos. F. Smith: We should encourage the Spirit of forgiveness this will break down any [storiness?] or bitterness and make us love one another. Read the 18 Chap. III Nephi.
Geo. Q. Cannon: My mind has been wrapt in vision since I came into this house and I have seen the glories of Eternity. I bear witness that Jesus lives for he has condescended to talk to me. I want the young to seek for this witness and to know for themselves for God is a God of revelation. When you leave this meeting will you retain the Spirit you now have? I would to God that you did all feel as we do, and make the people feel the same. We do not want to dictate in politics, but we think we have a right to indicate the policy which the people ought to follow. We must use wisdom in not antagonizing the Democrats nor discourage the Republicans. The Republicans are still a power in the land. H. J. Grant spoke on Sugar.
We then went down to the Celestial room and formed a Circle 115 in all. Prest. Cannon was mouth. Then we went back to the Presidents room and partook of Bread and wine. ‘Up ye Defenders of Zion’ was sung and then the brethren related reminiscences of the days of Joseph.
There were 36 present who had been at the laying of the Corner-Stones.
There were 33 present who had seen Joseph in Nauvoo.
There were 10 present who had been in the Kirtland Temple.
There were 6 present who had eat at the table of the prophet.
Bro. Hart jocularly said he had eat at the table of the prophet but it was after he was dead.
There were four present who had been in Backinstow’s posse. Bro. Bean was then 15 years. Abram Hatch, J. W. Hess and one more.
There was one present who had been baptized by the prophet and one more thought he had also been the same.
Concerning Joseph having more wives than one A. O. Smoot said he had drove him to see his wives and afterwards heard Emma set him up about it.
Jos. F. Smith said that he often sat at his uncle’s house with his cousins. Once he was there he saw a course looking fellow trying to get in but some of the brethren would not let him, his hair was long and he was ragged. Joseph heard the scuffle and saw them trying to put out the stranger thinking he was a Missourian who had come to kill Joseph, and he ran to the door and embrased and hugged him. It was Porter Rockwell. Bro. Lyman related meeting General Doniphan who had helped the Prophet and the saints in Missouri. He was very glad to see him. A. O. Smoot said he helped Porter Rockwell away some forty miles. Bro. Middleton related his having slept in the room in which the Prophet was killed and next day seeing Tom Sharp the murderer of Joseph. He was despised and looked upon as the meanest man living. Bro. Roberts related his visit to the Prophet’s Brother William. He receive him kindly but his ‘wife’ would not let them pray or administer to their dying boy. The old man dared not say his soul was his own and even a daughter 17 years old was very disobedient if he asked her to do something she would tell him to do it himself.
Patriarch John Smith: ‘I remember once being at Joseph’s when he had a well being dug another boy and I thought it was amusing to throw rocks down on the heads of the workmen. Joseph came along and saw it and took both the boys into the house and took down a switch and switched both of us. I wonder if Edward Partridge remember it for he was the other boy?’ Edward Partridge: ‘Yes I remember that I got the whipping but it was John Smith who threw the rocks. Like old dog Troy I was simply caught in bad company!’ General laughter. Lorin Farr had worked for the Prophet who was so satisfied that one day at the table he said Lorin is a good boy. Emma said don’t tell him of it. ‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘he is not so good but he can be a good deal better!’
The brethren were eager to talk over old time and Bro. Cannon had to act Chairman to give each one his chance.
Joseph F. Smith then gave a splendid speech. He said in times to come this body of men would be proud of having belonged to the first Circle ever formed in the Temple. It was also the largest circle formed in this Dispensation. In consisted of 115 brethren.
Prest. Geo. Q. Cannon then blessed the congregation and dismissed the brethren. Thus ended to of the most glorious days.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 20 Apr., 1893)
21 & 22 Apr.: Children visit the Temple.
“April 21st and 22nd, 1893, were set apart for the children to visit the Salt Lake Temple at the time of its dedication. It was a great event for Sunday School boys and girls and in the two days assigned them, some 13,000 had the privilege of going through the House of the Lord.” (George D. Pyper, “The Sunday School Parade: Side Lights on its History,” Instructor, 77(10):552, 1 Oct., 1942)
Apr.: No mention of special manifestations.
“These services were a fitting prelude to the more spirited services which were held in the Temple. In that sacred edifice there was an influence present which it is not in the power of mortal man to describe. It had to be felt in order to be appreciated, and it seems without exception that everyone who attended did partake of the influence which pervaded that sacred edifice. The walk through the beautifully adorned rooms of the Temple prepared the Saints for quiet and careful attention to the Dedicatory prayer and to the remarks which the Lord inspired His servants to make. Every one who spoke seemed to have the spirit which was above that of man, and could alone come from the Eternal Father. It is not probable that a single member of the vast number present doubted concerning the acceptance of that edifice by the Lord. He approved of the sacrifices of His people, and there is no doubt that He will reward His faithful Saints for the diligence which they manifested in the erection, and especially in the completion of this building.” (Editorial, Contributor 14(6):304, Apr., 1893)
Apr.: Manifestations during dedicatory services.
“In complying with a request to furnish a statement of spiritual manifestations in the great Temple of Salt Lake City, I am necessarily impressed with a sentiment of unusual delicacy, owing to the sacredness of the subject. It is presumed, however, that some instances of the character referred to may be properly related for publication. In this brief paper I will name a few cases concerning which I have gleaned some information. They occurred during the progress of the dedication services in April, 1893.
The following was related to me by Brother A— S—, Junior, a member of the Tabernacle choir, as having been experienced by him in the Salt Lake Temple on Monday, April 17, 1893, while the service was being conducted. The statement is as near as may be in his own language:
President George Q. Cannon announced that a certain brother would read the dedicatory prayer. When he did so, I concluded that I would keep my eyes open and look at him, instead of closing them as I had done on previous occasions. On reflection I came to the conclusion that I could pay as strict attention to the prayer with my eyes open as I could when I kept them closed. A few moments after the Apostle began to read a scale seemed to remove from my eyes, and a bright light appeared above his head and behind him from his shoulders upwards. This light remained in that position a few moments and then raised until I could see the face of a personage in the midst of it. It was the countenance of President Brigham Young. I turned my gaze away for a moment, as if to ascertain whether I was looking with my own eyes. On again looking toward the stand I beheld the entire person of President Young, clothed in robes. He soon retired toward the rear of the stand and disappeared behind President Wilford Woodruff. After he had vanished I again turned my attention to the Elder who was reading, when I saw a light similar to what had appeared previously, and then I beheld the person of President John Taylor, who seemed to be looking towards the reader. I also saw a personage whom I took to be Hyrum Smith, although he appeared to be more spare in build than he is represented to be in his pictures; then Orson Pratt, whom I at once recognized; then there were three large men whom I could not identify. There were others of more slender build whom I also failed to recognize. There were, in all, about twelve whom I saw during the dedicatory prayer. When the prayer was concluded and just before and during the sacred hosanna shout, I noticed a bright halo of light surrounding several of the brethren, and the speakers during the same services were seemingly encircled by a brightness which appeared to emanate from their own persons.
While President George Q. Cannon was making the concluding remarks during this session, I was overcome and wept for joy. Having my head bowed for a short time I saw nothing more for a few moments. On raising it again I saw a brilliant light over the head of each member of the First Presidency while they sat upon the stand.
Whichever way any of the speakers turned while addressing the people, the light followed every movement made by them.
The number of personages seen by me during the services subsequent to the reading of the dedicatory prayer was about twelve, making as near as I can state, about twenty-four in all.
At the afternoon session on the same day I saw several personages, and immediately felt a desire to communicate the information of what I saw to Brother George Kirkman, who was sitting near me. The vision then became dim. I turned to him and told him of those appearances. On directing my gaze once more toward the Melchisedek stand, I could see nothing more, the vision having closed.
On another occasion during the dedication proceedings, President Joseph F. Smith was addressing the assemblage, which was very large. In all his previous speaking he had exhibited great power and freedom, the people being frequently melted to tears under the influence which accompanied his addresses. At this particular time, however, he appeared to have some difficulty in expressing himself with the ease and fluency that had hitherto characterized his utterances. One of the Elders who was standing on the Aaronic stand saw this and was looking intently at the speaker. As he did so he observed a light appear suddenly in front of the Melchisedek stand. This light was of a yellowish or golden tint and exceedingly brilliant. Its intensity was so great that, when in contact with the front pillars which support the canopy, it caused the white paint upon them [to] appear of a dark hue.
At the same instant of this appearance President Smith suddenly spoke with the same potent influence which had characterized his previous addresses, and continued to hold his auditors as if they were spell-bound, to the close of his remarks.
The Elder referred to, learned that one other of the brethren besides himself had seen this manifestation of the Spirit of light.
Another remarkable manifestation was related to me by a lad named George Monk of Payson, Utah County. He was at the time eleven years old. Unfortunately I have no notes of his statement, which, however, was substantially as follows: He was at the dedication services accompanied by his mother and grandmother. He said he saw a man appear at the south-east circular window of the assembly hall of the Temple. This personage looked into the interior. The boy drew his mother’s attention to this visitor but she could not see him. Suddenly he requested her to look at two others flying or floating across the ukpper part of the hall from south to north, and then stated that five others had entered the large compartment and were ranged upon the wide ledge which runs along the wall under the row of circular windows.
The lad was astonished to learn that his mother was unable to see any of those glorious personages, whom he described as the ‘prettiest men’ he ever saw in his life.
At the conclusion of the services as soon as Elder John Henry Smith arose to pronounce the benediction the boy said in ecstacy: ‘Mamma, look at that one under the clock, he is the prettiest of them all. See! he is holding up both his hands like this,’ at the same time holding his own hands up as an illustration.
This bright, innocent boy told his story by request, to several persons, it being each time similar in every detail. When on a visit to the Temple subsequently he pointed out the positions and movements of the eight personages as he saw them. Sister Monk corroborated, as far as could be done by her, in view of the fact that she was unable to see the angels herself, the statements of her son, who has the reputation of being a well-behaved and religiously inclined lad. The latter gave details as to the clothing of those holy beings, saying that they were dressed in loose flowing white robes. Most, if not all, had long and somewhat wavy hair. He was particularly struck with the great beauty of the one who stood over the canopy of the Melchisedek stand during the benediction, at the close of which he suddenly vanished from view.” (John Nicholson, “Temple Manifestations,” Contributor 16(2):116-118, Dec., 1894)
Apr.: Heard angels singing at Kirtland and Logan.
“She [Zina D. Huntington Young] heard the angels sing in the Kirtland Temple, and while working in the Logan Temple her sister, Presdenda Kimball, and four others heard the singing of angels in that beautiful edifice.” (“Temple Workers,” YWJ 4(7):294, Apr., 1893)
Apr.: Manifestations at Manti & SLC dedications.
“I was privileged to attend the dedicatory services of the Manti Temple, and the first day just before the opening hymn I heard some beautiful singing in some other part of the building. Sarah A. Peterson, wife of President Peterson, and I sat together, and both wondered where it was. Just then the choir began to sing.
I think it was the second day services I saw a halo of light around one of the brethren when he was speaking, and at the laying of the capstone of the Salt Lake Temple I saw a halo of light over the same brother when speaking there.” (Christina Willardson, “Temple Workers,” YWJ 4(7):304, Apr., 1893)
1 May: Architectural description.
“The perfection of these arrangements suggests a thought as to the ingenuity employed in other plumbing appliances, and we now examine more closely the numerous colossal bath tubs that are located in the contiguous apartments. Hot and cold water are of course at easy reach; there are also improved appliances as to the overflow, small basins within the larger tubs, etc. . . .
But we are not yet ready to leave this enchanting part of the building, and three smaller rooms, leading off to the south from the main room, attract our attention. The first, to which we ascend by a few steps, is decorated in rose-pink and gold. Its workmanship throughout is costly, the brackets, columns, etc., being hand-carved and the morror being one of the largest and purest in the building. An art-glass window of great size and beauty adorns the south wall. It represents Moroni delivering the plates to Joseph Smith; and the graceful pose of the angel as well as the eager yet timid expectancy of the youth are presented with wonderful accuracy. The furniture of this room is mahogany.
Another small room, reached by a short ascent from the main floor, is a vision of almost supernatural beauty. It is circular in form and resplendent in blue and gold, with borders and panels of red silk velvet. It is paved with an artistically designed native hard-wood mosaic, the blocks being mostly no more than an inch square, finely polished. Through the dome which furnishes the ceiling, the light streams through seventeen circular and semicircular jeweled windows, taking a thousand hues as, softened and subdued, it reaches the interior. The large art window to which the south side of this exquisite little room is given, is a work of surpassing loveliness. It represents the moment in the life of Joseph Smith when he, trusting in the words of the Apostle James, sought wisdom of the Lord, and received as an answer the visitation of two heavenly beings, one of whom, pointing to the other, said: ‘This is my beloved Son; hear him.’ The benignant expression of the two divine personages, their compassionate yet noble attitude, the posture of the lad half in adoration and half shrinking in childish fear, are all delineated with consummate and charming fidelity.
The third small room leading by a couple of steps’ ascent from the main room is done in sage-green and gold, with furniture and trimmings to match. It also has an art-window, and a large plate-mirror, and is in all respects as handsome and perfect a little spot as taste and skill can make it.
In these three small rooms last described the most sacred ordinances for the living and the dead are performed.” (n.a., JI 28(9):282-285, 1 May, 1893)
1 May: Origin [?] of policy not admitting non-members.
“It was decided before the dedication services [of the Salt Lake Temple] commenced that the general public, not members of the Church, should not be admitted into the house after its dedication. But the pressure to be admitted to it since that time is and has been very great, and much disappointment is felt by applicants when they find that they cannot be permitted to enter. In fact, members of the Church cannot now enter the building for the gratification of curiosity alone. If they go there it must be for the purpose of attending to ordinances.
A moment’s reflection will show everyone how impracticable it would be to admit people to the building merely for the gratification of curiosity, that is if the sacred character of the house is to be preserved. If one friend be admitted to view its interior why should not another? If a few be admitted today whom the authorities would be pleased to gratify, how shall those who come tomorrow of the same character be denied the privilege, and where shall the line be drawn? There are many prominent and honorable persons who come here whom it would be a pleasure for the authorities of the Church to gratify if they could do so consistently; but if the doors of the Temple were to be opened for this purpose, when could they be closed?
There is only one safe course to pursue, and that is to exclude all visitors. Now that the building is dedicated it ought to be esteemed as a holy place and ought to be kept sacred for the performance of ordinances of the most important character. Nothing should be permitted that would impair its sanctity, or even have the appearance of doing so in the estimation of the people who have erected it. It is a matter of conscience and not a matter of caprice to close the doors against the entrance of any paeson who may come there for the purpose of gratifying his curiosity.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 28(9):286-287, 1 May, 1893)
9 May: Regarding unworthy people who attended dedication.
“With this we return the recommends given by you to members of your Stake to be present at the dedicatory services at the Temple. We do so for the purpose that you may carefully examine them and become acquainted with the standing of the persons recommended. There were numbers who gained admission to these services whose lives had, for many years, been inconsistent with their calling as Saints; in fact, in some cases they were not known to be members of the Church. But their names were found on the records, fellowship had not been withdrawn from them, and they claimed the right, under the ruling of the First Presidency, to be present at the dedication. These persons having claimed this privilege by reason of their membership in the Church, it now becomes the duty of the local authorities, Bishops and others, to see that all such assume the responsibilities of their profession. When, in your search through the recommends, you meet the name of any of whose standing you are in doubt, they should be labored with in the divine spirit of love and patience, and be admonished to repent of all that is unseemly and inconsistent with their callings as officers or members of Christ’s Holy Church. If any turn a deaf ear to these warnings, continue in ways of indifference or sin, and they be found unworthy of membership, they should be dealt with by the proper councils of the Church, as the word of the Lord directs, and their names should be stricken from the records, that the vineyard of the Lord may be pruned and no further opportunity given to the unworthy to repeat the course they took to gain admission to the Temple services.” (First Presidency Circular Letter, 9 May, 1893. In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:245)
15 May: Fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi.
“Now as soon as the people hear the gospel preached by the Elders, they naturally inquire, ‘What has become of my father and my mother? They were good people, but they died without being baptized. What will be their fate?’ In this way they fulfill the words of Malachi.
That spirit has filled the hearts of all the Latter-day Saints. They want to have their ancestors saved as well as themselves. Their hearts naturally, therefore, turn to their kindred who are dead, and in the temples how built they can officiate for them as fast as they can obtain their names. In this way the become saviors as the prophet Obadiah said they should.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 28(10):319, 15 May, 1893)
15 May: Sightseeing visit of children to the SL Temple.
“Many of the little children who have contributed to the erection of the Temple have said to me, ‘We have contributed to the Temple, and why can’t we go through also?’ The proper authorities have been consulted in regard to this matter, and before long a day, or days, will be set apart for the Sunday school children, who have not already gone through, to go in that Temple, and they will never forget the impressions that will be made upon their minds. There will appear something further regarding this matter in due time.” (John M. Whitaker, General Secretary of DSSU, JI 28(10):329, 15 May, 1893)
16 May: Preparation for ordinance work.
“Pres L. Snow stated the object of the meeting to present the names of all who had been invited to attend and learn from them if they were willing & could labor in the Temple and bear their own expenses. Also that the work would commence on next Monday – On the names of each being called all responed [sic] as being willing and able to do work in the Temple without any pay for the same. The names of those to work in the washing rooms were read over & the appointments made – also if those who will take the several parts in the Endowments were presented. There were quite a number of sisters present all of whom expressed their willingness to work in the Temple. Another meeting was appointed for Thursday morning next at 10 oclock to practice the several parts & prepare for work.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 16 May, 1893)
18 May: Rehearsal of endowment in Salt Lake Temple.
“went to Temple assisted some of the brethren with their parts Assisted in the rehersal of the endowments.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 18 May, 1893)
18 May: Manifestations during dedication cited.
“Many remarkable things were seen and heard in the Temple. Andrew Smith, Jr., said he saw on the stand with the brethren Pres. Young, a number of the Twelve who are dead, and several other brethren whom he did not know.—-A little nine year old boy also told his mother that he saw angels in the room and on the stand. Numerous parties saw brilliant lights, and heard singing and instrumental music. One rough young man from Brigham City, a son of the late Judge Wright, and the leader in the escapades of the young men at his home, said he saw a bright halo about the head of Pres. Woodruff, and the spirit of the Temple was so strong in him that he went to his home and started a reformation among his companions, which Pres. L. Snow thinks will effect great good.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 18 May, 1893)
20 May: More rehearsing.
“I assisted in rehearsing the Endowments.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 20 May, 1893)
20 May: Setting apart of temple workers.
“At one o’clock I went to the Temple, and asisted in the setting apart of the Temple workers. There being six of the Presidency and Twelve present, we divided into three parties of two each, I being with Pres. Jos. F. Smith. Thereafter we went through the various rooms, and listened to the ceremonies and dialogues of the same.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 20 May, 1893)
23 May: Council concerning temple matters.
“I spent the day in council with the brethren about Temple matters.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 23 May, 1893)
24 May: Endowments in Salt Lake Temple.
“assisted in the Endowments & worked at the vail – 151 Endowments got through I was blessed & set apart to labor in the Salt Lake Temple this afternoon by Pres L Snow & John R Winder – Pres Snow mouth I received very nice blessing – I felt this was necessary although I had been acting as requested.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 24 May, 1893)
24 May: First marriage in Salt Lake Temple.
“Cousin James Lambert and Isaac Waddell’s daughter were today married in the Temple, they being the first to receive this ordinance in this sacred building.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 24 May, 1893)
24 May: Agreement to use “methods” of Manti Temple.
“I went to the [Salt Lake] Temple. 150 were going through. In a council before we commenced it was agreed to adopt the methods which are used in Manti. Bro. McAllister had changed our way of offering the 1st sign of M.[elchizedek Priesthood?] but he fell in with good grace. The naval mark was also agreed to as we use it.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 24 May, 1893)
May: Many unworthy intentionally admitted to dedication.
“Perhaps the one feature of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple which will given the most universal satisfaction is the glorious promise made by President Woodruff and other brethren concerning the forgiveness of sins. As is well known the greatest leniency was shown in granting entrance to members of the Church. Many persons passed through that sacred building who for many years had been so careless and indifferent in regard to their religion that they were not generally known to be in the Church, but upon examination of the books it was found that no action had ever been taken which excommunicated them from the fold.
There were occasions, through the freedom of admission which was given, that some of the Saints felt disposed to criticise the congregations assembled. One day in particular there were so many of seeming little faith in attendance, that a brother remarked, ‘If the Lord is pleased with this congregation I think He is very easily satisfied.’
Doubtless there were persons admitted who were entirely unworthy of entrance into such a holy place, and yet, who is there among the Latter-day Saints that feels to regret the decision of the presiding authorities to grant entrance to all whose names appeared on the Church records? We believe that none among the Latter-day Saints would have changed, had they possessed the power, this decision. There is no doubt that the meetings will have a tendency to revive interest and love in the hearts of once faithful members, who, through various circumstances have gradually drifted into indifference concerning the Gospel. In fact the effects are already being seen to some extent at least in the actions of the people. It is to be hoped that the reformation thus begun will continue, until all who have a spark of desire for righteousness, shall be led to repent of their sins and turn unto the Lord with greater fervor and diligence than they have ever before manifested. If they will do so the glorious promise made them will be verified.
Is it not a joyful thought that by becoming possessed of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and by refraining from sin in the future, all our past transgressions will be blotted out from before the face of God? Such a result is worthy of the most diligent labors and strenuous exertions on the part of the Saints. Some may doubt the authority of President Woodruff to make this promise, but none who recognize the inspiration which prompted him, can doubt its fulfillment, and even those in whom there may be dubiety concerning his authority cannot do better than to place the matter to the test, and see if they will not themselves receive a testimony of its divine origin.
Just as the truth of the Gospel can be ascertained by fulfilling its requirements, so can the truth of this promise be verified by observing the conditions attached thereto. Consequently, however doubtful we may be, such a glorious prospect should at least inspire us with sufficient faith to strive to make ourselves worthy of its fulfillment, as far as we are individually concerned. May we not fall short of the promised blessing, but feel here in life and even hereafter in eternity, that God meant exactly what He said in this promise of the forgiveness of past sins!” (Editorial, Contributor 14(7):358, May, 1893)
May: Change in rules for who can act as sealing proxies.
“In one of the preparatory meetings [May, 1893] President Wilford Woodruff told us a number of his experiences in the St. George Temple. One of them had to do with his problem of temple work for his own dead. He was so busy with Church affairs that he could give very little time to his own personal affairs, so he went to the Lord with his problem, and the Lord told him to call in the young men and maidens of St. George and vicinity, to let them have their endowments and then assist him in doing the work for his dead, consisting of baptisms, endowments and sealings. A great load was thus lifted from his shoulders. He then said, ‘A practice has sprung up in the Logan Temple to the effect that only those who have themselves been sealed can take part in sealings.’ He said he wanted this rule changed. ‘The endowment is the key and those who have had their endowments are eligible to take part in sealings. If this were not so a great part of my own Temple work would be void.'” (Joseph Christenson, Vice-President of the Genealogical Society of Utah, and Chief Recorder of the Salt Lake Temple; “The Growth of Temple Work,” UGHM 27:91, Apr., 1936)
1 Jun.: Concerning adoptions; endowments for children.
“At 2 o’clock I attended my Quorum meeting in the Temple. . . . We first had some talk about the ordinance of adoption in the temple. Joseph F. Smith said Pres. Young had told him to follow in ordinance work for the dead the rules which will ordinarily govern similar work for the living. Pres. John Taylor had ruled that no person could represent another who is dead in the receiving of any ordinance which the living person had not already received. The conversation lasted for some time but was finally dismissed for future consideration, when we could devote more time and thought to the subject. The custom was, however, approved of giving endowments to children over 8 years of age if they are dead, and of sealing to parents only one generation beyond the one in the Church.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 1 Jun., 1893)
7 Jun.: First “2nd anointings” in Salt Lake Temple.
“At 5 o’clock I went to the Temple where I met my folks, we having received permission from Pres. Woodruff to receive our second anointings. Father was there to perform the ceremony. Bro. Lyman was also there to be with his wife Susan D. Callister Lyman as she received this blessing. Father anointed and spoke the words, John D. T. McAllister held the horn, and Lorenzo Snow and John R. Winder were the witnesses. Sister Lyman was first anointed in the presence of us all, she thus being the first to receive this blessing in this building. I then received mine, and my wives followed in the order of their marriages. I felt very much pleased to be thus favored. The ordinance of the washing of feet was explained by Bro. McAllister, after the anointings had been given.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 7 Jun., 1893)
15 Jun.: Baptism OF the dead.
“When Elder Henry Eddington and companion were traveling as missionaries some years ago in the North Carolina Conference, they distributed very freely the tracts written by Elder John Morgan explanatory of the principles of the gospel. Some of these tracts contained an explanation of the principle of baptism for the dead, which to many people is, though a new doctrine, very attractive.
Some of these tracts came into the hands of several young ministers of the ______ Church, who were known as ‘circuit riders,’ because it was their duty to travel around and around a certain district to look after the spiritual interests of the flock. These young and inexperienced fellows read with interest the new ideas concerning the redemption of the dead, and thought seriously on the subject.
Just about this time a lady died in that neighborhood, who was not a member of any church, but with whom these young ministers had enjoyed numerous conversations on religious subjects. She had steadily withstood their pleadings to join their religious society, but now that she was dead they desired that her name should be enrolled on their church records and her soul be saved. How to accomplish this, however, was a mystery to them until the Latter-day Saint tract furnished them thoughts concerning baptism for the dead. The accordingly met together and considered the subject, deciding to allow an innovation on their established creed to meet this special case.
The young lady, by this time, had been dead two days. Nothing daunted, they proceeded to the house where her corpse was, and taking a door from its hinges, lashed the body to it and immersed the door and body in the water, thus administering, as they supposed, a saving ordinance to the deceased.
To the credit of the superintending minister of the district, be it said, that as soon as he visited the neighborhood and learned of this disgraceful proceeding, he excommunicated the offending youths from the fold.
This incident serves to illustrate the errors into which uninspired men, though professed followers of Messiah, fall, when they seek to interpret the plan of salvation by the wisdom of man.” (n.a., JI 28(12):391-392, 15 Jun., 1893)
23 Jun.: Common names not to be used for “new name.”
[At temple workers meeting. Told by Wilford Woodruff:] “that they must not give as the new name which is announced in the endowments such ones as Tom, Dick, Maud, etc.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 23 Jun., 1893)
23 Jun.: Must be endowed to act as proxy.
“At a special meeting of the workers held in the anex of the temple June 23 1893, President Wilford Woodruff, in the course of remarks made by him, spoke substantially as follows:
‘It had been the rule in Logan Temple not to allow any person who had not been married under the covenant to officiate at the marriage altar in behalf of the dead. This rule, he said was wrong and must not be acted upon in the future. The reception of the endowment enabled a person to act in behalf of the dead in any of the ordinances in the house of the Lord, except the highest (2nd anointing).'” (From page 42 of the “Book of Temple Ordinances,” in Notes on Historical Department–Confidential Research Files 1950-1974)
12 Jul.: Standardization among temples.
“At a Quorum meeting in the Salt Lake Temple today President Woodruff and President Joseph F. Smith, after Temple ordinance matters were discussed, ruled that the Endowment House and St. George Temple practices should prevail in all the Temples, viz., that those persons, male or female, who had not been sealed for themselves could represent the dead in being sealed for them. I demurred against the ruling as I do not think it right, but will adopt it in the Logan Temple on the responsibility of the Presidency. It was moved by President Joseph F. Smith and carried unanimously that Lorenzo Snow and M. W. Merrill, Presidents of the Salt Lake and Logan Temples, should be the judges and decide whether women in the Church having husbands deceased out of the Church should be sealed to said husbands.” (Marriner Wood Merrill diary, 12 Jul., 1893)
“The sacrament was had in the afternoon, Presidents Woodruff and Jos. F. Smith partaking of the same with us, after it had been blessed by Pres. Woodruff. Before partaking of it Pres. Woodruff decided, and we all sustained him in the decision, that where young unmarried men or women, who have had their endowments, desire to stand for their dead relatives in receiving the sealing ordinances, they can do so, even though the persons officiating have not been married themselves. It has been the rule in the Logan temple, and this was done by order of Pres. Taylor, that no person could stand for another in the sealing ordinance unless he or she had been themselves sealed in life. . . . It has been the rule to not seal women to their dead husbands unless those husbands were in the Church. It was today decided that where men are dead who would likely have joined the Church their wives may, if the so elect, be sealed to them.—-It is also proper for children to be sealed to their parents, and then have those parents sealed to the Prophet Joseph.—-The case of Lorenzo D. Young was mentioned. He married his wife Persus by the law of the land, and had six children by her. When the law of sealing was revealed she would not be sealed to him, but he had a Sister Decker, who had raised six children by her husband, sealed to him. Persus Young therefore went and was sealed to Levi Richards. Neither of these couples afterwards had children. Now the children of Persus Young desire to know whether they shall be sealed to their father or mother. Both are good people, and neither will say to whom the children shall be sealed. F. D. Richards says that the cause of the separation of Lorenzo and Persus was that the former had Sister Decker sealed to him first, and then desired Persus to come in second, which she refused to do. If this is correct the feeling of the brethren was that the children should go to the mother.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 12 Jul., 1893)
20 Jul.: Sealing to husband who refused during life.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “The case of Sister Lucy Kimball’s daughter was presented by Uncle Angus. Her daughter married Frank Woolley, who was born in the Church, and was never cut off, but who refused to be married in the Temple. He was a very moral youth all his life. Now he is dead, and his wife desires to be sealed to him, but she has been denied this privilege. It was decided to giver her permission to be sealed to him, if she so desires.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 20 Jul., 1893)
27 Jul.: Sealing of dead woman to living man.
“In the temple I had a young lady named Walke today sealed to me, she being dead, and her father desiring this to be done. Sister Harriet Barrow Cox stood as proxy for her.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 27 Jul., 1893)
26 Aug.: Must be endowed to act as proxy.
“We have made the following ruling, which is self-explanatory, and send it to you for your guidance as president of the Salt Lake Temple.
Persons having received their endowments, who are otherwise qualified, may act for the dead in the ordinances of sealing and adoption, without having been sealed or adopted themselves. But in second anointings, none shall be eleigible [sic] to act for the dead unless they have received this blessing themselves.” (Manti Temple Historical Record. Church Historical Department, CR/21/#6. Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith to Salt Lake Temple President, 26 Aug., 1893. Bergera collection.)
19 Sep.: All-female prayer circle in SL Temple.
“In 1893, for example, a General Authority and member of the Salt Lake Temple presidency approved the prayer circle meeting of some sisters in preparation for the rebaptism of a sister:
The sisters, quite a number, came to have a prayer meeting, so bro. [John R.] Winder took us up to the Elders room where there was an altar around which we knelt, Aunt Zina [Young] being mouth and the rest repeating after her. I was then baptized, Frank Armstrong officiating. [Mary Ann Freeze Diary, 19 Sep., 1893, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU]”
(D. Michael Quinn, BYU Studies 19(1):96, Fall, 1978)
5 Oct.: Changes in policy: suicides, sealing to dead.
[Meeting of 12] “It is now allowed under certain conditions to have temple work done for suicides. Permission is also given for women who desire it, to be sealed to their dead husbands, though the latter did not join the Church in life, but were good people. These are instances where changes in the rule have lately been made.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 5 Oct., 1893)
9 Oct.: 2nd anointings for aged.
[Dedication of Church University building] “Pres. Woodruff told the brethren . . . the Presidents of Stakes are authorized to recommend aged and faithful persons to receive their second anointings, but no others have this authority to issue recommends for this purpose.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 9 Oct., 1893)
9 Oct.: Temple marriages under Aaronic Priesthood.
[Dedication of Church University building] “He [Geo. Q. Cannon] believes the time will come when marriages will occur in our temples under the Aaronic Priesthood, instead of giving to young and inexperienced men all the blessings belonging to the Higher Priesthood. It is frequently the case now that unwrthy persons go into the temples on recommends, which they should not receive, but it cannot well be prohibited them to enter, because of their family connections. He hoped this change would occur soon. . . . Pres. Woodruff and Jos. F. Smith approved of all that had been said, and the latter spoke at some length on the false doctrines which are now being circulated.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 9 Oct., 1893)
17 Oct.: Harmonizing different versions of Endowment.
“I met with GQC. JFS with several of the Twelve & [J. D. T.] McCallister, D. H. Cannon M W Merrill who preside over the Three Temples & L Snow of Salt Lake Temple & spent three hours in harmanizing the Different M[ode?]s of Ceremonies in giving Endowments.” (Wilford Woodruff diary, 17 Oct., 1893)
19 Oct.: Approval for prayer circles to use SL Temple.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “After prayers it was proposed and accepted that the brethren of the Twelve who desire to do so may form prayer circles from those already formed, and have them meet in the temple. This will give the brethren opportunity to become familiary with this pleasant labor.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 19 Oct., 1893)
22 Oct.: Most of dead would accept temple work.
“[Box Elder Stake conference, Lorenzo Snow speaking] No greater opportunity to perform and work in the interest of Jesus was ever offered. . . . In speaking of the work being done in the Temple for the dead, said that in the great majority of cases the dead would receive it.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 22 Oct., 1893)
4 Nov.: Those going to temple need to bring genealogies.
[Salt Lake Stake priesthood meeting] “Bro. J. E. Taylor spoke on temple work, and said those who intend to go through should be early at the building with their genealogies complete.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 4 Nov., 1893)
7 Dec.: White garments only.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “It was decided in answer to a question that people should wear only white garments whether they be cotton, woollen or linen. Colored garments should not, however be used.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 7 Dec., 1893)
31 Dec.: Ordinances which must be performed on the earth.
“As far as the divine will has been revealed, it is necessary that the outward ordinances such as baptism in water, the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, and the higher ordinances that follow, should be attended to on earth, a proper representative in the flesh acting as proxy for the dead. The results of such labors are to be left with God. It is not to be supposed that by these ordinances the dead are in any way compelled to accept the obligation, or that they are in the least hindered in the exercise of their free agency. They will accept or reject, according to their condition of humility or hostility in respect to things divine; but the work so done for them on earth will be of avail when wholesome argument, and reason have shown them their true position.” (James E. Talmage, “Articles of Faith,” lecture given 31 Dec., 1893; in JI 29(6):189-190, 15 Mar., 1894)
[No date]: 6 questions answered by Woodruff.
“6 questions submitted by the recorder, through President Snow answered by President Woodruff, written by his own hand.
1. When dates of death are unknown, relationship absent or uncertain and it is not known that the deceased reach maturity, what work, if any can be done for the dead?
Ans. it is vary [sic] that a name is presented for Work for the dead that what there is evidence to show whether the person is a child or of mature age for endowment whare such evidence cannot be obtained do nothing. But endowments may be given ware dates of birth & death cannot be found, if they are of sufficient age for ordinance.
2. What age must a dead female have attained before she can be endowed?
Ans. She must at least be 8 years of age before she can be baptized for an endowed and if living not less than 12 years and unless for some special reason not less than 16.
3. What age must a dead male have attained before he can be endowed?
Ans. Same as number 2.
4. What age must a dead female have attained before she can be sealed as a wife?
Ans. Not less than 12 years.
5. What age must a dead male have attained before a female can be sealed to him as a wife?
Ans. Not less than 12 years.
6. Is it proper when desired by children who are in the Church that the latter should be sealed to parents who did not hear the Gospel in life and consequently did not embrace it?
Ans. Yes–unless thair is some special reason why it should not be done. (There are no specific date given when these questions are answered. They appear in the book for the year 1893)” (Notes on “Historical Department–Confidential Research files 1950-1974”)
31 Dec.: Brigham gave me the keys of the Temple.
“The greatest Event of 1893 was the Dedication of the Great Salt Lake Temple. Wilford Woodruff Dedicated it first And attended the first 21 Meetings & through Sickness was absent on the 15 & 16. The Power of God was Manifest in the dedication of this Temple & many things Re[vealed?] by the power of God to the Presidency of the Church. Near 50 years ago while in the City of Boston I had a vision of going with the Saints to the Rocky Mountains Building a Temple And I dedicated it. Two nights in succession before John Taylors Death President Young gave me the Kees of the Temple & told me to go and Dedicate it which I did.” (Wilford Woodruff diary, entry recording the Synopsis of 1893)
Jane Manning James’ reminiscence of Joseph Smith’s robes.
“During the first week in Nauvoo they stayed with the Prophet Joseph. In that time all the family members were able to secure jobs and lodgings except Jane. “On the morning that my folks all left to go to work,” Jane recalled, “I looked at myself, clothed in the only two pieces I possessed, I sat down and wept. Brother Joseph came into the room as usual and said good morning. . .. you musn’t cry, we dry up all tears here.” The Prophet then went and brought Emma into the room: “Sister Emma here is a girl that says she has no home, havent you a home for her? Why yes if she wants one,” Emma replied. Joseph left the room and Emma asked Jane what she could do. Jane said she could wash, iron, cook and do housework. So Emma gave her the washing duties. “The next morning,” Jane states, “[Emma] brought the clothes down in the basement to wash. Among the clothes I found brother Josephs Robes. I looked at them and wondered. I had never seen any before, and I pondered over them and thought about them so earnestly.” Then a wonderful thing occurred with this faithful Black woman. She received from the Lored knowledge which she otherwise would not be permitted to receive because of her lineage. As she said, “I pondered over them and thought about them so earnestly that the spirit made manifest to me that they pertained to the new name that is given the saints that the world knows not of.” Maybe this helps explain why all her life she wished desparately to receive her endowments. She had a sure testimony of their divinity. I am grateful for the privilege I had to baptize my wife for and in behalf of Jane James, and the other women of the family. I also had the privilege to stand proxy for the men in baptism, the endowments and the sealings in the Salt Lake Temple in 1979.” (“Biography of Jane E. Manning James written from her own verbal statement and by her request. She also wishes it read at her funeral. . . written in the 1893. . . by E J D Roundy”; Church Archives; CHO/ms/d/4425. [Jane Elizabeth Manning James–arrived in Nauvoo from Connecticut. She led her family consisting of her mother, 3 bros, 2 sisters a b-i-l and a s-i-l: total of 9 in the group. “Nauvoo””our destined haven of rest”. She lost all her belongings–a trunk full of mostly new clothes that was being shipped to Nauvoo.]) [Note: This is from the Bergera collection, which does not indicate who the modern author, who served as proxy in 1979, was.]
TEMPLES, 1893 (TEMPLE LOT CASE, part 1).
Reminiscence of dedication of Independence lot.
“I was asked on cross-examination about the ground here, known as the Temple plot, or Temple Lot. There was a small portion of it, that was consecrated or set apart for the purpose of building a temple on, sometime in the future, and that portion of it was the part that they occupied for religious worship from time to time. I did not see it consecrated or set apart, but I was present at the time of the occupation thereof for for religious worship a great many times, as the lot that was set apart and consecrated for the purpose of building the temple was used for religious worship, and I was present at religious worship a great many times. I have heard, I cannot say how many times, but more times than one, the announcement made from the stand when speaking there, that this lot was sacredly consecrated and dedicated by God for the building of his temple there. I have heard that several times. I have heard Oliver Cowdery make that statement, also heard Mr. Phelps make the same statement, and others in general conversation made the same statement. It was a matter of common notoriety that this piece of ground was set apart and solemnly dedicated for the purpose of the building of a temple at sometime in the future, and that temple was to be used for the purpose of worshiping in. When Oliver Cowdery and Mr. Phelps made these declarations, Edward Partridge was present. Edward Partridge himself stated publicly the same thing, that it was set apart and dedicated for a temple, for the worship of God. I have heard him state that publicly. These declarations of Partridge were made right there on the ground where the meetings were held. At the meetings would be the times that they would speak specially about it. They seemed to speak of it as being a sacred spot.” (Hiram Rathbun, “Temple Lot Case,” pp. 229-230)
[Same testimony, from Temple Lot Manuscript]:
“484 Q: You were asked yesterday about the plat of ground known as the ‘temple plot’ as you called it, or ‘temple lot’–you called it ‘plot’ or ‘plat, while others called it ‘lot’; and in your cross examination you stated that the ‘plat’ or ‘plot’ primarily understood it was fifty and some odd acres, or seventy some acres? A: Yes, sir, or thereabouts.
485 Q: Fifty or seventy odd acres or thereabouts was the amount of it as you understood it? A: Yes sir.
486 Q: I will ask you to state now Br Rathbun, what if any thing was done by the church, before it left this county of Jackson, towards setting any particular part of that piece of ground off, and dedicating it for church purposes,–temple purposes, or whatever it wa. Just state the facts about that if you know any thing? A: Well it was my understanding of it,–my understanding of it was at that time, that that was,–there was not a very large portion of it, but rather a small portion of it,–
By Mr. Southern,–I object to him stating what his understanding of it was,–let him state the facts.
By Mr. P. P. Kelley,–
487 Q: Just state what you know about it doctor?
By Mr. E. L. Kelley,–
488 Q: You can state the manner in which it was held by the society at that time? A: There was a small portion of it that was set apart and consecrated for the purpose of building a temple on some time in the future, and that portion of it was the part that they occupied for religious worship from time to time. I would state however, that I did not see it consecrated, nor did I see it set apart. At the time that it was set apart I was not present, but I saw it occupied and was present at the time of the occupation thereof for religions worship a great many times, as the lot that was set apart and consecrated for the purpose of building the temple thereon was used for religious worship, and I was present at religious worship a great many times.
By Mr. P. P. Kelley,–
489 Q: I will ask you Doctor if you heard any public declarations from the stand or platform of the fact that that lot had been dedicated and consecrated for the purpose of building a temple thereon at some future time, or in substance that?
Counsel for the defendant objects to the question asked the witness on the ground that it is irrelevant and immaterial, and not the best evidence.
A: May I state it?
490 Q: Yes, sir,–just go on and answer the question? A: I have heard announced I cannot say how many times, but more times than one,–I would not say how many times, but several times any way,–I would not say how many times, but more times than one any way as I before stated, and I have heard the announcement made from the stand when speaking there, that this lot was sacredly consecrated and dedicated by God for the building of His temple there. That I have heard stated several times.
491 Q: Can you mention the name of any one whom you heard make that statement? A: I have heard Oliver Cowdrey make that statement, and I have also heard Mr. Phelps on several occasions make the same statement. I have also heard others in general conversation make the same statement, but not publicly like these other men I have mentioned. It was a matter of common not[o]riety that this piece of ground was set apart and solemnly dedicated for the purpose of the building of a temple at some time in the future, and that temple was to be used for the purpose of worshipping the Almighty God.
492 Q: At the time these declarations were made do you know whether or not Edward Partridge was present? A: When Oliver Cowdrey and Mr. Phelps made these declarations he was present.
Counsel for the defendant objects to the question and the answer of the witness on the ground that it is irrelevant and immaterial, and not the best evidence.
493 Q: What did Edward Partridge say, if any thing, with reference to that subject?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground that it is testimony that is not admissible under any rule of law admitting testimony.
A: Well your speaking in reference to that reminds me of the fact that Br. Pa[r]tridge himself stated publicly the same thing, that it was consecrated, dedicated and set apart for the building of a temple thereon for the worship of God, for I have heard him state that publicly also.
494 Q: You have Edward Partridge,–you have heard Edward Partridge also state that publicly? A: Yes sir.
495 Q: Where were the declarations of Partridge made? A: Right there.
496 Q: Do you mean on the ground where the meetings were held? A: Yes sir,–on the ground where the meetings were held, for that would be the time when they would speak specially about it. They seemed to speak of it as being a sacred spot.
497 Q: I think that is all we have to examine the witness on?”
(Temple Lot Manuscript, Hiram Rathbun, Book 2 Complainants Testimony, pp. 540-542)
Recollection of Kirtland Endowment: Temple Lot Case.
“The first thing I ever heard or knew of endowments in the church was after I went to Nauvoo, in 1845; it was in the spring of 1845 that I first heard of it,–that was when I first read of it, but I have run across the church records of endowments given in the early days of the church when the temple was built in Kirtland.
What I understand by endowments, what it should be, would be the teachings and instructions. I mean the instructions delivered from God through the sermons of his prophets and apostles; that would mean endowment in the manner which I understand it; an endowment would be a special gift of the Holy Spirit upon the ministers of the church who were going out to preach; it was instruction given to the ministry of the church more particularly.
This endowment consisted of the Spirit of God being given to the prophet and to the ministry of the church, and instructions to send them out to preach in the fields and labor in the interests of the church wherever they would be called to labor; they were to be sent to the different nations of the earth by a special revelation. I mean the same kind of endowment as that which was had on the day of Pentecost.
It was not done in secrecy; I do not think there was any secrecy in endowment from God.
The endowments at Nauvoo were different from those at Kirtland, the endowment I took at Nauvoo, I do not know whether I can state what they are or not, there is really nothing to state about it. As far as I understand the endowment at Nauvoo, it was different from the endowments in Kirtland, Ohio.” (John H. Thomas, “Temple Lot Case,” p. 258)
[Same testimony from Temple Lot Manuscript]
“236 Q: When did you first learn about any endowments in the church? A: About what?
237 Q: About endowments in the church? A: That was after I went to Nauvoo in 1845.
238 Q: How long after you first went there did you first learn about endowments? A: It was in the spring of ’45 that I first heard of it. That was when I first read of it,–I mean when I first heard of it, but I have run across the church records of endowments given in Kirtland in the early days of the church when the temple was built in Kirtland.
239 Q: Now what endowments do you refer to,–what do you understand by endowments in the church at that time? A: What do I understand by endowments?
240 Q: Yes sir? A: What I understood by endowments,–what it should be,–would be the teaching and instructions from the ceremonies,–I mean the instruction delivered from God through the sermons of his prophets and apostles. That would be an endowment in the manner in which wisdom would be given to the Saints through the ministry of the church that were going to be sent out to the nations of the earth to preach the gospel unto all who would hear. It would be the special gift of the Holy Ghost and the Spirit to such to enable them to administer the Gospel in power. It was instruction given to the ministry of the church more particularly.
241 Q: Of what did those endowments consist? A: They consisted of the Spirit of God being given to the prophet and to the officers of the church and the ministry, and instructions to send them out to preach in the fields and labor in the interests of the church wherever they would be called to labor, and to the end that success would crown their efforts. They were to be sent to the different nations of the earth by a special revelation.
242 Q: Do you mean such an endowment as that which was had on the day of Pentecost? A: Yes, sir. The same kind of an endowment.
243 Q: Was it accompanied by secrecy? No, sir, I do not consider there was any secrecy in endowments from God.
244 Q: That is all?
Re-cross examination by Mr. Southern,–
245 Q: You say there was no secrecy? A: In what respect?
246 Q: In answer to a question asked you by Mr. Traber you say there was no secrecy in the endowments? A: Yes sir.
247 Q: Will you please state how they were conducted? A: I mean what I understood to be the endowment in Kirtland administered in the temple there.
248 Q: In Kirtland? A: Yes sir, in Kirtland Ohio.
249 Q: Well I am talking about the endowment at Nauvoo? A: Well that is different.
250 Q: That is different? A: Yes sir. That was different.
251 Q: Well what was that?
Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness on the ground that it is irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper re-cross examination.
252 Q: Well I want to ask you this question. You were asked whether the endowments at Nauvoo that you took were secret ones? A: What is that?
253 Q: You were asked whether or not the endowments at Nauvoo that you took were secret or not?–or whether there was any secrecy about it?
By Mr. Traber,–I asked him generally if they were secret.
By Mr. Southern,–
254 Q: Well I want to know what they were? A: Do I understand from this that you mean the endowments that were given or received at Kirtland Ohio?
255 Q: No sir, I am asking you about the endowments you took at Nauvoo. What were they,–what were these endowments that you took at Nauvoo? A: Well I don’t know that it would be interesting for me to state what they were.
256 Q: Well state what they were and we can judge as to whether or not the recital is interesting. A: Well I don’t know as I can do it.
257 Q: Well if you have good reasons to decline to state what they were you may say so? A: Well there was really nothing to state about it. I am not afraid to state it so far as that is concerned. But as far as I understand the matter of endowments in Nauvoo was a different thing altogether from the endowments in Kirtland Ohio.
258 Q: Well now I will ask you this question and you can answer it or not just as you see fit. If you decline to answer it you can say so. What were the endowments given at Nauvoo,–Now if you do not wish to answer that question say ‘I decline to answer that question’, and if you wish to state it, state what they were?
By Mr. B. L. Kelley,–Let the record show that our objection to that question is that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and some thing that happened after 1844, and then the witness can take his choice, and answer it or not just as he wishes to do. A: The long and the short of it is that we do not accept that organization under Brigham Young after 1844.” (Temple Lot Manuscript, John H. Thomas, Book 2 Complainant’s Testimony, pp. 608-609)
Cessation of Baptisms for the Dead in 1841.
“Yes, I stated in my direct examination that the church prior to 1844 practiced the ordinance of baptism for the dead in Nauvoo. I think that was practiced in 1841. I think it was in ’41 or ’42, I would not be sure. There was no order through Joseph Smith that I ever knew anything about to stop the practice of baptism for the dead, nothing of the kind that I ever heard anything about, and it was continued up to the time of his death, I think, so far as there was opportunity or occasion to practice it.
There was no order given through Joseph Smith stopping the ordinance of baptism for the dead that I remember of. If there was any such order or direction issued, I don’t recollect it. I wouldn’t say there was not such an order. If there had been such an order given through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that would have been the law of the church of course, it would have been carried out.
I do not recollect any ceremony taking place of baptism for the dead in 1843 or after that, but I suppose they always baptized for the dead there as long as they had a chance. Now that is my view of it but I cannot remember any particular instance where it was done. But I suppose they did so as long as they had an opportunity to do so.
I cannot tell the date of it, but I baptized men in the font there myself and saw others do the same thing before we left there; but as to the dates, of course I could not say without referring to my minutes. Yes, sir, that was done in the font. I do not know that the font was ready in 1843. History of course will given an account of that.” (Wilford Woodruff, Temple Lot Case, p. 297)
[Same testimony from Temple Lot Manuscript.]
“304 Q: Do you remember the revelation,–the order rather that stopped the practice of it–prior to the death of Joseph Smith? A: There was no order that ever I knew anything about to stop the practice. Nothing of the kind that I ever heard anything about, and it was continued up to the time of his death I think so far as there was opportunity or occasion to practice it.
305 Q: Well was there not an order given through the prophet Joseph Smith, stopping the ordinance of baptism for the dead until after the completion of the temple there at Nauvoo? A: Not that I remember of. The first baptism that was done in the church there, Joseph Sith himself went into the Mississippi river and baptized one hundred one evening, and there was a number of others that baptized quite a number, and not having a recorder to keep a record of these things, he ordered the recording of everything, and that was the commencement of it, but after that they had a font.
306 Q: Well now after the baptism there in the Mississippi river by Joseph Smith, was there not an order issued after that to the effect that that ceremony,–baptism for the dead,–should cease until the completion of the temple? A: Well I don’t recollect it sir.
307 Q: Do you say you don’t recollect anything about it? A: If there was such an order or direction issued I do not recollect it.
308 Q: Would you say there was not? A: No sir, I would not say that. I would not say there was not, for the reason that I don’t remember whether there was or not.
309 Q: If there was such an order given through the prophet Joseph Smith, that would be the law of the church, then wouldn’t it? A: Well of course it would have been carried out I suppose, but I have no recollection of an order of that kind being given, for I remember that baptism for the dead was carried on there up to the time that Joseph died.
310 Q: Do you recollect any baptism for the dead after the year 1843? A: Where?
311 Q: Do you recollect any ceremony of baptism for the dead in Nauvoo after the year 1843? A: Yes sir. During the year 1843?
312 Q: Yes sir, during the year 1843? A: I do not recollect now. I do not recollect any special occurence of that kind, but I supposed they always baptized for the dead there in the font as long as they had a chance. Now that is my view of it, but I cannot remember any particular instance where it was done, but I suppose they did always as long as they had an opportunity to do so.
313 Q: You say that is your view of it? A: Yes sir.
314 Q: That is your view of it, but you don’t know that they did it? A: Well I will tell you just this much. I can’t tell the date of it, but I baptized men in the font there myself, and saw others do the same thing before we left there, but as to the dates of course I could not say without referring to my minutes.
315 Q: You say that was done in the font there? A: Yes sir.
316 Q: Well the font was not ready in 1843 was it,–is it not a fact Mr. Woodruff that the font was not ready in 1843 for baptisms? A: I don’t know sir. History of course will gaive an account of that.” (Wilford Woodruff, Temple Lot Manuscript, Book One Respondents Testimony, p. 39)
Washings and anointings.
“Q.–To refresh your recollection, I read paragraph 37 page 433 of Exhibit A, as follows: ‘And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which ye have built unto my name?’
A.–Well, that is all right. Yes, sir, I say these washings were acceptable unto the Lord. We think so. We think they were performed in a house built unto the Lord.
The Masonic Temple was not a house built unto the Lord. I do not say there were any washings in the Masonic Temple, but there were meetings held in the Masonic Temple. There were certain ordinances performed there at the start, because there was no temple built at that time. It was just as it was in this city [Salt Lake City], for there were a great many ordinances performed there at that time the same as there has been here, because there was not a temple built at the time and they were performed outside of a temple for that reason.
Q.–Now do you claim that these washings and anointings performed there under those circumstances were the washings and anointings referred to in paragraph 37 that I have just read? I will read paragraph 39 on page 434 of Exhibit A again. It was read to you the other day on your direct examination, and I will call your attention to it again. It is as follows:–
Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein ye receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinances of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.
Now I will ask you again if you claim that the washings and anointings performed under the circumstances you have just stated are the washings and anointings referred to in the paragraph I have just read?
A.–Yes, sir, I so understand it.
Q.–Do you say that the ordinances that were performed there were the ordinances referred to in that paragraph on washings and anointings?
A.–A portion of them were. We have always had permission.
Q.–Did you not state in your examination in chief that those were the identical anointings that you received there? Did you not state to Mr. Hall when he was examining you that the anointings and washings referred to in paragraph 39 of this revelation which I have read from Exhibit A, were the washings and anointings you received at Nauvoo?
A.–Well, it is as I said. There are different washings performed in these ordinances and some of them were performed there.
Q.–Well, do you say that the ordinances of washing and anointing that were performed there were the ones referred to in this section or paragraph?
A.–Some of them might be.
Q.–I will read you paragraph 40 of this same revelation, page 434, of Exhibit A:–
And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people.
Now do you claim that the ordinances referred to in the preceding paragraph were being performed there before there was any house erected unto the Lord?
A.–I will say they were being performed before we had any house. When there was no house erected for that purpose, there were buildings or rooms taken and dedicated to the Lord for the performance of these ordinances.
Q.–But the revelation says the house must be built in which the Lord will reveal his ordinances?
A.–Yes, sir.
Q.–Now were they revealed and administered outside of that house?
A.–Those ordinances were revealed at Kirtland,–the ordinances of the church were revealed at Kirtland and made manifest to the church there, but then they were in a different form perhaps.
Q.–What ordinances were revealed at Kirtland, and what revelation will I find it in?
A.–I don’t recollect what particular part of the book it is in, but it was given in 1836.
Q.–That was the ordinance of washing of feet and that alone, was it not?
A.–Yes, sir, that is the one I have special reference to, but there were others besides that too.
Q.–Now, sir, do you not know in that revelation of 1836 there was no ordinance except that of washing of feet revealed?
A.–Yes, sir, that was all.
Q.–And those were the ordinances that were performed in the Temple at Kirtland,–washing of feet and anointing with oil?
A.–Yes, sir, those were the ones. These are not the ordinances that are taught in this revelation of January 9, 1841. I say those ordinances or endowments were given and taught at Kirtland. These ordinances were adopted or performed in reference to washing the feet. That is an endowment ordinance; yes, sir, it is. I do not think these are the endowment ordinances referred to in section 3, Defendant’s Exhibit A.
Q.–Then why do you say that the ordinances of washing and anointing and baptism for the dead, that were referred to here in 1841 were revealed and practiced at Kirtland?
A.–I did not say that. I said there were ordinances revealed at Kirtland.
Q.–These were not revealed though?
A.–Yes, sir–no, sir, they were not practiced. They were not known to the church prior to the giving of the revelation of 1841. They were not known to the church before the time they were revealed and they were revealed in 1841. That revelation was given before the temple was built.
Q.–Does not this revelation say that they were to be revealed in a house built unto the name of the Lord,–that ‘these ordinances might be revealed, which had been hid since before the world was’?
A.–I don’t know about that.
Q.–Read paragraph forty of that same section and see if that is not so.
Answer.–
Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, {I am reading the one before it too,} your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein ye receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinances of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name. And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people.
Q.–What do you say to that?
A.–Yes, sir, that is it.
Q.–Now were these ordinances revealed in 1841 before that temple was built?
A.–I don’t know that I can say positively about that. I will say this, that Joseph Smith was killed before the temple was completed, and this revelation was given by Joseph Smith before his death. Now there are two facts about which there can be no manner of dispute or question. The revelation was given before Joseph Smith’s death and the ordinances were practiced before his death in precisely the same manner as they have been administered since his death.
Q.–Where is the revelation revealing the ordinance of anointing, washing, and baptism for the dead as spoken of in paragraph 39, on page 434 of Exhibit A in the revelation of 1841?
A.–There is no revelation in existence or in print that gives those ordinances to the public that I know of.
Q.–There is no revelation in existence or in print that you know of that gives these revelations to the public?
A.–No, sir, not that I am aware of. These ordinances that were used in connection with the conferring of endowments were given by instruction, that is, not public to the world; in other words, as the ordinances are administered the manner and form of doing it is not made public to the world. They were not presented to the church for its acceptance as a body or as a church,–I say I think they were not. In my direct examination the other day, by Mr. Hall, I was asked to read section 44, paragraph eighty-three of the 1835 edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants for the purpose of showing that certain things therein mentioned were to be shown or given to the world. Yes, sir, I recollect that.
Q.–I will ask you now if the things that were spoken of in that revelation were not to be revealed to the church?
A.–They were taught to the church; that is, they were taught to individuals in the church as they received these ordinances. When they came to receive ordinances, they were taught certain things and these were among the ones taught.
Q.–Were they not presented to the church for its acceptance as a body or as a church?
A.–No, sir.
Q.–They were not?
A.–I think not.
Q.–Do you say they were not?
A.–I say I think they were not.
Q.–Mr. Woodruff, don’t you know that at a general conference of the church in Kirtland in 1835 that that very revelation was presented to the church and passed every quorum in the church and was then presented to the body of the church in conference assembled and was accepted by the church after a vote was taken thereon?
A.–The principles were known there at that time and were accepted by the church. Those revelations on the endowments or ordinances were accepted there at that time, but there was nothing said about baptism, and I do not think any of the endowments were given there at that time. I do not know that the things spoken of in the revelation of 1835 referred to anointings, washings, and baptisms that were referred to in the revelation of 1841. After reading the paragraph, I don’t know that I can say that it refers to the anointings, washings, and baptisms referred to in the revelation of 1841. There is nothing in the paragraph that I have read that refers to washings, anointings, or baptisms. There is nothing said about that at all.” (Wilford Woodruff, Temple Lot Case, pp. 299-302)
[Same testimony from Temple Lot Manuscript.]
“399 Q: To refresh your recollection, I read paragraph 37 page 433 of Exhibit A, as follows:
And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which ye have built unto my name? A: Well that is all right.
400 Q: Do you say sir that these washings were acceptable unto the Lord? A: Yes sir.
401 Q: You do? A: Yes sir, we think so.
402 Q: Were they performed in a house that was built unto the Lord? A: Yes sir.
403 Q: They were? A: We think so.
404 Q: Was the Masonic Temple a house built unto the Lord? A: No sir.
405 Q: Please explain then how it comes that they were acceptable unto the Lord, if it was not a house built unto the Lord? A: Well I didn’t say there was any washings in the Masonic Temple, but there was meetings held in the Masonic Temple.
406 Q: It was just a store room was it not? A: No sir, it was a hall built above the store room.
407 Q: Where that was performed? A: No sir, we do not understand each other. We are talking about two different things. There were certain ordinances performed in the store there for there was not a temple built at that time. It was just as it was in this city [Salt Lake City], for there was a great many ordinances performed there at that time the same as there has been here, for there was not a temple built at the time, and they were performed outside of a temple for that reason. When there is not temple it is impossible to perform these ordinances in a temple,–for the reason that there is no temple in which to perform them. It was the way it was here before there was a proper place built expressely [sic] for that purpose,–rooms were set apart and dedicated to that purpose.
408 Q: Dedicated for what use? A: Dedicated to the Lord for that purpose.
409 Q: Now do you claim that these washings and anointings performed there under these circumstances, were the washings and anointings referred to in paragraph thirty seven that I have just read. I will read paragraph thirty nine on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A. again. It was read to you the other day of your direct examination, and I will call your attention to it again. It is as follows,–
Therefore, verily, I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgements for the beginning of revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.
Now I will ask you again if you claim that the washings and anointings performed under the circumstances you have just stated, are the washings and anointings referred to in the paragraph I have just read? A: Well not I don’t recollect just exactly how that reads, but there are certain things referred to there as I understand it in that paragraph.
410 Q: I am just asking you with reference to the washings and anointings,–I am just calling your attention at this time to them, and to nothing else? A: Yes sir.
411 Q: They are the same? A: Yes sir,–so we understand it.
412 Q: Now do you say those are the ordinances that were performed there? Do you say that the ordinances that were performed there were the ordinances referred to in that paragraph on washings and anointings? A: A portion of them are,–we have always had permission,–
413 Q: Well now, did you not state in your examination in chief that those are the identical anointings that you received there? Did you not state that to Mr. Hall when he was examining you the other day? A: What is that?
414 Q: That the anointings and washings referred to here in paragraph thirty nine of this revelation on page four hundred and thirty four of exhibit A of the defendants, were the washings and anointings you received in Nauvoo? A: Well it is as I said,–there are different washings performed in these ordinances, and some of them were performed there.
415 Q: Well do you say that the ordinances of washing and anointing that were performed there, were the ones referred to in this section or paragraph? A: Some of them might be.
416 Q: Now I will read you paragraph forty of this same revelation on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A,–
And verily, I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein, unto my people.
Now do you claim that the ordinances referred to in the preceding paragraph were being performed there, before there was any house erected unto the Lord? A: I will say they were being performed before we had any house. When there was no house erected for that purpose there was rooms or buildings taken and dedicated to the Lord for the performance of these ordinances. There was a time in the migrations of the church from one place to another when of necessity there could not be any house specially erected for that purpose. So it was at Nauvoo, and so it was here in the early days.
417 Q: But the revelation says the house must be built in which the Lord will reveal his ordinances? A: Yes sir.
418 Q: Now sir were they revealed and administered outside of that house? A: Those ordinances were revealed at Kirtland,–the ordinances of the church were revealed at Kirtland, and made manifest to the church there, but then they were in a different form perhaps.
419 Q: In what respect were they different? A: Well we had a temple there, but at Nauvoo we had no temple at that time.
420 Q: What ordinance was revealed in Kirtland and what ordinance will I find it in? A: What ordinance will I find it in?
421 Q: What ordinance was revealed at Kirtland and what revelation will I find it in? A: Well it was,–I don’t recollect what part of the book it is in, but it was given in ’36.
422 Q: That was the ordinance on washing the feet, and that alone was it not? A: Yes sir, that is the one I have special reference to, but there was others besides that too.
423 Q: Don’t you know that in that revelation of 1836, there was no ordinance excepting that of washing the feet revealed? A: Well I know there was more than that. I know,–
424 Q: And the anointing with oil? A: Yes sir.
425 Q: And those were the ordinances that were performed in the temple at Kirtland,–washing the feet, and anointing with oil? A: Yes sir.
426 Q: Is that the ordinance that has been taught in this revelation that is dated January 19th 1841? A: No sir, it is not the same ordinance.
427 Q: Then why do you say that these ordinances were revealed in Kirtland? A: I say those ordinances on endowments were given and taught at Kirtland.
428 Q: Would you be kind enough to give me the section you have just been reading? (Witness hands counsel asking the question the book marked Exhibit ‘A’, deft’s.) A: These ordinances were adopted or performed in reference to washing the feet.
429 Q: Is that an endowment ordinance? A: Yes sir, it is.
430 Q: Is that the endowment ordinance referred to in section thirty nine? A: In section thirty nine?
431 Q: In paragraph thirty nine I should have said–that paragraph there? A: No sir I don’t think it is.
432 Q: Well then why do you say that the ordinance of washings and anointings and baptisms for the dead, that were referred to here in 1841 were revealed and practiced at Kirtland? A: I did not say that?
433 Q: Well if you did not say that I would like to know what you did say? A: I said there was ordinances revealed at Kirtland.
434 Q: These were not revealed though? A: Yes sir,–No sir,–they were not practiced.
435 Q: Were they revealed at the time of the giving of the revelation in 1841? A: What date is given there?
436 Q: Well never mind the date,–were they known to the church prior to the giving of the revelation of 1841? A: No sir.
437 Q: They were not known to the church until the time they were made known in 1841? A: They were not known to the church before the time they were revealed.
438 Q: And these ordinances or endowments revealed in that revelation, were to be conferred or practiced in a house built unto the Lord were they not? Is that not the fact Mr. Woodruff? A: Well that revelation was given before the temple was built was it not?
439 Q: It was given in 1841? A: Well that was before the temple was built. There was no temple at Nauvoo then,–never was a completed one.
440 Q: But this revelation says don’t it that they were to be revealed in a house built unto the name of the Lord,–it says that these ordinances might be revealed, which had been hid since before the world was? A: I don’t know about that.
441 Q: Read paragraph forty of that same section and see if that is not so? A: ‘Therefore verily I say unto you that your anointings and your washings,’–I am reading the one before it too,–‘and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgements, for the beginning of revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my name.
And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein, unto my people.’
442 Q: What do you say to that? A: Yes sir, that’s it.
443 Q: Now do you not claim that those were to be revealed, or were revealed before the temple was built, do you? A: What?
444 Q: The ordinance mentioned in section thirty nine? A: I don’t claim that they were revealed before the date given there.
445 Q: Well that was in 1841, and the temple was not built then? A: No sir.
446 Q: Now were these ordinances revealed in ’41 before this temple was built? A: I do not know that I can say positively in regard to that.
447 Q: Now then is this not true Mr. Woodruff that that ordinance could not have been revealed at that time, for it says that it will not be revealed until there is a house or temple built in which to practice the ordinance or endowment, and the fact is that at that time there was no such an house or temple built? A: Well I will say this gentlemen,–Joseph Smith was killed before that house was built or completed, and these revelations were given by Joseph Smith before his death. Now there are two facts about which there can be no manner of dispute or question.
448 Q: What revelations? A: They were delivered before his death. That is a fact, and it is also a fact that these ordinances were revealed before his death, and also practiced before his death in precisely the same manner that they have been administered since his death.
449 Q: Where is the revelation revealing the ordinance of anointing, washing and baptism for the dead, as spoken of in paragraph thirty nine on page four hundred and thirty four of Exhibit A, in the revelation of 1841? A: There is no revelation in existence or in print that gives these revelations,–those ordinances to the public that I know of.
450 Q: There is no revelation you say in existence in print that you know of that gives these ordinances to the public? A: No sir, not that I am aware of.
451 Q: Is there one in manuscript to your knowledge,–Is there one now in manuscript, or was there ever one in manuscript to your knowledge? A: Joseph Smith revealed them before his death, and taught them himself before his death.
452 Q: I asked you if there was any revelation to your knowledge in manuscript that revealed these ordinances referred to in the revelation of 1841, and revealed like wise the manner in which it or they were to be administered? A: Well these ordinances were given,–they have been given, and practiced too,–whether they were published or not. They were given and practiced and carried out by the prophet. They were carried out by his instruction and given to the church,–or given to the elders of the church.
By Mr. E. L. Kelley–
453 Q: The question is whether there was a revelation to that effect or not, and if so do you know anything about any such a revelation. That is the question Mr. Woodruff? A: It was all a revelation so far as that matter is concerned.
By Mr. P. P. Kelley–
454 Q: Well will you say there was ever a revelation reduced to writing at any time, or at any place, from the time of the foundation of the church, up to the present day, revealing the washings and anointings referred to in paragraph thirty nine of this revelation and if so give me the revelation, the date of the revelation, and where it was given, or the book wherein I can find it? A: They are not published,–the ordinances revealing these things are not published,–they have never been printed.
455 Q: Were they in manuscript,–were they ever in manuscript, or are they now in manuscript? A: Yes sir they have been in manuscript.
456 Q: They have been reduced to writing? A: Yes sir.
457 Q: Were they ever presented to the church? A: No sir not to the body of the church.
458 Q: They were not presented to the church? A: No sir,–except to the ones that received these ordinances or endowments. They were presented in that way.
459 Q: Did you ever hear them read from the manuscript? A: I heard better than that. I heard them taught by the prophet himself, and I have heard them read, or parts of them.
460 Q: Did you ever read them yourself from the manuscript? A: Well I can’t say. What do you mean? I do not understand what you mean,–in what way?
461 Q: I asked you if you had ever read these ordinances from the original manuscript? A: Well I don’t know that I ever read these ordinances as they were given by the prophet in the original manuscript. I can’t say that I did that. I may have done so, but if I ever did I have forgotten it, or can’t recollect so that I can say with positive assurance as to that.
462 Q: Did you ever see the original manuscript that contained them? A: I do not recollect that either. I will say just this to this company of men assembled here, those ordinances were not given,–
463 Q: Of course that is not responsive to my question, and I object to your saying anything about it. I want you to answer my questions Mr. Woodruff, and if you cannot do so, why simply say you can’t. What you were going to say is not responsive to my question? A: I know it, but I want to say it never-the-less. Those ordinances that were given in connection with the conferring of these endowments were given by instruction that is not public to the world,–in other words as the ordinances are administered, the manner and form of doing it is not made public to the world, no more so than the ordinances of the Masonic or any other secret orders ordinances or endowments are made public to the world. Now of course with reference to the ordinance of baptism that has been known to every body that has been at all acquainted with the manner of baptism, for there was nothing secret about that. Baptism for the dead is an ordinance that was publicly practiced there at Nauvoo before the death of the prophet, and it is one that is well known and is one also of the ordinances referred to in that revelation a part of which I have read here.
464 Q: Well now in your direct examination the other day,–Well I will move the court to exclude that answer from the record on the ground that it is not responsive to the question asked the witness. Now in your direct examination the other day by Mr. Hall, you were asked to read section forty four, paragraph three of the 1835 edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, for the purpose of showing that certain things therein mentioned were not to be shown or given to the world? A: Yes sir.
465 Q: You recollect that? A: Yes sir. I recollect about that.
466 Q: I will ask you now if the things that were spoken of in that revelation were not to be revealed unto the church? A: They were taught to the church,–that is they were taught to individuals in the church, as they received these ordinances. When they came to receive the ordinances, they were taught certain things, and these were amongst the ones so taught.
467 Q: Were they not presented to the church for its acceptance as a body,–or as a church? A: No sir.
468 Q: They were not? A: I think not.
469 Q: Do you say they were not? A: I say I think they were not.
470 Q: You say you think they were not? A: Yes sir.
471 Q: Mr. Woodruff don’t you know that at a general conference of the Church held at Kirtland in 1835 that very revelation was presented to the church,–was presented and passed every quorum in the church, and was then presented to the full church, or the body of the church in conference assembled and was accepted by the church after a vote was taken thereon? A: The principles were given there at that time, and were accepted by the church. Those revelations on the endowments or ordinances were accepted there at that time, but there was nothing said about baptism, and I don’t think that any of the endowments were given there at that time.
472 Q: Then there was no such a thing as endowments then from,–up to 1835 or ’37? A: To ’37?
473 Q: Yes sir? A: Well now of course these revelations on the endowments were presented to,–I believe they were presented at the conferences; but I cannot say as to that, for I was not present, but that is my understanding about it.
474 Q: Now what endowments do you refer to,–those that are mentioned or spoken of in paragraph three in section forty four of the 1835 edition of the book of Doctrine and Covenants? A: That speaks of the ordinances of the church, but it does not give the ceremonies to be performed under those ordinances,–they are not revealed that is the ceremonies attending the performance of the ordinances are not revealed,–that is the idea I wanted to convey.
475 Q: Well did you say that that revelation,–well let me call your attention again to paragraph three, section forty four, book of doctrine and covenants. You remember that Mr. Hall would not let you read but two lines of it? A: Yes sir I remember, but if you want me to read the whole of it I say I can’t do so without my glasses (witness gets his glasses). I can’t see it. Some of your gentlemen will have to read it for me.
476 Q: Just read the entire paragraph please? A: I can’t do it. Will you do it for me (speaking to Mr. Nutall).
Mr. Nutall reads the paragraph referred to as follows,–(the paragraph referred to is attached hereto on the margin of this page ’50 and made a part hereof.)
477 Q: Now I will ask you Mr. Woodruff if these things spoken of in that section just read to you are referred,–refer to anointings washings and baptism that are ferred to in paragraph thirty nine of the revelation of 1841? A: I don’t know that they do.
478 Q: Does it not refer to things that preceded it in the same paragraph in which the language is found? A: What language do you refer to?
479 Q: ‘These things,–show these things’? A: I do not believe that I heard that paragraph correctly,–let me see it,–I believe I can read it with a little trouble. (Witness hereupon reads paragraph) ‘And show not these things,–‘
480 Q: Read the whole of it,–the whole of that paragraph,–? A: ‘Again it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men altogether for my names glory; wherefore I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you, to know even as mine apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. For behold the mystery of Godliness, how great is it? for behold I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for endless is my name, wherefore eternal punishment is God’s punishment; endless punishment is God’s punishment; wherefore I command you to repent, and keep the commandment which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, jr., in my name, and it is by my almighty power that you have received them; therefore I command you to repent, repent lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore, how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent, but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I which [part of line cut off on xerox] all to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit; and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink, nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men; wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you by my almighty power, and that you confess your sins lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my spirit. And I command you that you preach naught but repentance; and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me; for they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore they must not know these things lest they perish; learn of me and listen to my words; walk in the meekness of my Spirit and you shall have peace in me; I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of the Fatherk, and I do his will.’
480 Q: Now does that part of the paragraph refer to these things,–the words ‘show these things’,–does that refer to the anointings and washings and baptisms referred to in paragraph thirty nine which you have read here? A: Well I don’t know that I can say it refers to that.
481 Q: Well there is nothing said in the section that your friend read to you, and which you have just read about washings and anointings or baptisms is there? A: What is that?
482 Q: In the paragraph which you have read, and this gentleman read to you also, there is nothing said about washings or anointings or baptisms is there? A: No sir.
483 Q: You did not read any thing about that did you? A: No sir, there is nothing said about that.”
(Wilford Woodruff, Temple Lot Manuscript, Book One, Respondents Testimony, pp. 45-51)
Recollection of sealings: Temple Lot Case.
“I returned from that European mission in the spring of 1843, about the middle of April. I said in my direct examination that about ten days after I returned from that mission, I had a private interview with Joseph Smith. In that private interview was the time when he told me he had taken my sister as a wife.
He did not say she was taken as a wife and married to him, he said she was sealed to him, sealed to him for eternity. I was not acquainted with the practice of sealing at that time. I had never heard of it before.
I never saw the ceremony of sealing performed in the days of Joseph Smith. I never knew anything about the practice of sealing during the days of Joseph Smith. He didn’t tell me anything about it at the time I had this conversation with him. He told me at that time that other parties had been sealed to him for time and eternity, but he didn’t name any of them but my sister, Eliza R. Snow. That was the first time I ever heard of sealing.” (Lorenzo Snow, “Temple Lot Case,” p. 317)
“68 Q: What time did you return to Nauvoo from that European Mission? A: In the spring of 1843.
69 Q: How early in the spring? A: In April. About the middle of April.
70 Q: How long after your return did you state it was when you had this conversation with Joseph Smith? A: Well it might have been five or ten days.
71 Q: Well which was it,–five or ten days? A: I presume it might have been over ten days. No, I don’t think it was over ten days. It was a short time after my return.
72 Q: It was in the month of April then? A: Yes sir, it was in April.
73 Q: And at that time you stated that he told you that he had already taken your sister as a wife? A: Yes sir. That was the statement he made to me in this private interview that is related in that affidavit.
74 Q: Did he say that she was taken as a wife and married to him, or did he say that she was sealed to him? A: Sealed to him.
75 Q: Sealed to him? A: Yes sir.
76 Q: How sealed to him? A: For time and eternity.
77 Q: Did he use the word ‘time’ as well as ‘eternity’? A: I think so, but I wouldn’t say positively. That was distinctly understood you know. I believe,–I would say that I solemnly believe so to the best of my knowledge, because that is a term that is generally used in the matter when the question of plural marriage is spoken of in reference to sealing ‘for time and eternity.’ That is the way it is generally referred to you know, in speaking of the matter of plural marriage.
78 Q: And that is the reason you state it now? A: Yes sir, and I believe he used it, for I solemnly believe he used those two words ‘time and eternity.’
79 Q: You were acquainted with the principle of sealing at that time? A: No sir.
80 Q: You were not? A: No sir, for I have,–I had never heard of it before.
81 Q: You were very soon after you arrived there then? A: No sir.
82 Q: How long after you arrived there was it that you saw the ceremony performed? A: I never saw the ceremony performed in the days of Joseph.
83 Q: You never did? A: No sir, I never did.
84 Q: Did you know anything about the principle in the days of Joseph? A: What principle?
85 Q: The principle of sealing? A: No sir, only I knew there was such an ordinance, but I did not know anything about form or words used, or anything about it in that way.
86 Q: Well didn’t Joseph tell you on this occasion that you had the conversation with him? A: No sir.
87 Q: Well what did he tell you? A: He told me the principle of plural marriage for time and eternity was a revelation of God, and he was commanded to put it into practice, and that my sister had been sealed to him.
88 Q: He told you that your sister had been sealed to him? A: Yes sir.
89 Q: For time and eternity? A: Yes sir.
90 Q: And that other parties had been sealed to him for time and eternity? A: Yes sir, but he did not name any of them. He did not name any of them but my sister Eliza R. Snow. Yes he did name some of them too,–I remember that now.
91 Q: Well he did tell you about sealing on this occasion? A: Yes sir. He told me about it, but as to the words used, or the ceremony I don’t know any thing about it from what he told me then.
92 Q: Did he tell you whether or not a man could be sealed to another man, and a man’s family? A: No sir, he said nothing about that.
93 Q: Do you know whether or not that was the case from your knowledge? A: This is the first time I ever heard of it.
94 Q: Heard of what? A: Of one man being sealed to another.
95 Q: You never heard of a family being sealed to another family? A: Yes sir I have heard of it in this way;–I have heard of children being sealed to adults.
96 Q: Did you ever hear of a man’s wife being sealed to him? A: Yes sir.
97 Q: You have heard of that? A: Certainly, I have heard of women being sealed to men, but of men being sealed to one another, I never heard of that until now.
98 Q: Was it not common to seal a man’s wife to him,–that is was not the principle common after Joseph’s death, and was it not practiced in the church at that time? A: Certainly. Now do I understand you to ask me the question about a man being sealed to a man?
99 Q: Yes sir? A: In what way?
100 Q: Sealed to one higher in authority, so the whole family would be his in eternity? A: YOu ask me if I now know or ever did know anything about a man being sealed to a man, and I say no, I never knew or heard of such a thing as that.
101 Q: This is the first time that you have learned that in the church there was such a principle as plural marriage, to be acceptable or to be accepted? A: Well as you ask the question I say no, it is not the first time I have heard of the principle, I have heard of these principles before, but not exactly as you put your questions.
102 Q: When was the first time? A: Well about three days before that time. There was a man by the name of Sherwood, an intimate friend of mine, and he was a great friend to Joseph Smith,–an intimate friend to him in Kirtland, and there I became acquainted with this man Sherwood, and he came here to Salt Lake City, and became the President of the High Priests quorum.
103 Q: Well never mind that? A: Well I want to tell you some thing about the man for he had some thing to do with this matter, and for that reason I want to tell you some thing about him.
104 Q: Well I don’t want to hear it, for whatever he told you would be hearsay? A: Well sir I am getting old, and you must let me be a little like a woman and give me a little latitude, and if you do that I will come out all right and tell these things so you can understand them distinctly.
105 Q: Well then go ahead,–that is all right? A: Well I had only returned to Nauvoo a few days,–to or three,–maybe four or five days, and I calld on this gentleman Mr. Sherwood, and had quite a chat with him, and he asked me to step out to one side, and he said this,–
Counsel for the defendant objects to the answer of the witness, on the ground that it is hearsay and incompetent.
106 Q: Well I know it is, but the witness desires to tell his story in his own way, we object to it as hearsay, but it seems he will tell it that way any way? A: Well this man Sherwood said to me ‘Lorenzo,’ calling me by my name,–he called me by my given name, and he said ‘Lorenzo I want to tell you some thing to prepare your mind,’ he said ‘I have no right to tell you this, but I will do it to prepare your mind,’ and then he went on and explained these principles to me.
Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the answer of the witness and moves the court to exclude the same from the record on the ground that it is irrelevant and immaterial, and hearsay, and not responsive to any question asked the witness on cross-examination.
107 Q: Then Joseph Smith was not the first person that explained these principles to you. That is the fact is it not? A: No sir he was not,–not if you consider the other man as being an authority at all equal to Joseph Smith.”
(Lorenzo Snow, Temple Lot Manuscript, Book One, Respondents Testimony, pp. 113-115)
Recollection of Nauvoo endowment: Temple Lot Case.
“I said I received endowments in Nauvoo, in the Masonic Hall, I rather think it was. Yes, sir, I think that was where it was. All the ceremony was performed in the Masonic Hall. The washing was done in the Masonic Hall, and the anointing with oil.
Q: What furniture was in the Masonic Hall at the time the endowment ceremony was performed?
A: Well, now, if you are expecting me to tell you all about the particulars of what was there in the way of furniture and what was done there, you must not expect me to do it any more than you would expect a Mason or an Odd Fellow or any other member of a secret society to reveal the secrets of their order; and I think to answer that question would be quite improper. The furniture was the same as we have here in the Temple at Salt Lake. I cannot say whether it was the same as the furniture in any Masonic Lodge or not. I never was in a Masonic Lodge to my knowledge, so I cannot say how they are furnished, that is, I never was in a Masonic Lodge when there was any business carried on at all.
Q: Now, in taking these endowments, did you change your clothing?
A: I do not know that I am bound to answer that question. Do not know that that has anything to do with this matter at all. Do not think that is a matter you really want to know anything about. Yes, sir, I did take an oath here to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; but when I took that oath I was mistaken about it, for I know I ought not to tell anything I am under obligation not to tell anything about. I did not mean when I took that oath that I wqs to tell something that I had no right to tell, and which it was not my place to tell, and what you ask me is something I ought not to tell.
By Mr. Cabell: ‘Now, with reference to this oath that you have taken to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I want to inform you that that does not obligate you, or bind you to tell any secret in your endowments that you took an oath not to reveal, and that you are not obliged to do that.’
Plaintiff’s counsel objects to the instruction as to her duty or privilege, for the reason that the witness has not been interrogated regarding any part of the cermony of endowments, or the ceremony pursued in conferring the endowments, and has not been interrogated regarding anything that she took an oath not to reveal.
Q: Now, you did not take any obligation, did you, Mrs. Thompson, not to say at any time whether you changed your clothing or not in taking the endowments?
A: No, sir, but at the same time, I do not feel that I would be able to answer that question. Yes, sir, we did change our clothing. There were always three rooms I think where we took our endowments. Two of these were ante rooms, and the other was where the main ceremonies were conducted. There was a place in one of the ante rooms where we were washed and anointed with oil.
Q: Did they anoint the whole body with oil, or just the head?
A: Well, now you are asking these questions, and I have answered them as far as I can, but that is a question I do not feel I am called on to answer, but I did not take an oath not to tell it at any time. No, sir, I will not answer the question, because I do not feel disposed to myself and I do not think it is necessary. I do not think it is necessary, and that is the reason why I refuse to answer them. I have been through two or three endowments since that time. Our endowments in Nauvoo were not for our deceased friends; that was not until we got out here.
Q: Now, you do not pretend that the endowments you took in Nauvoo were the endowments that were spoken of in the revelation of 1841?
A: I have seen no difference in them at any time. They are the endowments that are referred to in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants in the revelation of 1841. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants says they must be performed in the temple. The endowments taken in Nauvoo were the same endowments taken in Salt Lake, exactly the same. I decline to answer the question whether in taking endowments we anointed the body with oil. I did not take any obligation not to reveal that, but I decline to answer it because I do not feel disposed to tell you. It is something you have no business to ask me, and I do not feel like telling you. I cannot see that [it] is necessary that I should, and I therefore decline to answer it. If it is necessary for any purpose, I cannot see it. I do not wish to tell anything more than is really necessary, and I do not think that is necessary, and I decline to answer, and I say at the same time that I decline to answer the question, that I have not taken any obligation whatever not to tell. The reason I decline is because I do not feel disposed to do so. Yes, sir, I want you to believe my statements that the endowments in Nauvoo and in Salt Lake City were the same, but I decline to tell you how they were given in Nauvoo, and I decline to tell you how they were given in Salt Lake. Joseph Smith made the church law. Yes, sir, the Lord accepted our endowments in the face of the revelation which reads as follows:–‘And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me except you perform them in a house which you have built to my name?’
That revelation was the law of the church at that time, and Joseph Smith could not make a law that was in conflict with it. Paragraph 38 of the same section reads as follows:–‘For this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was.
Yes, sir, that is right, and that was the law of the church at that time. The ordinances could not be revealed to any individuals outside of a house that had been dedicated for that purpose, but a house was being built just as fast as we were able to do it, but at that time there was no house built to the Lord unless you would call a school-house one. Paragraph 40 of that same revelation is a[s] follows:–‘Verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal my ordinances therein, unto my people.’
I recognize that as a law of the church at that time, and that is just right, that refers to the Temple we were going to build and had not finished then. Yes, sir, I want to go on record as saying that these ordinances were revealed outside of a house,–revealed outside of a temple.
I cannot tell you anything about whether they were revealed before the Temple was built or not. That is the reason why the Temple was built here in Salt Lake City, so that the ordinances of endowment could be revealed in the Temple. Yes, sir, that is the exact reason. They could not be revealed out in the street or in anybody else’s house.
I do not know that the Lord ever revealed to Joseph Smith that these endowments could be given in a house or room that was not built in the name of the Lord. Wherever the revelations from which you have read speak about endowments, it means the endowments that were given at Nauvoo, and that are given in Salt Lake,–always refers to the same thing; that is, I suppose it does; but when it speaks of the endowments of washing of feet and anointing with oil, I cannot tell you anything about that.
The ordinances of washing of feet and anointing with oil were before I came into the church. I expect that was revealed after the Temple was built perhaps. Since the Temple was built at Kirtland. I cannot say that it was revealed in the Temple at Kirtland. I have heard that it was, but of course I cannot say so, as I did not see it. I believe what I hear when it comes from any of the officers of the church, just as I have been talking to you now. Now you have no right to dispute anything or everything I say because I consider I do not say anything but what I am at liberty to say. I am trying to give my testimony on these things the best I can, and tell everything that you ask me that I have a right to tell.
I believe everything that Brigham Young taught and that John Taylor taught or preached while he was president of the church.
Everything they said was the word of the Lord, I believe; it is a fact that when I am called on to repeat what they say was the word of the Lord, I repeat it as a fact. I believe what Joseph F. Smith tells me is the word of the Lord. When he says it is the word of the Lord on this or that subject, I believe what he says.
I was baptized the second time after I came out to Salt Lake. We were baptized the second time after we came out here, and then we had what we called a reformation, and then we were all willing to be baptized over again after that, so that we might start afresh again. Were all rebaptized in the reformation.
I do not know of any that were not rebaptized in the reformation. We were baptized when we first came out here in the new and everlasting covenant, baptized in the one that is spoken of in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Defendant’s Exhibit A. There was nothing said about plural marriage particularly in our first baptism, because I suppose we were all professors of the religion, and had a right to be baptized if we thought fit.
I do not know whether it was before or after the reformation that plural marriage was announced publicly to the church. I do not say that plural marriage was preached directly after we came here. It was preached in 1852, and we came in 1847, and that was several years before ’52.
I have tried to find out for myself how long it was after we came to Utah before plural marriage was publicly preached, because when you were here the other day and asked me questions, I was afraid that maybe I had made a mistake, but by reckoning it from other things, I find out that the time that Orson Pratt preached that publicly on the stand, the first time it had ever been so taught was in 1852. It was when your aunt died, (now speaking to her daughter, who is sitting by the side of the witness.)
By witness’ daughter: ‘She died in ’52.’
A: Yes, my dear, I know it was that time, for I remember that at the time I was waiting on her sick bed.
Yes, sir, it was in 1852 that I first heard plural marriage preached, and that was the time that the revelation on plural marriage was submitted by Brigham Young to the church here in Utah for adoption, and I presume it is a fact that it was on that same day that Orson Pratt preached that sermon, and in the same building, and at the same time that Brigham Young submitted the purported revelation to the church for adoption.
I was rebaptized in the reformation of 1857. I would not say that it was because of the new and everlasting covenant that is mentioned in that revelation on polygamy that we were baptized in the reformation of 1857. I would not swear either way onnthat subject, I cannot bring it to my mind as to how that was. I cannot say whether the endowment ceremony that was used at Nauvoo at the time I took my endowments there, and also at the time I took my endowments at Salt Lake, is the same as the endowment ceremony in the book marked Exhibit D, which you hand me. I suppose I know something about the ceremony, but I could not say this Exhibit D is the same,–I cannot see with my glasses on. I can see something there,–the pictures,–but I cannot tell what they mean. I cannot say whether or not I saw such things as represented in these pictures in Exhibit D in taking my endowments in Nauvoo, because I cannot see what they are.
Yes, sir, I saw the caps and moccasins that were worn by the ladies in Nauvoo while they were taking endowments there. I will not look at the pictures in Exhibit D to see if it is a representation of the caps and moccasins. I will not look at it, because I am afraid to look at it, and I do not want to look at it, because if it is true, it is something we never dared to draw or make any representation of, because it is sacred, and the Lord would never allow any such things to be without manifesting his displeasure or anger.
Q: Well, it is here, and he don’t appear to be particularly angry about it. Look at it and see if it is the same.
A: I won’t look at it, because I do not think it is right, and I do not think it is right for me to look at it. Yes, that represents the robe that was on the right shoulder, and that one that was on the left shoulder in taking obligations and the grips. I tried to avoid this investigation, and testified with reluctance, because these things are so sacred. They are too sacred for anybody to try to imitate. I do not say these are sacred in this book, Exhibit D, but I do say the endowments are sacred, and nobody has a right to make light of them in any way, nor are they anything to be copied.
Q: Well, I have not asked you to disclose anything you said or did yet, have I? I have not asked you to disclose anything you said or did that you took an obligation not to reveal, nor am I going to do that, Mrs. Thompson.
A: Yes, I said I never saw anything like these pictures or this ceremony of endowment in Exhibit D, in Nauvoo, and I do not know anything about it.
Q: Now, Mrs. Thompson, will you swear that the garments that are pictured here in Exhibit D are not the garments that are worn here in Salt Lake City in taking endowments?
A: I would not swear. The ladies used caps here in taking endowments, yes, sir, and moccasins.
Q: Let the records show that the daughter of the witness is urging the witness to leave the room.
By the daughter of the witness: ‘You are wanted out of the room, mother.’
Witness: ‘Well, I will wait now until they are through. She is afraid I might say something that I ought not to say, and that is what she wants with me; but I won’t say anything of the kind if I can help myself. She is afraid I might say something for want of recollection, and I would not do it if I knew I was going to do it.” (Mercy Rachel Thompson, “Temple Lot Case,” pp. 353-358)
“813 Q: Now you said you received endowments in Nauvoo before the death of Joseph Smith? A: Yes sir.
814 Q: At what place? A: At Nauvoo.
815 Q: I mean at what place in Nauvo,–in what building? A: In the Masonic Hall, I rather think it was.
816 Q: In the Masonic Hall? A: Yes sir, I think so. I think that was where it was.
817 Q: Was all the ceremony performed in the Masonic Hall? A: Yes sir.
818 Q: The washing was done in the Masonic Hall was it? A: Yes sir.
819 Q: And the anointing with oil was too? A: Yes sir.
820 Q: Now what furniture was in the hall at the time?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not cross examination, and if by answering the question the witness would divulge any thing that she has at any time taken an oath not to reveal, she is informed that she is under no obligation to answer the question.
821 Q: Answer the question,–what furniture was in the hall at the time the endowment ceremony was performed? A: Well now if you are expecting me to tell you all about the particulars of what was there in the way of furniture, and what was done there,–you must not expect me to do it any more than you would expect a Mason or an Odd-Fellow or any other member of a secret society to reveal the secrets of their order.
822 Q: Well Mr. Hall does not object to your answering the question, for we are not asking you any thing about what transpired in the hall during the ceremony of conferring the endowments, but simply ask you about what was in the hall in the way of furniture? Mr. Hall asked you about the endowments, and now we have the right to find out what was done if we can? A: Well I don’t remember of his asking me any thing about that at all.
823 Q: Well I am not asking you about the ceremony? A: Well go on.
824 Q: Well I asked you what was in the hall at the time the endowments were conferred in the way of furniture?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the grounds and for the reasons as set forth in the last objection.
A: Well I think to answer that question would be quite improper.
825 Q: Was the furniture the same as is in any ordinary masonic lodge room or hall? A: Well it was the same as we have in the temple.
826 Q: Well I don’t know what you have in the temple Mrs. Thompson? A: Well I thought you wanted to know if it was the same.
827 Q: No, I wanted to know if it was the same as is in any Masonic Lodge? A: I can’t say.
828 Q: You can’t say how that was? A: I never was in a Masonic Lodge to my knowledge, and so I can’t say how they are furnished.
829 Q: You were in this one in Nauvoo? A: I never was in a Masonic Lodge when there was any business carried on at all.
830 Q: You were there when they were receiving the endowments? A: Yes sir.
831 Q: Well did not the Masonic Lodge occupy it at the same time? A: No sir.
832 Q: Well I don’t mean at the exact precise time that the endowments were being conferred, but there was a Masonic Lodge that met there at regular specified meeting times, was there not? A: Well I don’t know. I would not say positively, but I think there was, although I might be mistaken in that. I would not say that it was in the Masonic Lodge room either for some time we met in a large brick room over the store, and I would be almost afraid to say for certain that we always met in that hall, but I think we did almost all the time. I know that I recollect some thing about the Masonic Lodge being used.
833 Q: The Masonic Lodge was held over the store was it not? A: No sir I don’t think it was.
834 Q: Well the room that the Lodge met in was over the store wasn’t it? A: No sir, I think not.
835 Q: You don’t think it was? A: No sir.
836 Q: Now in taking your endowments did you change your clothing? A: Well I don’t know that I am bound to answer that question. I don’t know that that has any thing to do with this matter at all. I don’t think that that is a matter that you want to really know any thing about.
837 Q: Well did you not take an oath here to tell the truth and the whole truth? A: Yes sir I think I did, but when I took that oath I was mistaken about it for I know I ought not to tell any thing I am under an obligation not [to] tell any thing about. I did not mean when I took the oath that I ws to tell some thing I had no right to tell, and which it was not my place to tell.
838 Q: Well you took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? A: Yes sir.
839 Q: And now you don’t want to disclose a part of the truth to me do you? A: Well that is some thing I ought not to tell.
By Mr. Cabell,–Now with reference to this oath that you have taken to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I want to inform you that that does not obligate you, or bind you to tell any secret in your endowments, or any thing connected therewith, that you took an oath not to reveal, and that you are not obliged to do that.
A: I could not conscientiously do that, and more than I could conscientiously break my oath.
Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the instruction as to her duty or privelege, for the reason that the witness has not been interrogated regarding any part of the ceremony of endowments, or the ceremony pursued in conferring the endowments, and has not been interrogated regarding any thing which she took an oath not to reveal.
By Mr. Cabell,–I would like the record to show that counsel for the defendants requests the Examiner to instruct the witness as to her privelege in this connection.
By the examiner,–I think that your instruction to the witness covers the ground. Of course I am not here for the purpose of passing on these questions, or for the purpose of giving witnesses any instruction one way or the other, but simply to record the evidence that is given as it comes before me, and I cannot pass on any question that is objected to by either party when the witness refuses to answer, only by committing or refusing to commmitt the witness for such refusal. Now that is my idea of my duty in the premises.
By Mr. Kelley,–
840 Q: Now you did not take any obligation did you Mrs. Thompson, not to say at any time whether you changed your clothing or not? A: No sir, but at the same time I do not feel that I would be able to answer that question.
841 Q: Well did you changed your clothing in the taking of the endowments? A: Yes sir.
842 Q: You did? A: Yes sir, we did.
843 Q: And you did yourself? A: Yes sir.
844 Q: How many rooms were there in that building? [part illegible] always two rooms.
845 Q: There was always two rooms? A: Yes sir,–no I was mistaken about that,–there was always three rooms I think. Yes it was three rooms.
846 Q: Two of them were ante rooms, and the other one was the main room where the ceremonies were conducted? A: Yes sir.
847 Q: There was a place in one of the ante rooms where you were washed and anointed with oil? A: Yes sir.
848 Q: And they anoint the whole body with oil, or just the head? A: Well now there it is,–you are asking these questions and I have answered them as far as I can, but these are questions,–or that is a question that I do not feel that I am called on to answer.
849 Q: Did you take an oath not to tell at any time? A: No sir.
850 Q: You did not take that kind of an oath? A: No sir.
851 Q: Well then will you answer the questions I ask you, when they are questions that relate to matters that you have not taken an oath not to divulge? A: No sir.
852 Q: You will not answer the question? A: No sir.
853 Q: Why not,–why do you refust to answer the question? A: I will not answer them for I do not feel disposed myself, not to answer them, for I don’t think it is necessary.
854 Q: You don’t think it is necessary that you should answer them? A: Yes sir.
855 Q: And that is your reason for your refusal to answer them? A: Yes sir.
856 Q: You have been through two or three endowments since that time? A: Yes sir. Still that has nothing whatever to do with this case that I can see.
857 Q: Well have you been through two or three endowments since that time? A: Well I suppose you understand that [we] act for our dead sometimes, and I have been through endowments for my deceased friends.
858 Q: Your endowments in Nauvoo were not for your deceased friends, were they? A: Well no,–Yes we did too then.
859 Q: Well were your endowments in Nauvoo for your deceased friends? A: I guess not.
860 Q: Well were they? A: No sir,–that was not till we got out here.
861 Q: Now you don’t pretend that the endowments you took in Nauvoo, were the endowments that are spoken of in the revelation of 1841? A: I have seen no difference in them at any time.
862 Q: Well were they the endowments that are referred to in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants in the revelation of 1841? A: Yes sir, that is the same.”
. . . .
984 Q: You saw the caps and moccasins that were borne by the ladies at Nauvoo while they were taking the endowments there? A: Yes sir, I did.
985 Q: Now look at that picture, and see if it is some thing of that kind: A: No sir I will not look at that picture.
986 Q: Why will you not look at it? A: Well sir I will tell you why I dill not look at it. I am afraid to look at it, and I don’t want to look at it, because if it is true it is some thing that we never dared to draw or make any representation of it, because it is sacred and the Lord would never allow any such things to be without manifesting his displeasure or anger.
987 Q: Well it is here, and he don’t appear to be particularly angry about it,–look at it and see if it is the same? A: I won’t look at it because I don’t think it is right,–now that is my conscience about it, and I don’t think it is right for me to look at it.
988 Q: I am not asking you about your conscience,–I am asking you if that picture looks like any thing you saw in the taking of the endowments? A: I don’t see any thing that it looks like to me at all.
989 Q: That represents the robe that was on the right shoulder, and that the one that was on the left shoulder in taking the obligations and the grips,–Now did you see any thing like that? A: Like that?
990 Q: Yes madam? A: No sir.
991 Q: These pictures represent the hall where the endowments were taken? A: I don’t know any thing about it, and I don’t want you to ask me any more questions about some things that I don’t know anything about.
992 Q: Well I propose to ask you all the questions I deem necessary for the proper protection of the side of this case I represent, and I will say now that if you will be patient I will be through in just a minute or two, but there is no use in protesting for I will do all I can to get through as speedily as I can, for we realize that you are a very old lady and have no desire to detain you here unnecessarily at all, and will not do so. Now as I said this is supposed to be the picture of the hall where the endowments were conferred, and this and that represents the aprons that were worn. Do you recognize them? A: That is some thing I don’t know any thing at all about.
993 Q: You did not see such as that in Nauvoo? A: No sir, I did not such as that at all in Nauvoo.
994 Q: And this picture here is the picture of an apron that is represented as being worn by the women? No do you recognize that? A: No sir.
995 Q: You did not wear any such a thing in Nauvoo? A: No sir.
996 Q: Why do you try to evade this investigation, or why do you testify with such evident reluctance? A: Because these things are so sacred,–they are too sacred for any body to try to imitate.
997 Q: You don’t mean to say these are sacred in this book? A: No sir, I don’t say that, but I do say that the endowments are sacred, and nobody has any right to make light of them in any way, nor are they any thing to be copied.
998 Q: Well I have not asked you to disclose any thing that you said or done yet, have I? I haven’t asked you to disclose any thing you said or done, or any thing you took an obligation not to reveal nor am I going to do that Mrs. Thompson?
By Mr. Cabell,–Well I would like to know what you are trying to do if it is not that. If you are not trying to get at that I would like you to state what you are driving at,–you are trying in an indirect manner to get her to tell what the ceremonies were in connection with the endowments,–the robes worn and everything in connection with it.
By Mr. Kelley,–I am not trying to get her to state any thing in connection with the endowments, nor have I asked here to state any thing in connection with what was said and done there.
Re-direct examination by Mr. Hall,–
999 Q: Now Mrs. Thompson you stated that you never seen any thing like that in Nauvoo? A: Yes sir,–I never saw any thing like that there.
1000 Q: Did you ever see any thing like that in any of the endowments you went through any where? A: No sir, and I don’t know any thing about it.
1001 Q: You never saw any thing like it either in Salt Lake City, or in Nauvoo? A: No sir, there is no picture there that I can recognized at all.
Re-cross examination by Mr. Kelley,–
1002 Q: Now Mrs. Thompson will you swear that the garments that are picture in here, are not the garments that are worn here in Salt Lake City when taking the endowments? A: I would not swear.
1003 Q: You would not swear that they are not the garments that are used here in Salt Lake City in the taking of the endowments,–that these are not the very garments that are used? A: I say I don’t know that any such things were used here.
1004 Q: The ladies used caps here in taking their endowments? A: Yes sir.
1005 Q: And moccasins? A: Yes sir.
1006 Q: Let the record show that the daughter of the witness is urging the witness to leave the room.
By the daughter of the witness,–You are wanted out of the room mother.
By the witness,–Well I will wait now until they are through. She is afraid I might say something that I ought not to say, and that is what she wants with me, but I won’t say any thing or that kind if I can help myself. She is afraid I might say some thing for want of recollecion and I would not do it if I knew I was going to do it.
By Mr. Kelley,–That is all.”
(Mercy R. Thompson, Temple Lot Manuscript, Book Two, Respondents Testimony, pp. 278-280; 289-290)
“I do not consider it is any concern of yours what obligations I took here in Salt Lake City when I was receiving my endowments. I do not think there is anything in the ceremony of endowments about the laws of the land, orr whether we should obey the laws of the land or not. I do not think there was anything of that kind.” (Mary Ann West, “Temple Lot Case,” p. 384)
“648 Q: Now when you took your endowments here in the temple in Salt Lake City, did you not take an endowment that you would obey the priest hood of the church, and the counsel of the church, and would avenge the murder of Joseph Smith upon his murderers,–any law of the land to the contrary not with standing? A: No sir.
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross examination.
649 Q: Did you not obey,–did you not agree to obey the priesthood and the counsels of the church in all things? A: No sir.
650 Q: You swear that you did not? A: Yes sir, and I swear that they never asked me to do so that I remember any thing about.
651 Q: If you took any obligation of that kind, you don’t remember anything about it? A: No sir.
652 Q: Well what was the obligation you did take? If you did not agree to do that, what did you agree to do? A: Well sir I don’t consider that that is any concern of yours, and I shall not tell you.
653 Q: Do you recollect what the ceremony was that you took when you were taking your endowments? Recollect I am not asking you what the endowments were, but simply ask you if you recollect what the ceremony was when you took them? A: I know they were not such as you have stated them.
654 Q: Well you recollect what they were in substance, do you not? A: I never was called upon to do any thing contrary to the laws of the United States. I know that well enough.
655 Q: But were you not called on to obey the laws of the church and its officers in all things and did you not take that obligation?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the questionasked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not cross examination.
656 Q: Were you not called upon, and did you not agree to obey the councils of the church in all things? Did you not agree to do that, without reference to what you were or were not called upon to do in the performance of the conditions of that obligation?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness for the reaons and on the grounds above set forth.
A: I don’t remember any thing of the kind.
657 Q: Well do you say you did not take that obligation? Come answer the question? Do you say that you did not during the taking of your endowments, agree to obey the counsels of the church in all things?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reasons that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not cross examination, and for the further reason that the question asked the witness is in regard to a matter which she has taken an obligation not to divulge, and therefore she cannot be compelled to answer the question.
658 Q: Do you say you did not take an obligation of that charcter? A: I say I don’t remember any thing of the kind.
659 Q: You remember what the ceremony was you went through at the time you took your endowments, don’t you? A: Yes sir, I remember that I was never to dis-obey the laws of the land.
660 Q: Well now I am not asking you what it was,–I am asking you if you took an endowment or obligation similar to the one I have described at the time that you took your endowments here in Salt Lake City? A: I took no oath there of that kind, and was never called upon to do so.
661 Q: Do you say that you took an oath there to obey the laws of the land? A: I say that there was no oath,–they never told us to prefer any thing that came either from the President or the Council to the laws of the land. We were never called upon to do
any such a thing as that.
662 Q: Well were you not called upon to prefer the counsel of President Young in preference to any thing else?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not cross examination.
A: No sir.
663 Q: You were not? A: No sir.
664 Q: Was there any thing said about the laws of the land at all?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the grounds and for the reasons above set forth.
A: I don’t remember.
665 Q: Well what is your best recollection about that? A: Well I don’t remember any thing that is in the endowments about that, but I don’t think there was.”
(Mary Ann West, Temple Lot Manuscript, Book Two Respondents, pp. 519-520)
“I spoke of baptism for health in my examination in chief; it was never considered a prominent feature or any doctrine of the original church, any more than it is of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was never considered essential in either church. It was simply taught as a doctrine that was beneficial; I never heard an elder or anybody else preach it in either church. I never heard it taught as a present duty, but I have heard it advocated as beneficial, and in that sense it was practiced.” (Jason W. Briggs, “Temple Lot Case,” pp. 404-405)
“Lyman Wight was the first person that taught anything about endowments according to my best recollection. He taught us that it was necessary for men and women to be sealed together in order to enjoy each other’s society in eternity.
That is, he taught that husband and wife were to be sealed together in order to enjoy each other’s society in eternity. Lyman Wight was the first person I ever heard teach that doctrine.
There was no particular difference between that sealing and the ordinary ceremony of marriage, except it was done as we understood it by the power of the priesthood.
It was used instead of the legal form of marriage and at that time we looked upon it as being more binding for eternity than the other form of marriage. One was performed through the requirements of the law of the land; and the other through the requirements of the spiritual law. That was the understanding we had.
I passed through that ceremony myself. I was married in 1851. . . .
I went to Salt Lake City in 1856, from the Indian Territory. I identified myself with the church there in Salt Lake, as did my wife.
I took the endowments there. The endowments that I took at Salt Lake were not the same endowments that I took under Lyman Wight’s administration. They differed in the manner of the sealing, and in the manner of conferring the endowments.
Lyman Wight only gave the endowments in respect to the matter of the washing of the feet, and (in Utah) they gave the endowments of washing and anointing, and then there was an oath taken in Utah to avenge the blood of the prophet. That was a part of the endowment that was given in Salt Lake City.
The endowments in Salt Lake City were given in the endowment house as they called it, which was arranged especially for conferring these ceremonies, reserved entirely for that service.
The endowments that Lyman Wight gave us were the washing of feet, and sealing a man’s wife to him for eternity. I can’t repeat that ceremony, but it was sealing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for time as well as eternity.
There were no other obligations than that, nothing more than sealing for time and eternity, that was all there was to it. It related purely to matrimonial affairs and that was all the endowments that Lyman Wight ever gave.
In 1848 was the first time I ever heard of endowments being given in the church. That was after the death of Joseph Smith certainly, because he died in 1844. At the time I lived in Nauvoo, I did not hear or know anything about endowments.
I never heard of it at the time I was a resident of Nauvoo, or before the time that I was in Texas under Lyman Wight, no further than I heard that there was an endowment of the Spirit at Kirtland. That was in 1833 as I understand it, but I had never heard anything about endowments in Nauvoo.
The endowment at Kirtland was the washing of feet and the endowment with power, that the elders might go forth with greater power to preach the word. That endowment was given to the elders through the Holy Spirit.
After that, the next I heard of endowments was from Lyman Wight in Texas, where it was applied to the marriage relation.
And after that, I went to Salt Lake City, Utah, and there I found the ordinance, as it is called, of endowments, in force, only with a greatly extended application.
The endowments that I received in Texas were not conferred secretly. There was nothing secret about it. They were conducted openly and all had the privilege of seeing them performed. Everyone could go that felt like going.
That was not the case in Salt Lake. In Salt Lake City it was done secretly and no one was permitted to see them only the officers and the ones taking the endowments. No one else was present or permitted to be present simply because no one else had any business there and they were not permitted to be there. That was the reason there was no one else there.
That was the rule at the time I received my endowments at Salt Lake City at least. Of course I don’t know what happened afterwards.
Wilford Woodruff did the anointing and washing and Brigham Young did the sealing at the time I received my endowments at Salt Lake City.
At the time I received my endowments in Texas, Lyman Wight did the sealing and my father was a high priest in the church in old Joseph’s time and he did the washing of the feet and the anointing of the head.
When my wife and I received our endowments in Salt Lake City, we were in different rooms while we were washing and anointing, but when we were sealed, we were together.
In Texas when we received our endowments, we were not separated at all, it was simply the washing of the feet there. . . .
At the time I attended church at Nauvoo and while I was a teacher in the church there, there was no such thing then taught, or practiced, as endowments or any endowments that I have spoken of.
I heard nothing of that kind at all there at Nauvoo. That was from 1841 to 1844 that we attended church services or meetings there at Nauvoo. It was while we lived across the river at Montrose.
If there was ever any such a thing as endowments practiced in the church at Nauvoo, during this period from 1841 to 1844, I never knew it and I don’t think there was. It was in 1848 when I first heard of it.
I knew something about what went on in Salt Lake City, after I got there of course, with reference to the endowments. There was such a thing known as endowments being administered to those who had not been joined in marriage as husband and wife.
There were several single men went through and got their endowments,–unmarried men. Of course they did not receive the ordinance of sealing for eternity. That ordinance was not administered to them.
They were anointed and when they got their wives, if they ever did get any, they then got the rest of the endowments. That was the way it was done in Utah. That was never practiced in Texas, with reference to single men, to my knowledge. In Texas it was confined exclusively to husband and wife. . . .
Q: I now hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit D, on the title page of which appears the following: ‘A few choice examples of Mormon practices and sermons,’ and I wil ask you whether or not you recognize the cuts of the garments and implements contained within the first eight pages as being of the character and description used in the ordinances of the endowments at the time you took them at Salt Lake?
A: I have not used them or seen them since 1870, but I recognize this garment on the front page here as being the complete garment with sleeves and dress and all as being the same as the garment used at Salt Lake, at the time I received my endowments. I recognize the aprons and the emblems on the aprons as shown on page two of Exhibit ‘D.’ I remember the leaves there on the apron and the form of the apron, I remember that very well. That was the form of the apron worn and used at the time of the endowments at Salt Lake. The apron is used at the time of the sealing,–that particular stage of the proceedings.
I don’t know that I can recognize the building with all its compartments and forms, but still I remember it had a good many departments. It had a reception room, a small stairway to the veil, and it was pretty much all on the ground floor. Had dressing rooms, washing rooms, a prayer circle, and an altar.
This square room here marked ‘Peter,’ ‘John,’ ‘James,’ ‘altar,’ and ‘world’ is intended to represent the three apostles, Peter, John and James. It represented the Melchizedekal priesthood that they held. The Garden of Eden part of it was more fully practiced and carried out when I received my endowments.
When I received mine there was only an offering made and the ones it was offered to would receive it, and we expected that for accepting it, they would be cast out as a representation of the truth. I mean the ones that would accept the fruit that would be offered to them would be cast out the same as Adam was.
We expected that the man would be cast out and then you would go out with your wife. Then there was another room which was entitled ‘heaven.’
There was an altar where we were all sealed for time and eternity, the jumping off place, so to speak; that is what they called it. That was the last room and was the last act in the ceremony.
The room below it in the diagram where the square and compass is marked and is designated ‘instruction room,’ the name indicates what is was. It was a room where we received general instruction. The instruction related to garments and robes and teaching people how to wear them.
The undergarment to be worn continually and the robe that was worn at the time of the prayer circle wqas to be the same in which you were to be buried. If you died, you were to be buried in a robe like the one you wore at the time you were sealed.
I recognize the drawing on page six of Exhibit ‘D’ as the robe that was worn on that occasion. I remember the bows on the side. It wqas a robe that came down over our shoulders and had a bandage across. That was a robe that was worn outside of the garments.
I recognize the representations on page seven of Exhibit ‘D’ as the woman’s cap and moccasins and the man’s cap. I recognize them as part of the paraphernalia that was used on that occasion. These were used at the time of the sealing.
I left Salt Lake in 1870. During the time I was there, I was a member of the church in Utah. Was not a member of any other church during the time I was there. I am now a member of the Church of Christ denominated the Reorganized Church.
The Reorganized Church does not have any endowments of the kind I have mentioned. If they have, I never have seen them or heard of them. They teach nothing of the kind.
In taking the endowments at Salt Lake there was an oath required, and the oath that was required was to avenge the blood or death of the prophet.
No such an oath was required in the administration of the endowments under Lyman Wight. There was nothing of that kind required. . . .
At the time I took my endowments in Salt Lake City, I don’t remember of taking any oath except for avenging the death of Joseph the martyr and his brother Hyrum Smith. I find here in the Exhibit to which my attention is called, that we are to teach our children to do likewise. Now it might have been all in there at the time I took it, but I don’t remember it if it was.
I am satisfied from what I had heard before I took my endowments that there were many things done in the endowment house that were not done at the time I received mine.
I recognize the oath that I took here in Exhibit ‘D,’ but I can’t say that I took it all. I recognize parts of it all right though. We were made to swear to avenge the death of Joseph Smith the martyr, together with that of his brother Hyrum, on this American nation, and that we would teach our children and childrens’ children to do so. The penalty for this grip and oath was disembowelment. . . .
At the time I took my endowments at Salt Lake everybody was excluded except the ones taking endowments and those who were officiating in the ceremonies. I belonged to and was baptized into the original church that was organized April 6, 1830.
I was directed not to disclose the method of the endowments. I agreed not to do so in certain places. One of the places where I could divulge the endowments, was not in a court room where depositions were being taken.
I would not have discussed the methods of these endowments when I was a member of the Utah Church. The penalty for revealing or disclosing these secrets was disembowelment.
The grips and tokens of the priesthood were what we were not to disclose. When I took the endowments I took this oath. All who took the endowments took the same oath. I didn’t make any halves of anything in this business; I generally saw the whole thing through, and therefore I say I took that oath, the whole thing; and I kept the obligations while I was living in Salt Lake City.
There is nothing to compel me to divulge anything. I don’t recognize any obligations to disclose anything at all; there was nothing said about it, and I have not disclosed the grips nor the tokens; and that is what we were not to disclose.” (John Hawley, “Temple Lot Case,” pp. 452-459)
TESTIMONY OF BATHSHEBA SMITH:
“Yes, sir, I received endowments in Nauvoo, before the death of Joseph Smith. I received endowments in company with my husband; I received my anointings in Sister Emma’s bedroom,(by Sister Emma I mean the wife of Joseph Smith the prophet,) and then we went in the lodge room over Joseph’s store, and he gave us lectures,–lectures on religious subjects. . . .
I think President Woodruff has a journal of his own that shows the endowments, the time I took my endowments in Nauvoo, but I do not know anything about the church records; I understand they disappeared a good while ago. It was 1843 that I received endowments; do not know whether it was before or after the revelation of 1843, for I had not heard of the revelation.
I heard of a revelation on the question of sealing before that, and I had been sealed to my husband for eternity in 1843. I do not know where that revelation is, but I think it is in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; but if it is not I have seen it, but I never saw it or read it before I was sealed to my husband. Yes, sir, I refer to the revelation on polygamy; I think it is in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, too, but I did not hear anything about that revelation in 1842 or 1843. No, sir, I did not say that Joseph Smith in 1840 taught the principle of sealing; no, sir, that was the time I said he said the ancient order would be restored, speaking of the order of Abraham. . . .
I was sealed to my husband in Nauvoo in 1843, in Brigham Young’s house. I was sealed by Brigham Young. I do not know who was present. I think it was in the last part of the year 1843. I was anointed in Emma’s bedroom before that time; I was not sealed to my husband at the time I was anointed. My relation to my husband before the time I was sealed to him was, that I was married to him for time, but not for eternity, and in the latter part of 1843 I was sealed to him by Brigham Young for eternity. My husband’s name was George A. Smith. I do not recollect what time in the year I received my anointing; that was what I was asking President Woodruff about, the other day, and he said he would find out for me, but he has not had the time to do so.
Q: Now from whom did you receive your anointing?
A: Well, I think it was from President Young the first time, and in the Temple.
Q: Well, I mean the first time, when you were anointed in Emma’s bedroom.
A: Well, Sister Mary Smith (she was Brother Hyrum Smith’s wife) anointed me. Well, it is my business just what she done, and none of yours; I cannot tell what the ceremony was. I will not answer the question as to what the ceremony was. The party who anointed me in Emma’s bedroom blessed me; she said I was a good girl. I decline to answer whether she poured oil on my head or not.
When I received my anointing in Emma’s bedroom, Sister Mary Smith anointed me, poured oil on my head, and blessed me; that was all that was done, and all that was said. She just poured oil on my head and blessed me. At the time I was anointed by Sister Mary Smith I had different clothing on from what I wore when I went to the house first. This anointing was for the purpose of initiating me in the secret society and order of endowments.
The Order of Rebecca is a side degree of Masonry, for I think I had one or two degrees of it in that lodge. The Masons belonged to this new lodge or the endowments after Joseph Smith’s death. Well, if the Order or [of] Rebecca is an order of Odd Fellowship, it was not that. If it had anything to do with that, it was not Odd Fellows. The one I mean was connected with the Masons in some way. I do not think it was the Eastern Star degree of Masons. When we went into the hall where these endowments were given, there was no curtain separating the ladies from the gentlemen; we did not have any curtain at all. I did not take any oath or make any promises in Sister Emma’s bedroom. Afterwards we promised not to reveal our endowments, or tell what it was. The promise was not part of the endowment ceremony. I took as much of an oath not to reveal the ceremony of endowments, as much as I have here promised not to tell the truth.
Q: Not to tell the truth?
A: I mean to tell the truth. I was sworn there not to tell it, and I am sworn here to tell it. The law of the church at that time was against secret societies.
I do not know that Joseph Smith ever taught the doctrine of blood atonement in his day; I do not know anything about that; I never heard him teach or preach the doctrine of blood atonement. I do not know whether the doctrine of blood atonement was taught in the Utah church by Brigham Young or not. Yes, sir, when Joseph Smith preached from the stand in 1840, he preached that the ancient order would be restored, the order of Abraham, and if polygamy is what Abraham practiced, why then he preached polygamy. He did not say that the ancient order meant polygamy; did not talk about polygamy; did not say anything at all about polygamy, and I never heard Joseph Smith teach polygamy, nor did I ever hear him say anything about it, either publicly or privately.
I never saw him sealed to anybody, and I lived in Nauvoo from 1840 up to the time the church left there. I knew Emma Smith; I believe she was his wife, but I did not see them married. She was held out there as his wife; lived in the same house with him. She was called Sister Emma, the wife of the prophet, and I have no doubt but that she was his wife; and although I did not see them married, there is not a particle of doubt in my mind but that she was his wife.
There was nobody else held out as his wife while I was living in Nauvoo, nor down to the time of his death. I was in Nauvoo at the time of his death; did not attend the funeral. I do not know of any member of the church having more wives than one at Nauvoo, during the life time of Joseph Smith. I heard some little talk not much before their death. I lived there from 1840 up to the time he died. I never heard of any such a thing.
I belonged to the Ladies’ Relief Society in Nauvoo. Sister Emma, Joseph’s wife, never taught the Ladies’ Society polygamy.
I heard of the John C. Bennett secret wife doctrine; the church authorities denounced that at the time, and they denounced Bennett for that doctrine, and cut him off from the church, and preached against it,–preached against it publicly right there in the city of Nauvoo, at the time, Joseph Smith and the rest of them,–and particularly Joseph Smith,–he denounced him. His denunciation of the John C. Bennett secret wife system may have been published in the Times and Seasons, and I may not have read it, and I might have read it, and not remember it now.
I did not believe in the John C. Bennett secret wife system; did not want to know anything about it. There was a great deal of commotion there in Nauvoo about the John C. Bennett secret wife system. The Times and Seasons was the church paper at that time; I did not take it at that time, and do not think I read what you have described; I may have read it, but I do not remember one word of it if I read it. There was a great stir in the church at that time; the church published him, and expelled him, and they preached against him from the stand, and against plural marriage, the secret wife system, secret marriages. The spiritual wife system was the system by which a man had two wives at the same time.
At that time there was so much said about the John C. Bennett wife system that I can’t say what it was, there was no other rule with reference to marriage practiced in the church, other than that set forth in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, not to my knowledge. That was the only method contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and I was married by that myself. The sealing that was practiced by the church under Joseph Smith was the sealing of a man’s wife to her husband; he did not teach the sealing of somebody else’s wife to my husband. Joseph Smith and my husband were first cousins and I visited at his house often.
It is a doctrine of the church taught here now in Utah Territory under the administration of President Woodruff, that a woman cannot be exalted in the hereafter, or a man, unless they are sealed. That is we believe they cannot be exalted to the Celestial Kingdom, that is they will be alone, the man will be alone, and the woman will be alone, that is what the church teaches, here. Yes, sir, President Woodruff, President Young, and President John Taylor, taught me and all of the rest of the ladies here in Salt Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was a means of exaltation. I never read the revelation on polygamy when I was in Nauvoo, never saw it when I was there, never saw it in print or any other form, never saw it at all until I came here. My husband was a counselor to Brigham Young.
This revelation on polygamy was publicly submitted to the church in Utah Territory in 1852, at a conference held in the Tabernacle in this city, and was submitted with a public declaration of Brigham Young himself, that he kept it under lock and key, and nobody knew of its existence except himself. That declaration is in the Journal of Discourses preached by Brigham Young at that time, but I do not have any recollection of it, that is of reading it.
Yes, sir, I have been in the endowment house here at Salt Lake City about fifteen years, during that time I have trained myself and other ladies. I do not understand all about endowments, but I understand a good deal. Yes, sir, I know how the ladies are dressed in taking endowments, they are dressed differently from what they were when I took my endowments in Nauvoo, but that does not make any difference in the ceremonies, for the ceremonies are the same.” (Bathsheba Smith, “Temple Lot Case,” pp. 358, 360-362)
15 Q: I will ask you to state if there was,–if you know whether there was any conversation had among the members of the church there at Nauvoo, Illinois, when you lived there, in regard to that principle,–plural marriage?
Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, calls it hear-say evidence and is leading.
A: Well I heard it discussed a good many times by different ones and I remember sister Emma speaking about it one time about as plain as any body.
16 Q: When and where was that?
Counsel for the plaintiffs object to the question asked the witness for the reasons and on the grounds above set forth.
A: It was in her room, and I was receiving my anointings for endowments, and she said if we permitted it our husbands would be taking more wives than one, and if we did not like it we should be taking a determined stand against it or some thing like that,–that we should be resolute about it or some thing of that kind.
Counsel for the plaintiff moves the Court to exclude from the record the answer of the witness above set forth, on the grounds set forth in the objection to the question to which it is an answer, and on the further ground that it purports to detail a conversation between a person living and one dead, and therefore is incompetent under the statute.
17 Q: I will ask you to state who ‘Sister Emma’ is or was? A: She was Joseph Smith, Juniors’ wife.
. . . .
23 Q: I will ask you to state whether or not you ever received any endowments in Nauvoo, before the death of Joseph Smith? Yes sir.
Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness, as well as the answer of the witness on the grounds and for the reasons set forth in the objection to the preceding question objected to.
24 Q: Can you state where? A: Yes sir.
25 Q: Where was it? A: It was in company with my husband I received my endowments and my anointings in sister Emma’s bed room, and then we went in the lodge room over Joseph’s store, and he gave us lectures there,–he and others did that.
26 Q: What sister Emma did you rever to this time? A: The same one,–Joseph Smith, the prophets wife.
27 Q: What subject,–upon what subject were these lectures?
Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness on the ground that it is incompetent irrelevant and immaterial, leading and not the best evidence.
A: They were on religious subjects,–I don’t know what elst to tell you.
. . . .
65 Q: Now did you not hear some rumors or whisperings of the plural wife doctrine in 1838 in Far West, or in Caldwell County, when you were there? A: No sir.
66 Q: And you are positive of that? A: I am positive of that, for I know I never heard of it.
67 Q: Now when was the first time you ever heard of that? A: It was after we went to Nauvoo.
68 Q: Well just give us the date of it as nearly as you can? A: I guess it must have been in 1843.
69 Q: In 1843 you first heard of the plural marriage system of marriage? A: Yes sir, I think it must have been about that time.
70 Q: And you never heard of it before that time? A: No sir.
71 Q: You did not? A: No sir,–I heard of being married for eternity before that time, but that had nothing to do with plurality of wives at all.
72 Q: Married for eternity and not for time? A: No sir.
73 Q: Did you know any body that was married for eternity before 1843? A: Yes sir, I was myself.
74 Q: Who married you? A: I was sealed to my husband by President Brigham Young. After I had received my endowments I was sealed to my husband for eternity.
75 Q: Did you have your endowments before that time? A: Befire I was sealed to my husband?
76 Q: Yes madam? A: Yes sir.
77 Q: When did you receive them? A: While President Joseph Smith was living I received my endowments.
78 Q: When,–was it in 1842? A: I don’t remember whether it was in ’42 or in ’43. President Woodruff told me the other day he had it on his record and he would find it for me, but he has been so busy he did not have time to do so, and I have been so busy,–well I do not recollect it,–that is I do not recollect the exact date that I had my endowments.
79 Q: Has the church here a record of the endowments? A: I think he has a journal of his own that shows it, but I don’t know any thing about the church records, for I understand they disappeared a good while ago,–that is a good many of the records did.
80 Q: Well you were sealed to your own husband? A: Yes sir.
81 Q: And you are pretty certiain now that it was before 1843? A: It seems to me now that it was in 1843,–but I am not positive as to that, but it seems to me now that that was the year, but I don’t know whether it was in ‘2 or ‘3,–it was either one of these years though. Let me see,–It must have been in 1843.
82 Q: You think it was in 1843 that you received the endowments? A: Yes sir.
83 Q: Was it after the revelation of 1843 or before that? A: I can’t say for I hadn’t heard about this before.
84 Q: You had not heard about any revelation before? A: No sir. I did not know any thing about it, only for eternity.
85 Q: You had heard of a revelation on the question of sealing for eternity before that time? A: Yes sir.
86 Q: Do you know where that revelation is? A: No sir.
87 Q: Did you ever see it? A: Yes sir.
88 Q: Where did you see it? A: I saw the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and it is in that is it not.
89 Q: Is it in there? A: I think so.
. . . .
150 Q: What time were you sealed to your husband in Nauvoo?
Counsel for the defendants moves the court to strike from the record all the questions asked the witness, and the answers of the witness to the questions asked, with reference to the marriage of Abraham to Hagar and everything relating thereto that has been brought out by counsel for the plaintiff in his examination, on the ground that it is not relevant or competent to any of the issues in this case.
151 Q: When were you sealed to your husband in Nauvoo? A: What time did it occur?
152 Q: Yes? A: Well I think it was in 1843.
153 Q: In 1843? A: Yes sir.
154 Q: Where was the ceremony performed? A: In Nauvoo.
155 Q: Whereabouts in Nauvoo? A: In Brigham Young’s house.
156 Q: In Brigham Young’s house you were sealed to your husband? A: Yes sir.
157 Q: By whom were you sealed ? A: By Brigham Young.
158 Q: Who was present? A: I don’t remember just the number.
159 Q: Was there half a dozen? A: Yes sir.
160 Q: Was there more than that? A: Well I should say there was all of half a dozen. There was that many at least there I think.
161 Q: What time in 1843 was it that you were sealed to your husband? A: I haven’t got the date.
162 Q: Was it in August or September or October? A: I don’t remember what the date was.
163 Q: Well was it in the first part of the year, or the last part of the year? A: I think it was in the first part of the year,–the last part of the year I mean. I really am not sure what part of the year it was, for I can’t remember.
164 Q: Is that the time you were anointed in Emma’s bed room? A: No sir. It was before that.
165 Q: What do you mean by that? A: I mean that I was anointed before that time.
166 Q: You were not sealed to your husband at the time that you were anointed in Emma’s bed room? A: No sir.
167 Q: What was your relation to your husband before that time? A: I was married to him for time, but not for eternity.
168 Q: And then in the latter part of 1843 you were sealed to him by Brigham Young for eternity? A: Yes sir.
169 Q: Were you married at the time of your anointings? A: Yes sir.
170 Q: How long had you been married at that time? A: I can’t say,–not very long though?
171 Q: Well about how long had you been married at the time of your anointings,–surely you can remember about how long it was? A: Well it was two or three years,–some where along there.
172 Q: Had you any children at that time? A: Yes sir, I had one.
173 Q: What was your husbands name? A: George A. Smith.
174 Q: When did you receive your anointing,–what time in the year was it that you received that? A: Well that is what I was asking President Woodruff about, and he said he would find it out for me, but he has not had time to do so I guess, for he has not done it.
175 Q: Was he present? A: I don’t remember.
176 Q: Well was it before 1843 that you received your anointings? A: I think it was in 1843 some time.
177 Q: Now from whom did you receive your anointing? A: Well I think it was from President Young the first time, and in the temple.
178 Q: Well I mean the first time,–the time that you were anointed in Emma’s bed room,–who anointed you there at that time? A: Well sister Mary Smith.
179 Q: She anointed you? A: Yes sir.
180 Q: Who was she? A: Brother Hyrum Smith’s wife.
181 Q: What she did,–what did she do? A: She anointed me.
182 Q: Just anointed your head with oil or some thing?
Counsel for the defendant objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is immaterial, and improper cross examination.
183 Q: Answer the question? A: Well,–that is my business.
184 Q: What did she do?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and improper cross examination, and some thing which the witness is under an obligation not to divulge.
A: It is not matter what she did.
185 Q: What was the ceremony? A: I cannot tell you.
186 Q: Do you know what it was? A: I do.
187 Q: Well what was it,–we insist upon an answer? A: Well you can insist upon it, but you won’t get it.
188 Q: Do you decline to answer the question? A: I will not answer that question.
189 Q: What did she do at the time you were anointed in Emma’s bedroom? A: Who? What did who do?
190 Q: The party that anointed you? A: She blessed me.
191 Q: What did she say? A: She said I was a good girl.
192 Q: What else did she say? A: Well it is no matter what it is she said. It has been so long ago that I would not undertake to say all that she said, even if I would tell it.
193 Q: Did she pour oil on your head? A: I am not going to tell you all that she said. I am not going to tell you all about it.
194 Q: Did she pour oil on your head? A: I decline to answer.
195 Q: Well, we insist upon the answer?
By Mr. Hall–I wish to instruct the witness that she is not bound to answer the question,–that she cannot be compelled to answer the question.
By the Examiner–I will instruct the witness that she will be compelled to answer the question unless she gives some valid reason why she declines to answer the question.
By Mr. Cabell–
196 Q: Mrs. Smith will you state to the Examiner, whether you have taken an oath not to answer these questions,–that question,–that ceremony with reference to the anointing? A: Yes sir, I will answer it; there was oil poured on my head.
197 Q: Well we have no objection to your answering that question.
By Mr. Kelley–
198 Q: She poured oil on your head? A: Yes sir.
199 Q: What else did she do? A: She blessed me.
200 Q: What else did she do, if any thing? A: That was all.
201 Q: That was all that was said and done,–she just poured the oil on your head and blessed you? A: Yes sir.
202 Q: You were not undressed at the time?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross examination, and on the further ground that witness has stated all that was done.
A: I had my bonnett off.
203 Q: That was all you had off, and the rest of your clothing was intact, and properly upon you? A: I was clothed sir.
204 Q: Clothed in the dress that you wore when you went in where you were when you were anointed? A: No I don’t think that I was,–not altogether.
205 Q: No, not altogether? A: No sir.
206 Q: Ho much change was there? A: I though you would be asking me something else.
207 Q: Yes I am asking you some thing else, but recollect all the time that I am not asking you to disclose any thing that occurred there that you took an obligation to not reveal?
By Mr. Hall–
208 Q: If you were at liberty to answer these questions, or have not taken an obligation to answer them,–I mean not to answer them, why answer them, and if you have taken an obligation that by answering these questions you would violate, why you need not answer them. I make this statement so that the witness may know what her legal rights are in the premises?
“By Mr. Kelley,–
209 Q: If this witness will state that she would be violating some obligation that she took not to reveal any thing in connection with this matter, she can say so? A: Well I don’t think I am under any obligation to tell all that occurred there,–for if I state that I had my anointing, that is all that it is necessary for me to state.
210 Q: Mrs. Smith you on your direct examination said that the anointing there, was the same as it was here? A: Well it was. That is so.
211 Q: Well now that is a conclusion of yours, and when you assert these things as positive facts,–that is assert that the anointings there were the same as they were here, that is a conclusion of yours, and it given [sic] as the right to go into the matter of the endowments and the ceremonies connected therewith, and ask you questions regarding it, so that the court may determine whether they are the same or not? A: Well I can only say they were the same as I have already stated.
212 Q: Well then I will have to insist upon my question and repeat it to you,–How much change was there in your clothing at the time you were anointed by Mary Smith, the wife of Hyrum Smith? A: In what way?
213 Q: As compared with your clothing when you went there? A: Well we have different clothing to put on, but it is not always the same or just alike.
214 Q: Where was the Lodge room there in Nauvoo? A: It was over Joseph Smith’s store,–in the Masonic Hall.
215 Q: Was that the Masonic Lodge or Odd Fellows lodge you were being initiate into there? A: Neither,–I was not initiated into either of them.
216 Q: Well whose hall was it you were being initiated in,–the Odd Fellows or Masonic? A: It was the Masonic hall.
217 Q: It was the Masonic Hall? A: Yes sir.
218 Q: Was it the lodge or organization of the Masons into which you were being initiated? A: No sir it was not the lodge,–it was the room or hall that was used by them.
219 Q: Was this anointing for the purpose of initiating you into a secret society? A: The endowment do you mean?
220 Q: Yes ma’am? A: Yes sir, that is a secret.
221 Q: A secret order? A: Yes sir.
222 Q: What order was it? A: The order of endowments.
223 Q: Who was the chief man in the room? A: Joseph Smith, the prophet.
224 Q: Was he sitting or standing? A: Why both.
225 Q: Did he have his hat on, or off? A: Off.
226 Q: All of the time? A: Yes sir, all of the time,–that is all of the time he was in the room.
227 Q: Was there any body else in the room? Yes sir.
228 Q: How many? A: I can’t tell you.
229 Q: Well about how many was there in the room? A: Oh, a dozen or two.
230 Q: All ladies? A: No sir.
231 Q: About what proportion of them were ladies? A: About half of them were ladies.
232 Q: Well what were the gentlemen’s names that were in the room at the time? A: Well there was my husband and Parley Pratt, and Orson Pratt and John Taylor.
233 Q: Was that all? A: No sir.
234 Q: Well who else was there? A: I don’t remember the names of all that were there. I remember the names I have given you, but I can’t remember the names of any more of the men that were there.
235 Q: Were any of these whose names you have given officers of the secret order of endowments besides Joseph Smith? A: Yes sir, they all had their endowments.
236 Q: Were they acting as officers that evening? A: Some of them were.
237 Q: Well which of them were? A: I think that the two brother Pratts were, and that brother Taylor also was, but it was brother Joseph who gave the lectures.
238 Q: Which way did the room face,–that is with reference to the points of the compass,–was it east and west or north and south? A: I don’t remember.
239 Q: Which side of the room was Joseph Smith on? A: I don’t remember about that either.
240 Q: Were they,–that is all the officers,–were they sitting or standing? A: Standing I think.
241 Q: All of them were standing? A: Yes sir, I think so.
242 Q: Did they have tables or desks in front of them? A: No sir.
243 Q: Did they have chairs in front of them? A: I don’t think they did. I don’t remember. I had a seat I remember, but I don’t recollect what they had in front of them.
244 Q: You do not remember how that was? A: No sir.
245 Q: Was there a stand or some thing in each end of the room? A: I don’t remember.
246 Q: And one on each side of the room? A: I dont remember how that was but I remember there was at one end of the room a stand.
247 Q: Did Joseph Smith stand there? A: No sir.
248 Q: Who did stand there? A: There was not any one on the stand that I remember of.
249 Q: That was a stand or platform for speaking from and not a stand or small table? A: Yes sir it was a platform or speaking stand. I remember there was a stand there, because when the relief society was organized we were in that room and the sisters sat there on the stand. I remember that very well, and that is how I know it was there.
250 Q: Was that organization the same as the order of the daughters of Rebecca? A: No sir.
251 Q: What order was it? A: I can’t say, but I think I had that degree.
252 Q: Was this endowment you took there different from the Order of Rebecca? A: Oh yes sir.
253 Q: How much difference was there? A: They were nothing alike at all. It was not any thing like it.
254 Q: Is the Order of Rebecca a side degree or rather I should say a side order of Masonry, or is it in connection with the Odd Fellows? A: I think it is of Masonry, for I think I had one or two degrees of it in that Lodge.
255 Q: What Lodge? A: They belonged to the new lodge.
256 Q: Who did? A: The Masons.
257 Q: What time? A: I don’t know.
258 Q: Was it after Joseph’s death? A: Yes sir.
259 Q: Don’t you know that the Order of Rebecca is strictly and purely an order connected with Odd fellowship?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross examination.
A: Well it was not that. It seems to me that that was it but if it has any thing to do with Oddfellows it was not that, but that is what it seemed to me to be, but I ain’t sure of it though, for the one that I mean was connected with Masonry in some way.
260 Q: Was it the Eastern Star that you were talking about? A: The what?
261 Q: The Eastern Star degree that you were talking about? A: No sir I can’t remember to save my life what degree it was. I think I remember some thing about the sign or token, but I have never thought much about it, or cared much about it any way, and so I can’t say exactly what it was.
262 Q: How large was this bed room that you referred to? A: Sister Emma’s bed room?
263 Q: Yes ma’am? A: Well it was a pretty good sized room,–it was about the size of this room (about 20 feet square).
264 Q: Was she your sister? A: Sister Emma?
265 Q: Yes? A: No sir.
266 Q: Then what makes you call her ‘sister Emma’? A: Well she was my sister in the church,–you know how that is very well. She was my sister in the church and she was a fine woman, and I loved her dearly.
267 Q: Was she present at the time of this anointing? A: Yes sir.
268 Q: Did she do the anointing? A: No sir.
269 Q: Did she help in the performance in any way? A: No sir, but she was sitting there.
270 Q: How many were in the bed room at the time you were anointed? A: There was seven of us I think.
271 Q: Any other ladies besides yourself and the one that did the anointing, and sister Emma? Yes sir, there was two or three sisters in there.
272 Q: Was there a bath room or a bath in the bed room? A: No sir.
273 Q: Was there one connected with the bed room in which the anointing was done? A: No sir, I don’t think there was.
274 Q: Well I believe you stated that sister Hyrum Smith performed the ordinance of anointing? A: Sister Mary Smith, who was brother Hyrum Smith’s wife was the one that did it. There was no bath room there I think for in those days we did not have many bath rooms.
275 Q: Now when you went into the hall where these endowments were given, was there curtains separating the ladies from the gentlemen? A: No sir.
276 Q: There was not? A: No sir.
277 Q: No curtains drawn at any time? A: No sir, we did not have anything like that at all.
278 Q: Did you take an oath there then? A: I suppose I did.
279 Q: Well did you? A: I promised not to tell what the ceremonies were.
280 Q: Did you take an oath there then not to disclose any thing that occurred there at that time? A: Yes sir.
281 Q: Who administered the oath to you? A: I don’t remember.
282 Q: You don’t remember who it was administered the oath to you? A: No sir.
283 Q: Was it sister Emma or sister Hyrum? A: I did not take any obligation, or make any promise in that room.
284 Q: You did not take any obligation or give any promise in that connection in that room? A: No sir.
285 Q: Then why do you decline to state what occurred in that room? If you did not take any obligation, why do you decline to state what occurred in there? A: Well I think it is best not to do so, for afterwards we promised not to reveal our endowments, or tell what it was.
286 Q: That promise was not a part of the endowment was it? A: No sir the promise was not,–
287 Q: I mean the performance that was gone through with in the bed room, was not a part of the endowment? A: No sir.
288 Q: That was just the preparation for the endowment was it not,–that which took place in the bed room was just the preparation for the endowment was it not? A: Yes sir.
289 Q: Then if that was no part of the endowment why do you decline to answer questions as to what tok place there in the bed room? A: Well I think they are silly questions you are asking me, and so I don’t feel like answering them.
290 Q: That is the reason you refuse to answer them,–because you think the questions are silly? A: Yes sir.
291 Q: Are you to be the judge,–are you setting your self up as the Judge as to whether or not these questions are silly? (No answer.) Did you wash before you were anointed? A: Yes sir.
292 Q: In the same room where you were anointed? A: Well now is that not a silly question,–what on earth has that to do with this case I would like to know.
293 Q: Well unfortunately for you it would not do for us to acquaint you with our object in asking these questions, and therefore as we conceive they are necessary we ask them, and expect you to answer them, for you have said that you took no obligation not to tell what occurred there in the bed room? I want to know about it, that is all, for you said you did not take an obligation not to disclose that? A: Well I said I did not there at the time, but I did afterwards.
294 Q: Did you take an obligation afterwards not to disclose what was done when you were making preparations for your endowments in the bed room? A: Yes sir.
295 Q: You took an oath not to divulge that? A: Yes sir.
296 Q: Who administered the oath? A: I do not remember.
297 Q: Did Joseph Smith administer it? A: I do not remember.
298 Q: What was the oath? A: We were told not to reveal the endowments.
299 Q: Well, was that all that was done? A: Well no sir, I don’t expect it is all.
300 Q: Was not this all the oath that was taken there,–did not the priesthood just tell you not to say any thing about it? A: Yes sir.
301 Q: That was the way it was? A: Yes sir.
302 Q: And as a matter of fact you did not take any oath at all? A: As much of an oath as I have taken here, I did.
303 Q: Did you hold up your right hand, and be sworn there? A: I promised not to tell it, and so I have here,–promised not to tell the truth.
304 Q: Not to tell the truth? A: I meant to say, to tell the truth. I was sworn there not to tell it, and I have been sworn here to tell the truth.
305 Q: And the whole truth? A: Yes sir.
306 Q: Well were you sworn there not to tell what you heard and saw? A: Yes sir, not to reveal any of the secrets of the endowments.
307 Q: Did you hold up your right hand and be sworn? A: No sir, I do not know as I did, did I hold up my right hand?
308 Q: Yes Madam,–did you hold up your right hand and take an oath not to reveal any thing that occurred there during the time that the endowments were given to you? A: Yes sir I did.
309 Q: You did? A: Yes sir, and I don’t think I ought to tell anything about it, and I think I ought not to be asked any questions about it either.
310 Q: Who administered the oath? A: I don’t know. I don’t remember.
311 Q: Was it Brigham or President Joseph Smith, or Heber C. Kimball? A: I don’t remember about that. I don’t remember who it was.
312 Q: Don’t you remember who it was, or is that one of the secrets that you promised not to reveal? A:–
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross examination?
A: I don’t think I ought to tell any thing about it at all. I promised not to reveal it.
313 Q: Did you take an oath not to reveal it? A: Yes sir, and I held up my hand and promised solemnly that I would not reveal it, and I will not either.
314 Q: Do you know of any law of the church permitting secret societies? A: Well there never had been any secret society.
315 Q: Was not this a secret society? A: We were not to tell what happened.
316 Q: Don’t you know the law of the church was against secret societies at that time? A: Yes sir.
317 Q: Well did you not go into that secret society or whatever it was in violation of the laws of the church? A: No sir.
318 Q: You did not? A: No sir, I don’t think so at all.
319 Q: You did not? A: I don’t understand it that way.
320 Q: The laws of the church is against secret societies, and was at that time wasn’t it? A: I think there is some thing said like that some where.
321 Q: Where is the law on that? A: I think there is some thing said like that in some of the revelations.
322 Q: Was there any law of the church that directed or permitted anointings of that kind, or any other kind? A: I suppose there was.
323 Q: Well was there? A: There was a revelation to that effect.
324 Q: A revelation on anointing? A: Yes sir.
325 Q: Please point it out? A: It is a revelation on endowments, and the anointing went with them.
326 Q: A revelation on anointing in the endowment society,–is that what you say? A: Yes sir.
327 Q: Anointings outside of the temple? A: Yes sir. Now it is just this way,–Joseph had commenced everything that ever was in this church. I don’t believe that there is one single principle that he did not commence, and started everything, and all that came afterwards was simply a carrying into effect that which he had started, and did not have time to carry into effect himself before he was taken away. I don’t believe though that there has been one single principle practiced since his day, but what was practiced in his day, and I don’t believe that there has been any thing new added.
. . . .
474 Q: Did you ever hear him [Joseph Smith] mention sealing? A: Yes sir.
475 Q: Sealing for time and for eternity? A: Yes sir.
476 Q: Was it for time or for eternity? A: It was for both time and eternity, but I did not know at the time,–I did not know any thing about any thing but one wife. I know I was sealed myself.
477 Q: Who were you sealed to? A: Of course I was sealed to my husband and I was sealed to him for time and eternity. I knew that, but I did not know any thing more about it than that.
478 Q: Well now was not the sealing that was practiced by the church under Joseph Smith a sealing of a man’s wife to her husband? A: Yes sir.
479 Q: That was what it was? A: Yes sir.
480 Q: He did not teach the sealing of some body elses wife to your husband? A: No sir, he did not either.
481 Q: He didn’t either? A: No sir, that is what I said.
482 Q: And you never saw him seal some one elses wife to some other man did you either? A: No sir.
. . . .
571 Q: Did not she [William Law’s wife] have a husband at that time? A: Yes sir.
572 Q: Well how could she be married to Joseph Smith if she had a husband living at that time? A: Well I believe she was sealed to him for eternity.
573 Q: Sealed to who for eternity? A: To Joseph Smith.
574 Q: Is that what you mean by ‘marrying,’ or ‘married,’–sealed to one for eternity? A: Yes sir.
575 Q: That is what you mean by being ‘his wife’? A: Yes sir, but sometimes they are married for time and eternity, and some times only for time. Sometimes for time, and some times for eternity.
576 Q: And she was sealed to him for eternity? A: I believe she was.
577 Q: But you don’t mean to say that Joseph Smith had that mans wife living with him as his wife? A: No sir, I mean that she was sealed to him for eternity, and I think that it was a good thing for her, for she will be much better off in eternity,–much better off in the next workd than if she stuck to Law.
578 Q: Do you believe a woman can’t be saved unless she is sealed? A: I believe every woman has to be sealed in order to be exalted.
579 Q: In the here after? A: Yes sir.
580 Q: Is that the doctrine of the church out here in Salt Lake now?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper re-cross examination, and does not call for the best evidence of the fact, but calls for an opinion of the witness.
A: Yes sir.
581 Q: That is the doctrine of the church here in Salt Lake at the present time? A: Yes sir.
582 Q: And it is the doctrine of the church as taught here now in the church in Utah territory under the administration of President Woodruff? The doctrine is that a woman cannot be exalted in the hereafter, or a man be exalted in the hereafter, unless they are sealed?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that the books which contain the doctrines of the church are themselves the best evidence of what the church teaches, and of its doctrine.
A: Yes sir, we believe that they cannot be exalted to the Celestial Kingdom, because they will be single and alone in the lower kingdoms,–that is the man will be alone, and the woman will be alone.
583 Q: That is what the church teaches here? A: Yes sir.
584 Q: Now that is what you have been taught by the officers of the church here in Salt Lake City since you have been here in Utah territory? A: Yes sir, and I was taught that in Nauvoo also.
585 Q: Do you swear solemnly that you were taught that in Nauvoo while you were there? A: Yes sir.
586 Q: Who taught it to you there? A: Brother Joseph.
587 Q: Did he teach it personally? A: Yes sir.
588 Q: When did he teach it to you? A: Well I can’t remember just the day and date when he taught it to me, but he taught it or I would not have been sealed to my husband.
589 Q: Well when did he do that? A: After he gave us our endowments and he taught us to have our prayers answered, and so on.
590 Q: Did Joseph Smith teach you that a man must have more than one wife? A: To be exalted?
591 Q: Yes madam? A: No sir. I never heard of that.
592 Q: But you were taught that a man must be sealed to his wife? A: Yes sir,–that his own wife must be sealed to him.
593 Q: But you were never taught by Joseph Smith, that a man must have two wives sealed to him? A: No sir.
594 Q: He did not teach that, nor did any one else teach that in Nauvoo prior to Joseph Smith’s death? A: Yes sir I believe they did, but I don’t know it for certain. I only think they did, for I don’t know anything positively about that.
595 Q: Well now they teach here in Salt Lake City,–President Woodruff, and President Young, and President John Taylor, taught you, and all the rest of the ladies, here in Salt Lake City that attended church that a man must be sealed? A: No sir.
596 Q: Well what was it? A: THat a woman must be sealed to a man, but not a man sealed to a woman.
597 Q: That a man in order to be exalted in the kingdom celestial, must have more than one wife? A: Yes sir, they taught that a man could have more than one wife.
598 Q: That is what they taught? A: Yes sir.
599 Q: And that was a means of exaltation? A: Yes sir, and I believe that Joseph said that a man that had one wife had a jewel, and a man that had more than one wife had more jewels.
. . . .
623 Q: I asked you if it is not a fact that when he [Joseph] preached from the platform any where or from the pulpit or stand,–when he preached publicly and laid down the doctrines of the church, he taught the doctrine of the church as it is laid down in the bible, the book of Mormon, and the book of Doctrine and Dovenants, did he not? A: Yes sir.
624 Q: And that ws the doctrine of the church, as you understood it? A: Yes sir.
625 Q: And that was the only doctrine there was to the church was it not? A: Yes sir, but when he gave us our endowments I thought that was another notch ahead, and when he authorized sealing for time and eternity that was another.
626 Q: These were simply, according to your understanding, notches in the progressive action of the doctrine of the church? A: Yes sir.
627 Q: Had the church as a body directed that the endowments be given? A: Yes sir.
628 Q: When? A: Before Joseph died.
629 Q: I do not believe you understand the question,–I asked you if the church had directed or authorized that the endowments should be given? A: Yes sir.
630 Q: When did they authorize it? A: Before Joseph died.
631 Q: Where did they take that action? A: It was done by authority of President Joseph Smith and the Twelve Apostles, and Hyrum.
632 Q: When did they do it? A: I believe it was in 1843.
633 Q: At a meeting? A: Yes sir, it was at a meeting.
634 Q: And they submitted that question to the congregation and had it voted on? A: Yes sir.
635 Q: Who was it submitted to? A: To the Twelve and a few others.
636 Q: To the Twelve and a few others you say? A: Yes sir.
637 Q: That is what it was submitted to? A: Yes sir, I think that was it.
638 Q: Do not the rules of the church require that the doctrine of the church shall be submitted to the church as a body and be accepted by the church in that capacity before it can become a law binding upon the church? A: Yes sir, I believe it does.
639 Q: Well was that submitted to the church, or only to the Twelve? A: Well to the church,–I think that was the intention, and I have heard him say that he had no right,–if he had a revelation he had no right to preach it or teach it until he had submitted it.
640 Q: Until he had submitted it to the church? A: Yes sir.
641 Q: To the whole church? A: Well not to the whole church, but to members of the church.
642 Q: To what part of the church was it to be submitted? A: To the Twelve Apostles.
643 Q: Well were not all the revelations that were submitted to the church, that were received through Joseph Smith, submitted to the whole church, and voted on by the general church? A: No sir.
644 Q: Do you swear positively they were not? A: Well not by all the church.
645 Q: Well were they not submitted to all of the church that came to a general conference? A: Yes sir all that chose to come to the Conference voted on it, and so it was with the revelation on celestial marriage, for I was told that it was voted on in that way.
646 Q: But you were not present? A: No sir.
647 Q: You were simply told that it was voted on in that way? A: Yes sir.
648 Q: Where was it so voted on? A: I don’t know. I suppose it was at Nauvoo though.
649 Q: Were you told that? A: I think so.
650 Q: Well were you? A: Yes sir.
651 Q: Who told you that? A: My husband I guess.
652 Q: When did he tell you that? A: Right then and there.
653 Q: And you believed it? A: Yes sir.
. . . .
787 Q: Now you have been in the endowment house you say for about sixteen years, and during that time you have trained yourself and other ladies? A: Yes sir. We have been trained in everything that is good, and nothing that is bad.
788 Q: And you understand all about the endowments,–about endowment matters? A: Well I understand a good deal about it. Not all,–but a good deal.
789 Q: Well now I will ask you if you don’t know, in taking the endowments, how the ladies are dressed? A: Yes sir.
790 Q: And whether or not they are not dressed differently from what they were when you took your endowments in Nauvoo? A: Yes sir they are dressed differently but that don’t make any difference in the ceremonies, or in the blessings, for they are the same.
791 Q: Well they are dressed differently you say? A: No sir, you are mistaken. I know what you are thinking about, but you are mistaken for they are dressed exactly the same, because they keep the same doctrine.
792 Q: How could they dress differently if they were the same? A: What is that,–that is some thing I don’t understand?
793 Q: How were they dressed differently, if they are the same? A: I know what you are thinking about. You are talking now about when I had my anointing.
794 Q: Well are they dressed differently now from what they were when you had your anointing? A: Yes sir.
795 Q: Well why did you not state that before? A: Well I could have done so, but I did not think it was material.
796 Q: Then they take their anointings differently now? A: No sir they do not.
797 Q: Well how do they take them now? A: They take them just exactly the same now as they did then,–there is no change at all,–they are precisely the same, and they dress exactly the same.
798 Q: Well now I want to get this thing definitely settled,–do you say that the anointings now are the same as they were in the days of Joseph Smith, and that the dress worn by women is the same in taking their endowments? A: Yes sir, they are exactly the same. The pattern was given to Joseph and he gave it to the church, and when he saw it he said it would do very well,–said he ‘they will do for your burial clothes.’
799 Q: They are dressed just the same when they take their endowments? A: Yes sir, and after they get pretty much through with their endowments they take other clothes then,–they do not wear the same clothes all through.
800 Q: Don’t they have a veil between the ladies and the gentlemen? A: No sir.
801 Q: A veil or curtain? A: No sir.
802 Q: They do not? A: No sir.
803 Q: Well what do they have? A: Well now this is the way,–if we were taking our endowments here, we would go from this room into that one say,–
804 Q: Don’t they seperate when they take their endowments? A: They do when they wash and anoint of course. That is all the seperation there is.
805 Q: Don’t they come together in seperate rooms, and they don’t see each other at first? A: Yes sir. When they are to be washed and anointed they are seperated.
806 Q: That is the way it is done here? A: Yes sir.
807 Q: Well did they do that same thing in Nauvoo? A: Yes sir.
808 Q: They did it just exactly that same way in Nauvoo? A: Yes sir.
809 Q: Without any variation? A: Yes sir.
810 Q: Was there two rooms there at Nauvoo the time you had your endowments? A: No sir there was not, and that was the reason we had to use sister Emma’s bed room, because there was not but two rooms that could be used, and the men had one of them and so as the other was sister Emma’s bed room, we had to go to that.
811 Q: Was there not two rooms in the lodge room? A: Yes sir, there was the lodge room, and a room just off it.
812 Q: Well not in taking the endowments, what position were you in here,–when they take the obligation, what position are they in with reference to their being sitting or standing? A: Standing.
813 Q: They take the obligation standing? A: I guess so.
814 Q: You guess so? A: Yes sir.
815 Q: Do they have their hands clasped,–each mans hand clasped with wife? A: No sir.
816 Q: They do not? A: No sir.
817 Q: Is there a partition between the gentlemen and the ladies? A: When they are taking their anointings there is.
818 Q: When they take their obligations is there? A: No sir.
819 Q: Are not the wome and the men seperated until they play Adam and Eve? A: I refuse to answer the question,–it is some thing that has nothing on earth to do with this case, and I can’t see what you mean by asking the question. What do you keep on in that strain for?
820 Q: Well just because I want to know?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross examination, and on the further ground that it is an attempt to get at some thing in an indirect way that the court would not permit the counsel to attempt to get in a direct manner, as the witness is being questioned regarding some thing which she is under an obligation not to reveal.
A: You need ask no more of these questions for I will not answer them, and you have already found out more than you can comprehend.
821 Q: Are they not seperated until the time comes when they are prepared to play Adam and Eve in the garden? A: Now you are at it again.
822 Q: Well never mind what I am after again, but just answer the question? A: Yes sir, I told you they were seperated until after the anointing.
823 Q: Did any body play Adam and Even when you took your anointing in Nauvoo? A: Well it don’t make any difference about that,–it don’t make a particle of difference about that.
824 Q: Well did they? A: It don’t make any difference about what the ceremonies were.
825 Q: Well I insist upon the answer? A: Well I insist that I am not going to tell you for you have no right to know about this and I have no right to tell you any thing about it, and so I will not tell you. I never saw any one playing Adam and Eve any place,–I will say that much.
826 Q: In Nauvoo did you not? A: No sir, nor here or any other place.
827 Q: And did you not represent Eve when you went through the endowments? A: No sir.
828 Q: Who did you represent? A: I represented myself. Now you have asked enough questions about this endowment, and so just stop please for everybody is tired of it I know.
829 Q: Were you baptized after you came here to Salt Lake? A: Yes sir.
830 Q: What for?
Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper cross examination.
A: Yes sir I was baptized after I came here.
831 Q: Well for what were you baptized? A: For the remission of my sins.
832 Q: For the remission of your sins? A: Yes sir, so I could start anew again.
833 Q: You were baptized when you first joined the church? A: Yes sir.
834 Q: When was that? A: That was in 1837.
835 Q: Who baptized you? A: Elder Gladden Bishop.
836 Q: Who baptized you in Salt Lake,–do you recollect? A: Yes sir, I remember who it was.
837 Q: Well who was it? A: My husband.
838 Q: George A. Smith baptized you? A: Yes sir.
839 Q: He baptized you here in Salt Lake? A: Yes sir, here in this territory.
840 Q: Have you been baptized more than once? A: Out here in this territory do you mean?
841 Q: Yes ma’am? A: Yes sir, I was baptized again after that. We had a reformation out here, and we were all baptized again, but I believe I do not remember who it was baptized me at that time.
842 Q: Have you not been baptized into the order of Enoch? A: No sir there is no such an order as that that I ever heard of.
843 Q: You have been baptized two times since you have been here in Salt Lake City for the remission of your sins? A: Yes sir. I was baptized for my health last summer also.
844 Q: Had you broken your first covenant that you made when you were first baptized in 1837, and was that the reason of your being baptized again when you came out here to this valley? A: No sir.
845 Q: You had not? A: No sir.
846 Q: Then why did you be baptized when you came out here? Why were you baptized the second time? A: Well you know people are apt to committ a great many little follies and sins when they are on a long journey like we took, and go through the perils and privations that we went through, and while I do not think that I committed any sins in particular, still I felt like all the rest did about, that there would no particular harm in our being re-baptized for the remission of any sin or error that we had fallen into,–we just felt that we had better be re-baptized, and that it would not hurt us if we were.
847 Q: And that was the reason of your baptism when you arrived here? A: Yes sir.
848 Q: The bible teaches that if you committ any sins they have an advocate with the father? A: Yes sir.
849 Q: They what was the occasion or necessity of your being baptized again? A: Well if they have not lived their religion,–if a person has not lived his religion, they ought to be baptized again notwithstanding that.
850 Q: Do you recognize that by your first baptism you were baptized into Christ? A: Yes sir.
851 Q: You recognize that you were baptized into Christ by your first baptism you say? A: Yes sir.
852 Q: And by coming out here you got out of Christ and had broken your covenants? A: No sir.
853 Q: Then why were you baptized the second time if you had not broken your covenants, and got out of Christ? A: No sir we did not consider that we had broken our covenants, but we thought it was best for every body to be baptized anew, and start afresh again as it were.
854 Q: Then you were baptized into another covenant? A: No sir. It was the same covenant.
855 Q: Did not the revelation on polygamy teach it as another covenant and is not that the reason you were baptized the second time? A: No sir.
856 Q: Will you swear that it does not teach it as a new covenant? A: What kind of a covenant?
857 Q: Why a covenant like all other covenants,–a new and ever lasting covenant? A: A new and ever lasting covenant?
858 Q: Yes, and different from the one you were baptized in before? A: No sir, I don’t know that it was.
859 Q: Well it was given after you had been baptized the first time? A: Certainly.
860 Q: Then it must have been a different one, was it not? A: No sir for I think the first covenant comprises it all.
861 Q: You think the first covenant comprises it all? A: Yes sir.
862 Q: There was no revelation on polygamy when you were baptized the first time in 1837? A: No sir.
863 Q: So you did not have the new covenants to be baptized into at that time did you? A: I think it comprehends it all.
864 Q: You think your first baptism comprehends it all? A: Yes sir.
865 Q: Then why were you baptized here the second time, and the third time and the fourth time out here? A: Well as I said before we thought we would start anew.
866 Q: You were re-baptized when John Taylor became the President of the church here? A: No sir. It was long before that that I was baptized, for I came here in ’49.
867 Q: You were baptized right away after you got here? A: Yes sir.
868 Q: And you were baptized again after that? A: Yes sir.
869 Q: That was the time of the reformation? A: Yes sir.
870 Q: The time of the reformation was under the Presidency of President John Taylor? A: Yes sir. No sir I was mistaken in that it was not under his presidency.
871 Q: Well whose Presidency was it under? A: President Brigham Young.
872 Q: Was it at the time of the reformation that Brigham Young issued the proclamation for all the wives,–or that all the wives in the territory were free to leave their husbands? A: No sir, that was not a revelation or proclamation.
873 Q: Well did he not preach that from the pulpit? A: No sir.
874 Q: Did he make a statement to the effect that all the wives who wanted to leave their husbands could do so? A: No sir, but I know what you are after. I remember what you mean,–yes he did too I remember about it now, and I remember that it made some of the sisters pretty cross too for they did not like it a bit,–but then it did not amount to any thing, for there was nothing came of it.
875 Q: I will ask you if all the sisters that came to this territory from Nauvoo, so far as you know, have been instructed that they must be re-baptized? A: Yes sir, and I believe that is the practice yet.
876 Q: Do you know whether Brigham Young and all the Apostles were re-baptized? A: Yes sir.
877 Q: And your husband? A: Yes sir.
878 Q: They were all re-baptized? A: Yes sir.
879 Q: And all the officers in the church were re-baptized? A: Yes sir. I think so.
880 Q: Into this new and everlasting covenant? A: No sir, it was the same ceremony exactly that was before. The same ceremony that we were baptized into first.
881 Q: Was it into the same covenant? I don’t know that we could be baptized back into some thing that we had never got out of, for we had not broken our covenants, but we felt that there would be no harm done if we were baptized again, and so we were, but it was–
882 Q: Was what? A: Was to a large extent optional with us.
883 Q: What was optional? A: Whether we should be baptized or not,–that is there was nothing obligatory about it, but it was recommended, but it was not compulsory.
884 Q: Now you say that this rebaptism was the same ceremony,–what do you mean by that? A: The first baptismk,–it was the same as the first ceremony of our baptism.
885 Q: Now I will read to you paragraphs three and four of section one hundred and thirty two of Exhibit ‘A’, on page three hundred and sixty four, and ask you to pay particular attention to it,–it is as follows,–
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed, by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time, and for all eternity, and that too most holy by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time, on whom this power, and the keys of this priesthood are conferred, are of no efficacy, virtue or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead.
Now that is the eighth section of the paragraph,–the eighth paragraph of the section I mean, and now I will read to you the third and fourth paragraphs of the same section,–
Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you: for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same: for behold I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant: and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory.
Do you recognize that as part of the revelation on polygamy? A: Yes sir that is a part of the revelation on marrying for time and eternity.
886 Q: Now are you willing to say that this is the new covenant,–are you willing to say now that this revelation teaches a new covenant? A: No sir.
887 Q: Is it not a new covenant? A: No sir, it is the same thing. It is the same covenant that we took when we went down into the waters of baptism.
888 Q: After you got to Salt Lake? A: No sir, it was the first time.
889 Q: The third paragraph which I have read says
therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you: for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same: for behold I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant then are ye damned, for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
This was received several years after you were baptized in 1837 was it not? A: Yes sir, of course it was.
890 Q: Then the instructions were to be given after that, ‘for all those who have this law revealed unto them, must obey the same’? A: Well what about that?
891 Q: Now was it not because of this revelation that you were baptized the second time out here? A: No sir, but I had to be sealed to my husband for time and eternity, or else death would seperate us.
892 Q: Death would seperate you? A: Yes sir, and that is what it means, and nothing more in my opinion.
893 Q: You believe, and your church here teaches, that if you were not sealed to your husband for time and eternity, that you would be lost? A: Please repeat that question, for I don’t believe I quite comprehend it.
894 Q: I asked you if you did not believe, and your church here did not teach, that if you were not sealed to your husband for time and eternity, that you would be lost? A: No sir. No sir we would not be lost, but we believe and our church teaches that a man cannot be exalted unless he has a wife, and a woman cannot be exalted unless she has a husband,–in other words that they have to be married before they can be exalted.
895 Q: Well I will read the sixth paragraph? A: Read it all,–
896 Q: Now I will read just the sixth paragraph, as follows,–
And as pertaining to the new and ever lasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof, must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
You have read that I suppose? A: Yes sir. Well what do you want to know about it.
897 Q: Now do you understand that as teaching that this revelation is the new and ever lasting covenant? A: Yes sir.
898 Q: That is what you understand it to be? A: Yes sir,–in that sense I do.
899 Q: And you understand by the sixth paragraph which I have just read to you that after a man,–that if a woman refuses to abide by the law and be sealed, she will be damned? A: I understand that she will not be exalted with her husband. I understand that.
900 Q: Well according to the revelation she will be damned won’t she? Unless she receives it and is sealed to her husband she will be damned? A: Well I don’t know that that is exactly what it says.
901 Q: Well read the sixth paragraph and see what it says? A: I heard you read it, and I don’t know that it is necessary for me to read it. I can’t read it any way for I haven’t my glasses here,–I know that I understood the law to be, to be sealed for time and eternity.
902 Q: Well I will read it to you again,–
And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God’?
A: He must have his wife sealed to him.
903 Q: Or he shall be damned,–is that not what it says,–that ‘he must abide the law or he shall be damned’. Is that not what it says? A: Yes sir, and that means that his wife must be sealed to him.
904 Q: He will be damned if he does not receive the law? A: Well that is a hard way of putting it.
905 Q: Well that is the way it is there? A: Yes sir.
906 Q: Well I will read now a little further? A: That is right,–you will probably find polygamy in it a litter further on.
907 Q: ‘And verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are these,–all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made, and entered into, and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed both as well for time, and for all eternity, and that too most holy by revelation and commandment, through the medium of mine anointed whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power, and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph, to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power, and the keys of this Priesthood are conferred, are of no efficacy, virtue or force, in and adter the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead.’
What does that mean? A: Well now that is strange,–can’t you see through that easy enough.
908 Q: Well now I don’t know that I do, but I think I do. Under this revelation would not your covenants that you received in your baptism in 1837 be void, unless you were re-baptized,–would not your original covenants have been void unless you had been re-baptized? A: No sir, I don’t think so,–it says that there is but one many on the earth at a time who has the power,–who holds the keys of that Priesthood, and that man was Joseph at that time, and it means that at that time there was but one man on the earth who has the power to give a man more than one wife.
909 Q: It was Joseph Smith at that time? A: Yes sir.
910 Q: And he had the power to give a man more than one wife? A: Yes sir,–through the power of revelation he did. When it was revealed to him, he had the power of promulgating the decree of the Lord, but of course he did not have any power only what he received from God.
911 Q: And after him it was Brigham Young who had the power? A: Yes sir.
912 Q: After Joseph Smith died it was in Brigham Young,–the power was? A: Yes sir, and now it is in President Woodruff.
913 Q: How do you know it? A: That there tells it plain enough.
914 Q: Does this say that the power which Joseph Smith held was conferred upon Brigham Young? A: Yes sir.
915 Q: It does? A: Yes sir.
916 Q: Where does it say that? A: Well it don’t say so in so many words, but in effect it does.
917 Q: Did Brigham Young seal you to your husband? A: Yes sir.
918 Q: In Josephs day? A: Yes sir.
919 Q: He sealed you to your husband while the prophet Joseph Smith was still living? A: Yes sir.
920 Q: Why did he do that? A: Because he had the power and authority to do so? If I had been a second wife, Joseph would have to have given me to him. Joseph would have to have done it, or have given him authority before he could have done it.
921 Q: Don’t the revelation teach that no person except Joseph held the power to seal? A: Not more than one wife without authority to do it from Joseph.
922 Q: Did they have that power under this revelation? A: To seal a mans wife to him?
923 Q: Yes madam? A: Yes sir, but they did not have power to seal more than one wife to one man unless they had special authority to do so.
924 Q: Then Brigham Young did not selal you under this revelation,–Brigham Young did not seal you to your husband by virtue of this revelation? A: Yes sir, and he had authority to do so under that, for you see I was not a second wife.
925 Q: But this does not say any thing about a second wife or a first wife or any thing of the kind? A: Well there was but one man on earth at a time you see that could do any thing about this revelation unless he would delegate his power to another. This revelation had nothing to do with the old order,–it applied to the new order, and the law that regulated a man and his one or first wife [next line cut off in xerox copy] my husband, but under the new law as given in that revelation he could not seal a mans second or third wife to him without authority from Joseph to do so.
926 Q: Well your sealing to your husband, was not by virtue of this revelation, but by virtue of the other revelation where by it was directed to seal a woman to her own husband? A: Well of course my husband had the liberty to take me, but then,–don’t you see that you have gotten into polygamy now,–you are getting things mixed up, and we don’t understand each other apparently.
927 Q: This does not say a word about polygamy,–this revelation does not say a word about polygamy so far as I have read? A: Well if you read it through you will see.
928 Q: How could Brigham Young during the life time of Joseph Smith, have performed the ordinance of sealing you to your husband under this revelation, when the revelation itself says there is not but one person on earth authorized to do so, and that is Joseph? A: Well of course Joseph gave his consent,–of course he did.
929 Q: Could Joseph Smith seal by proxy? A: Yes sir.
930 Q: Oh he could? A: Of course he could.
931 Q: And could Brigham Young seal by proxy? A: Yes sir, and [all?] of them could.
932 Q: Could Wilford Woodruff seal by proxy? A: Yes sir, but he dont do it.
933 Q: Do you mean to say that the prophet was greater than the law, and could do as he pleased? A: Well I mean to say just what that does there in that book.
934 Q: Well this says that there is no man on earth could seal but Joseph Smith? A: I know that, but if you will take the time to hunt it all out, you will find out just what it means.
935 Q: Were you not, as a matter of fact, sealed to your husband after Joseph Smith’s death, by Brigham Young? A: No sir.
936 Q: You swear positively you were not? A: I was not.
937 Q: And did you not go through the endowment house after Joseph Smiths death? A: Through the temple I did, but I was not sealed there.
938 Q: Did you not pass through the endowment in the temple? A: No sir. Yes sir I meant to say.
939 Q: And take your obligations there in the temple? A: Yes sir I did.
940 Q: Then you were sealed by Brigham Young after Josephs death? A: There was no Brigham Young about it at all.
941 Q: That ceremony was not conducted by Brigham Young? A: No sir.
942 Q: Who was it by? A: Orson Hyde.
943 Q: Well that was after Joseph Smiths death? A: Yes sir, but I was sealed first by Brigham Young before Joseph’s death. I was first sealed when Joseph was living.
944 Q: Were you sealed under this revelation by Orson Hyde? A: Yes sir,–under the covenants in this revelation.
945 Q: And that was after Joseph Smith’s death? A: Yes sir.
946 Q: Now don’t you know there is no other revelation on sealing? A: Well I don’t know about that.
947 Q: That was not a plural wife revelation, and were you not sealed under that by Orson Hyde? A: Well is this not the same thing?
948 Q: I think not? I think the first one you were sealed under was a revelation that permitted a mans wife to be sealed unto himself only? A: Well there wasn’t any ‘only’ about it at all.
949 Q: Well it did not permit any other sealing other than the sealing of a mans wife to her husband,–that was all the kind of sealing it permitted is it not? A: Well it was the same thing.
950 Q: Well then you were not sealed properly? A: Yes sir I was. I was sealed as proper as any body could be.
951 Q: Were you married properly also? A: Yes sir, I was married properly by Don Carlos Smith, Josephs brother,–he was Joseph Smith’s younger brother.
952 Q: Well what [when?] was it you were married? A: It was in 1841.
953 Q: What ceremony was used? A: The right one.
954 Q: Well what one was it? A: The one of,–the one in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.
955 Q: It was the one in the Doctrine and Covenants? A: Yes sir.
956 Q: Now you say you were married in 1841? A: Yes sir.
957 Q: Where were you married? A: In Nauvoo.
958 Q: Who was present when you were married? A: My mother and brother and all the family.
959 Q: Was there not a great many there? A: No sir, there was not a great many there. We were just there with our own family and a few others, and when we were married we went off to meeting together and my husband preached.
960 Q: And you were dressed as a bride at the church that day? A: Yes sir. I was, and Joseph was there and congratulated me on getting such a good husband.
961 Q: Did you ever see any of these secret wives, dressed as brides in church or any where else, there in Nauvoo? A: No sir it was only a man and his wife that would be dressed that way so far as I remember.
962 Q: Well I asked you if you ever saw any of these secret wives dressed as brides there at meeting? A: Do you mean there in Nauvoo?
963 Q: Yes sir [ma’am]? A: No sir,–I said I did not.
964 Q: I mean in Joseph’s time? A: No sir.
965 Q: The ceremony that was repeated to you when you were married to your husband George A. Smith, was the ceremony that was published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants at that time was it not? A: Yes sir.
966 Q: Now I will ask you if when you were taking your endowments in the lodge room, whether or not there was any body representing Jehovah, and any body representing Adam, and if there was anybody representing Satan during any part of the ceremony? A: Well now sir that is my business.
967 Q: Well answer the question please? A: Well that is my business.
968 Q: Do you decline to answer the question? A: There is no use in your asking it or in my answering it, for I am not going to tell you everything that happened there.
969 Q: Well do you decline to answer the question? A: I do.
970 Q: Don’t you know that there were parties that represented all of these personages there? A: I will not tell you.
971 Q: Well not don’t you know that there was no body there that represented any of these personages? A: I know there was lots of people there that did not represent them, and lots of people that were not there that did not represent them.
972 Q: Well now don’t you know that nobody represented either of these personages, when you were taking these endowments at Nauvoo, prior to Joseph Smiths death? Don’t you know that right well? A: I have seen it in the paper.
973 Q: Well don’t you know that when you were taking your endowments at Nauvoo, that there was no body there that represented or purported to represent any of these personages? I refer to the time when the endowments were given over Josephs store there in Nauvoo, in the lodge room, and before the time of Joseph Smiths death? A: I don’t see what that has to do with this case,–
974 Q: And at the time that you were anointed in the bed room,–in Emma Smith’s bed room? A: No sir.
975 Q: There was not any body that represented Adam and Eve, nor was there any body that represented Satan or Jehovah in any part of that ceremony? A: That is a question that I don’t want to answer.
976 Q: Well do you say there was? A: Was what?
977 Q: Do you say there was any one present at the time of your anointings in Emma’s bed room or in the lodge room over Josephs store there in Nauvoo, at the time of the giving of the endowments during the life time of Joseph Smith, who,–any person at either of these places at the times specified, who represented Adam and Eve or Satan and Jehovah? A: I have not said that there was.
978 Q: You have not asid there was? A: No sir.
979 Q: Have you said there was not? A: I decline to answer the question.
980 Q: Don’t you know there was not any one? A: I don’t remember all about it.
981 Q: Well don’t you know there was not? A: You have asked me plenty.
982 Q: Do you refuse to answer the question? A: Yes sir, I do.
983 Q: Well I insist upon an answer? A: Well you will not get it.
984 Q: Well I insist upon the answer and I want to tell you now that if you answer it I will not ask you any more on this line? A: Are you sure of that?
985 Q: Yes I am sure of it? A: Well what is it?
986 Q: I asked you if at the time that you received your anointings in Emma’s bed room and the time of the giving of the endowments in the lodge room over Joseph Smiths store there in Nauvoo, during the life time of Joseph Smith, if there was any one present during any of these ceremonies, who represented Adam and Eve and Satan and Jehovah. Now don’t you know at the time you were taking your endowments and anointings in Emma’s bed room, during the life of Joseph Smith, and afterwards when you went up into the lodge room,–don’t you know there was not anybody that represented Jehovah during any part of that ceremony, or that represented Adam and Eve, or that represented Satan during any part of that ceremony? A: Nor any one of them,–is that your question?
987 Q: Yes ma’am? A: I don’t want to answer that question.
988 Q: Now I do not ask you to tell what they did represent,–I am only asking you if you do not know that they did not represent these personages? Any or all of them? (Witness does not answer.)
By Mr. P. P. Kelley,–I desire to have it noted that Mr. Hall is shaking his head at the witness in a manner to indicate that he does not desire her to answer the question.
A: I agreed not to reveal what transpired there.
989 Q: You understand that you are not called on to violate any promise or oath you made? A: I can’t say this ain’t so and that ain’t so, when I promised not to tell anything about it at all, and if I answer these questions I would be violating my agreement.
(The foregoing question No 989, was asked the witness, in the way of instruction by Mr. Cabell.)
990 Q: Well you did not take an obligation not to tell what did not occur did you? A: No sir.
991 Q: Well not that is what I am asking for,–some thing that did not occur? A: No sir.
992 Q: Well I say that is some thing that I asked you for,–what I asked you for was some thing that did not occur? A: Well I can’t tell you, and you can interpret that anser in any way you please. I am not going to answer any such a question as that,–tell you some thing that did not occur and say it did or did not occur. It seems to me that the question is too foolish to call for an answer.
993 Q: Well are not these four characters represented here during the ceremony of taking the endowments? A: I think I have told you several times I would not answer any such a question, so what makes you repeat it. I will not answer any of these questions at all.
994 Q: Are they not, and were they not represented during the ceremony of the taking of the endowments here? A: I will not answer that question,–if I did you might ask me a dozen more.
995 Q: Well do you decline to answer it? A: I don’t wish to answer it.
996 Q: Do you decline to answer it for the reason that it might tend to criminate you? A: Yes sir.
997 Q: You do? A: Yes sir, and because I do not think I am at liberty to answer it.
998 Q: Did you notice Mr. Hall a moment ago,–I mean the gentleman there who conducted your direct examination, shaking his head at you when I was asking you questions? A: It was only when I asked him a question.
999 Q: Well did he not shake his head signifying to you not to answer a question that I asked you? A: Well I asked him, or was about to ask him if it was right that I should answer it, and I don’t think he meant any thing wrong by what he did.
1000 Q: He shook his head at you? A: Yes sir.
1001 Q: And you did not refuse to answer until he told you not to? A: He did not tell me not to answer it.
1002 Q: Well you did not refuse to answer the question until he indicated to you that you were not to answer it? A: Yes sir but I told you before that that I did not want to answer it.
1003 Q: Well I want to ask you one more question?
By Mr. Hall,–I object to each and every question , that has been asked the witness on re-cross examination, and to the answers of the witness on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not re-cross examination.”
(Bathsheba W. Smith, Temple Lot Manuscript, Book Two, Respondents Testimony, pp. 291-339)