REPLY TO R. C. EVANS

The following letter was published in the Toronto Daily Star in answer to the false charges which appeared in Mr. Evans' interview.

Salt Lake City, Feb. 19, 1905.

Mr. R. C. Evans,

Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church.

Sir:—I have before me a copy of the Toronto Daily Star, bearing date of January 28, last, in which there is a column on the front page, purporting to be an interview, by a representative of that paper with you, in which I desire to call your attention.

In doing so I desire to be fair and dispassionate, and also candid, and I would like it if you would receive and reply to this communication in the same spirit and manner to me personally.

You are reported as not being "pleased," nor Toronto's six hundred baptized members, with the name "Mormon." "This fact," says the Star, "was emphasized today when R. C. Evans, one of the three members of the Presidency explained the radical difference between the two denominations. Mr. Evans * * * denounced the Utah Mormon and his iniquities." Then you are made to say: "The term Mormon is offensive to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I have specified." That is, the alleged practices of the Utah "Mormons," namely, "polygamy and blood atonement."

Did you know that "the term Mormon" has always been applied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That the name attached to the Church with the publication and promulgation of the Book of Mormon? That it was first applied by the enemies of the Church as an opprobrium; but that during the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Martyr, and ever since it has been a term accepted by the Church because of popular custom, as an appellation?

If, then, the name is so distasteful to you and your fellows in Canada and throughout the world, although it be on the grounds you have named, why do you not discard the Book of Mormon, from whence the name is derived, as well as the name. Is not the term Book of Mormon as closely associated in the public mind with "polygamy and blood atonement," as is the name of the Book? How are you going to disassociate the book itself from the name as commonly applied to the Church, since this name has been attached to the Church from the beginning, and before the alleged "practices" of the "Utah Mormon" gained such publicity? Really, I think it would be quite proper for those holding the view which you are said to have expressed, not only to renounce the name "Mormon" as applied to the Church but also the Book itself.^[1]

You do not believe in blood atonement. Is not this the more reason why you should discard the Book of Mormon? Are you not at issue with the teachings not only of that book, but also with those of the Bible on this matter? If so, why not discard the Bible, and while you are about it, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants also? Both of these, as well as the Book of Mormon, teach the doctrine of "blood atonement," and they are all "associated in the public mind" with the alleged "practices" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Let us consider this subject of "blood atonement."

Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:11.—His blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam. Verse 15.—And understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood. Verse 16.—Even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins.

Alma 21:9.—Now Aaron began to open the Scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for mankind, save it was through the death and suffering of Christ, and the atonement of his blood.

I Nephi 12:10.—Their garments are made white in his blood.

II Nephi 9:7.—And if so, (not an infinite atonement) this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

From the Bible:

Mark 14:22-25.—And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed and brake it, and gave to them, and said: Take, eat; this is my body.

And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many.

Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.

From the Doctrine and Covenants:

Section 45:4.—(Utah edition) Saying, Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed—the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified.

Section 74:7.—But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and this is what the scriptures mean.

Section 76:39-41.—For all the rest shall be brought forth by the resurrection of the dead, through the triumph and the glory of the Lamb, who was slain, who was in the bosom of the Father before the worlds were made. And this is the gospel, the glad tidings which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us. That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness.

Section 29:1.—Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins. Verse 17.—And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.

STATEMENT OF AN ENEMY

But the report says: "This doctrine was introduced by Brigham Young" and that it meant "death to anyone who left the Church * * * that the apostate whose throat was cut from ear to ear * * * saved his soul." Why you made this statement you best know; but were you not aware that it was but the repetition of the ravings of enemies of the Church, without one grain of truth? Did you not know that not a single individual was ever "blood atoned," as you are pleased to call it, for apostasy or any other cause? Were you not aware, in repeating this false charge, that it was made by the most bitter enemies of the Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you know of anyone whose blood was ever shed by the command of the Church, or members thereof, to "save his soul?" Did you not know that you were embittering the people against the "Mormon" Elders, and that just such malicious charges and false insinuations have made martyrs for the Church, whose blood does not "cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth?"

Never in the history of this people can the time be pointed to when the Church ever attempted to pass judgment on, or execute an apostate as per your statement. There are men living in Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State who feel as secure, and are just as secure and free from molestation from their former associates as you or any other man could be.

EFFICACY OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

The Latter-day Saints believe in the efficacy of the blood of Christ. They believe that through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel they obtain a remission of sins; but this could not be if Christ had not died for them. If you did believe in blood atonement, I might ask you why the blood of Christ was shed? and in whose stead was it shed? I might ask you to explain the words of Paul: "Without shedding of blood is no remission."

UNPARDONABLE SINS

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? Do you not know, too, that this doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon? And is not this further reason why you should discard the Book as well as the name? Is it not safe for us to rely upon the scriptures for the solution of problems of this kind? Let me quote:

From the Book of Mormon:

II Nephi 9:35.—Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die.

Alma 1:13, 14.—And thou hast shed the blood of a righteous man, yea, a man who has done much good among this people; and were we to spare thee, his blood would come upon us for vengeance.

Alma 42:19.—Now, if there were no law given—if a man murdered he should die, would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

From the Bible:

Genesis 9:12, 13.—And whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man.

For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man. (Inspired translation.)

Luke 11:50.—That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.

Hebrews 9:22.—And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 10:26-29.—For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

* * * *

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses;

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing.

(I commend to you the careful reading of these two chapters:)

I John 3:15.—No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

I John 5:16.—If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

From the Doctrine and Covenants:

Section 87:7.—That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

Section 101:80.—And for this purpose have I established the constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men, whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Section 42:18, 19.—And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

Verse 79.—And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.

THE LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

In pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow man. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death. This is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church. This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the "Mormon" legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "blood atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

PLURAL MARRIAGE

Since the action taken by the United States government, and also by the Church, in regard to plural marriage, I shall not discuss its virtues nor answer arguments in opposition to that principle as a principle of our faith. As you, however, are reported to have said that "Brigham Young introduced" that doctrine "in Salt Lake City," I would be pleased if you would explain, as a matter of history, why Sidney Rigdon, before "President Young introduced" the doctrine, declared that the principle of plural marriage was introduced, to his knowledge, by Joseph Smith the Prophet, and that he, Sidney Rigdon, rejected that doctrine and "warned Joseph Smith and his family" that it would bring ruin upon them. You will find this in the Messenger and Advocate, published in June, 1846, volume 2, page 475, number 6. Will you kindly explain why this same Sidney Rigdon practiced polygamy, which he so fervently condemns? Will you kindly explain why Lyman Wight, James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith, and others, none of whom had much love for President Young and did not follow him, also taught and practiced polygamy before plural marriage was "introduced by President Young." If you doubt this, I will gladly furnish you with the proof. Indeed, you may find a great deal of it in the third volume of your church history.

THE "SAINTS' HERALD" AS A WITNESS

If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the following paragraph in the Saints Herald, your official organ, volume 1, page 9. It would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which is entitled "polygamy." The quotation is:

"The death of the prophet is one fact that has been realized, although he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning 'polygamy,') before his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily."

In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following?

"He (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject ('polygamy') to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that." Kindly read the context.

There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain this it may suffice.

In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement as the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. There is, however, value in the above statements from your "Herald," for they bear witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural marriage, and the revelation concerning the same.^[2]

THE UTAH VISIT

In connection with this, let me call your attention to your visit to Salt Lake City some three years ago. At that time you met President Lorenzo Snow, a man whose veracity cannot justly be questioned; you heard him bear his testimony to the effect that he was taught that principle by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet declared to Lorenzo Snow that he had married his sister, Eliza R. Snow. You met and conversed with Lucy Walker Smith, and she told you that she was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the first day of May, 1843, in Nauvoo, Elder William Clayton performing the ceremony. You met Catherine Phillips Smith, who told you she was married in August, 1843, in Nauvoo, to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, his brother Joseph the Prophet officiating in that ceremony. You will remember that the first wives of both these men were living at the time. I hardly think these testimonies have passed from your memory in so brief a time. I am personally acquainted with these women, and know that they are truthful and honest—honorable women, whose testimonies should be believed.

In the face of all this evidence, do you think it fair and consistent for you and your fellow believers to constantly lay at the door of President Young the responsibility for the "introduction of plural marriage" and the "authorship" of the above mentioned revelation?

My letter is already long, but I desire to briefly mention another item or two.

PRESIDENT SMITH'S DENIAL

In the interview you are made to say that while on your visit to Salt Lake City, you spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith; that you and he "differed on polygamy," and that you "told him it was vile and wicked, always had been, and always would be." I took occasion to ask my father if you and he had discussed polygamy at that time and if you had uttered that above expression or any other of like nature. He replied that he had no discussion with you on that subject; that you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy, either favorable or otherwise; that your visit was a social one, and friendly, and was not occupied by the discussion of any differences which may have existed.

It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville, but on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in trust for the "dead president's son?" Do you not know that such a statement—contrary to the written word—was antagonistic to the teachings of President Young, as recorded in the "Times and Seasons," as well as since that Time?

PRESIDENT YOUNG THE PROPHET'S FRIEND

Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young as being "under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?" Am I to infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young was in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false.^[3]

With reference to my father's first wife, you say she died "broken hearted and insane." If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it is also scandalously false. I have good reason to believe that she died neither broken hearted nor insane. If it were true, I would still think that you, as a professed minister of the Gospel, might employ your time to better advantage than as an aspersor or a scandal-monger.

Respectfully, Joseph F. Smith, Jr.

Footnotes

1. This sentence in italics was omitted in Mr. Evans' publication of the entire matter in the Zion's Ensign, August 17th, 1905.

2. The quotations from the Saints' Herald which are in Italics were purposely omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the Zion's Ensign of August 7, 1905. The reason for the suppression of this evidence is easy to discern. The authorities of the "Reorganization" have tried to destroy the evidence, that it could not be circulated among their church members, therefore very few copies of this particular Herald can today be found.

3. These paragraphs in italics were also omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the Zion's Ensign August 17, 1905.