REPLY  TO  THE  QUERIES
ON  POLYGAMY.
_______

The history of polygamy is much like what the Mormons claim for their priesthood -- without beginning of days. This is one of the peculiar features of the peculiar institution, and one that is not easily explained.

Mormonism can be but partly known from its written history, from the fact of its being full of falsehoods and trickery, both being acknowledged as legitimate in the introduction of a "divine" system, to a wicked and an adulterous generation. No wonder that "K." became confused in his endeavors to fathom to its depths the mystery of godliness, and finally refer the subject to the Tribune for solution. O, presumptuous Gentile, give heed to the "Lord's" servants while they lift the veil that obscures the secrets of "divine" revelators from the gaze of the giddly and unconverted outsiders who are not prepared to live up to the privileges enjoyed by 'prophets!'

The "Book of Doctrines & Covenants" was accepted by the Mormon church as a rule of faith in the year 1835, but the text quoted by friend "K." has either been altered since 1845, or misquoted purposely by the Editor of the Times and Seasons, a semi-monthly edited and published at Nauvoo by apostle John Taylor, in which the same question is made, but it reads thus, "We believe that one should have BUT ONE WIFE, and one woman but one one husband."

Section 109, on Marriage (being the one referred to) does not claim to be a revelation, but according to Brigham Young's testimony, it was written by O. Cowdery and permitted to be published in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants by Joseph Smith. Now Cowdery, (who by the way, was no less a personage than one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon) had discovered that the Prophet enjoyed privileges extraordinary, by way of cohabiting with a number of women other than his lawful wife Emma, which, of course, aroused his jealousy, and he, being also one of the first presidency, saw no "just cause or impediment" why so great a blessing should be withheld from himself. Reasoning thusly he took unto himself his servant girl as a spiritual wife with the extraordinary privilege of cohabiting with her during her mundane existence, after the manner of the prophet. The section referred to, then, was written especially for outside effect lest others, who were not prepared to live so "holy" a law, should also become exceeding amorous and covet blessings conferred only upon the higher priesthood.

That polygamy was practiced by the Mormon leaders as far back as 1841, under the saintly title of "Spiritual wifery," there is not the least shadow of doubt. It is equally true that they not only denied it but also denounced it in unmeasured terms, before as well as after the time they professed to have had a revelation commanding its practice, as I will show.

In the Times and Seasons, published Oct. 1st, 1842, there is a list of twenty-six names, including twelve men and sixteen women, who made affidavit to the effect that they knew of no other system of marriage but that published in the D. and C., some of whom, however, about two years since, made another affidavit that they were polygamous wives at that time and that polygamy was practised in Nauvoo. The "revelation," it will be remembered, was not "given" until July 12, 1843, and not made public until 1852, during which time polygamy was both practised and denied by the Mormon leaders. I quote, in proof from the Times and Seasons of Feb. 1st, 1844:

As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and the Church generally that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity * * *
      (Signed)          JOSEPH SMITH.
                             HYRUM SMITH.
Presidents of said Church.

This denial, you will perceive, was made some eight months subsequent to the date of the "revelation," and that, too, by the very man who professed to have received it and his brother to whom it had been made known. It was again denied evasively, April 1st, 1844, in a leading article published in the Times and Seasons addressed, "For the Elders Abroad." There it is called "J. C. Bennett's spiritual wife system," thus (after claiming God's sanction) throwing the responsibility of their own disreputable conduct upon others who had become somewhat obnoxious to them.

In the article referred tp, the writer, with his native talent for falsity and deceit says, "We cannot but express our surprise that an Elder or Priest who has been to Nauvoo, should for one moment, give credence to the idea that anything like iniquity is practised, much less taught or sanctioned, by the authorities." Oh, credulous Priests and Elders, to believe such a report! Had you not yet learned that all crime is sanctioned by the Priest's qualification -- the "holy anointing."

That the system of spiritual wivery was a legitimate doctrine amongst the presiding Elders, is evident from the fact that it was practised by Joseph Smith, O. Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Jc. C. Bennet, Wm. Smith and others, for it had become a system, as is shown by a passage from an article written by E. M. Webb to the Times and Seasons, wherein he says, "Mr. Rigdon's spiritual wife system was never known till it was hatched by John C. Bennett, who was cut off the church for seduction." Here it will be seen that "spiritual wivery" had found a second author, neither of whom, however were responsible for its existence, but the disgrace was thrown upon their heads to blacken their characters, which was necessary because of their apostacy -- this is a fundamental principle of the Mormon faith.

As to Wm. Smith, the brother of the "Prophet" Joseph, it is a fact well established by his co-laborers in New York and other Eastern cities, that he taught and preached spiritual wife doctrine there, and succeeded in seducing a great number of women, both mothers and daughters, whom he persuaded into the belief that it was a "divine" institution. Bit hear that model Saint on his return to Nauvoo: (I quote Times and Seasons, May 14, 1845.) "Having passed the last two or three years among the eastern churches, in setting them in order, and organizing them according to the pattern laid down; and after having labored diligently in teaching them the true principles of virtue and morality, and building them up in the most holy faith, I have now returned to this city." Is this not putting on a good face, in view of the facts before stated?

It is established by those who were well acquainted with Wm. Smith, and to whom I have before referred, that his conduct in the east, was one of the caused that induced Joseph Smith to give the revelation on "Celestial Marriage," in which he claims that one man only holds the "keys" of that instutution at one and the same time, he himself, of course, being the identical person thus highly favored. This checkmated poor Bill, who could no longer be a rival to his brother, the Prophet, except on his own responsibility, which did not require a very great stretch of a conscience, the tension which had been so thoroughly tested unnumbered times before.

There were other reasons which rendered a revelation eminently necessary (for you know revelations are given in these "last days" to suit circumstances) and Joseph's own conduct unfortunately produced those circumstances. I have before stated that the Prophet was pretty well married spiritually, with extraordinary privileges to gain a foretaste of celestial bliss while in the mundane state. To such an extent had this condition of things grown, that not only were the Gentile dogs around incensed at the general conduct of the saintly elders, but discontent was growing within. This appears on the face of the revelation itself, and I have been credibly informed by men who were then and still are Elders in the Mormon Church that Mrs. Emma Smith caught her prophetic husband in the act of adultery, which statement appears undeniable, if we carefully analyze the revelation, which is nothing but a defence in justification of personal criminality, such as any man would be likely to make under the circumstances -- minus the name of the Lord.

I think the quotation that I shall make from that document will show the above to be facts to any candid mind. I quote:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man" (mark you "and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she had committed adultery and shall be destroyed."

Now, suppose the man with whom she has cohabited holds the "keys," by virtue of which he has the power to administer the "holy anointing," is it not evident that both the man and woman are justified in their criminal intercourse, and was it not for such a purpose that the above clause was written? Again I quote:

"I have endowed him (Joseph) with the keys of the power of this Priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law, and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph, for I will justify him, for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions."

Who, I ask, can doubt the purport of the clause referred to after the literal rendering given in this extract?

There appears to have been something more than a spiritual meaning in the words "and shall be destroyed," used in reference to the woman several times in the "revelation," especially was it used in reference to Emma Smith if she refused to "abide this commandment." Do you ask what commandment? Here its is: "And let mine handmaid Emma Smith, receive all those (women) that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me." The penalty of disobedience was death, the enforcement of which was attempted either as a means of intimidation or for a more criminal purpose, or the extract that I will now quote is without meaning:

Verily I say unto you, a commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hands, by covenant and sacrifice.

In order to solve this problem, we have only to ask what was the offering of Abraham. The answer is, 'the sacrifice of a human life.' The counter commandment, "Partake not of that which I commanded you to offer her," is conclusive evidence in itself, and needs no comment, especially when we take into consideration that she was to be "destroyed" if not obedient, which she certainly was not.

Without intruding further on your space, Mr. Editor, I will proceed to answer querry No. 5 -- "What are your opinions on this subject?" Personally, I believe from evidence herein adduced, and many more which time and space forbid me from bringing forward, that polygamy was the offspring of sensuality fostered by deceptions and falsehoods, and sustained by fanaticism and intimidation. I look upon the document purporting to be a "revelation" as a wicked imposture palmed upon the world, in the name of the Lord, for the purpose of legalizing crimes that human nature would be ashamed to commit under less "divine" covering.

But whether a man is a criminal for marrying more than one woman, if the women so desire, or whether the State is justified in making such an act criminal by legislative enactment, are questions with which I have absolutely nothing to do. I should, however, think polygamy vastly more honorable were it practiced independent of the authority of such a glaring imposition as the "revelation" alluded to, as its own internal evidences fully demonstrate, the history of which I will briefly outline.

The original document was burnt by Emma Smith. The only manuscript in existence is an unauthorized copy taken by Bishop Whitney, who threw it in an old rubbish chest where it lay in silent repose for some three years, when it was accidently brought to light by the Bishop when at Winter Quarters, while turning out his box. That such a copy was in existence was entirely unknown to the Church authorities and forgotten by him who procured it and placed it in the chest. This I accept as a very suspicious for a "divine" revelation to possess. It may be, however, one of the mysteries of the Kingdom which none could probably unravel better than Mr. Clayton, to whose lectures I am indebted for the information, and who was the writer of the original.       ITHURIEL.


Notes: (forthcoming)

LAST  NIGHT'S  NEWS.

... We acknowledge the receipt of documents from the Hon. C. W. [W]endall of Nevada.


Note 1: The Tribune's cryptic reference to "documents" received from Chatles W. Wendall (purposely ? misspelled as "Kendall," makes little sense, until considered within the context of his recent lecture tour, purporting to expose the true history of the Mormon role in the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre. At this time, the affidavit of Philip Klingensmith had been taken by Wandell in Pioche, Nevada. A copy of the document was certified by judges McKean and Strickland, in Salt Lake City, but it was held back from publication until the 15th anniversary of the massacre, on Sept. 11, 1872 (when it first appeared in the New York City papers)

Note 2: Two days before, the Associated Press (operating out of the Tribune office in Salt Lake City) ran the following report on its telegraphic wire service: "The miners of Star, Lincoln, and other districts in the southern part of Utah territory, are forming secret organizations to oppose the secret influences of the Mormon endowment house, and among other objects, to bring to justice the instigators and perpetrators of the Mountain Meadow massacre." Charles W. Wandell, a leading promoter of the massacre exposure, lived in the mining area of Lincoln County, Nevada and no doubt maintained extensive contacts with "the miners... in the southern part of Utah territory."

INTERVIEW  WITH  JNO. D. LEE
OF MOUNTAIN MEADOWS NOTORIETY.

BY J. H. BEADLE.
_______

On the afternoon of June 29th, 1872, I reached the Colorado River, on the south side, at the point opposite the mouth of Paroah Canyon. I had been told at the Navajo Agency that my Indian guides would take me to Lee's Ferry, but from that side we saw no signs of a ferry, and but one house, rudely built of logs, half a mile up the canyon. My six Indian companions shouted in concert, and I fired my gun at intervals till night, but we failed to bring anyone, though I plainly saw some persons moving about the house on the opposite side. Monday morning my Indians discovered a boat -- afterwards found to be one of Major Powell's -- cached in the willows just below our camp, and the four young Indians put in the entire day dragging it to the bend a mile above, while the old men fell in with butcher knives and hacked out rude oars from pieces of drift wood. No oars were found with the boat. With these contrivances myself and two Indians got across on Monday morning. We found at the house eight or ten children and one woman, who treated us most hospitably, but to my questions answered that "Major Doyle lived there, and she knew of no Lee's Ferry, and no such man as John D. Lee." I supposed of course we had come to a different place from that designated at the Agency, and was forced to content myself till "Major Doyle" should return and help get our horses across, as he had gone to a ranch some forty miles away. He was almost till July 3d, and I employed the intermediate time in rowing back, taking provisions to my Indians, and hearing the two old men recount the history and traditions of the Navajos.

The Major reached home in the morning, and by noon we had succeeded in swimming my horse to this side. The afternoon we passed quite sociably, and I had not the slightest idea whom I was talking to when in relating some incident my host inadvertently spoke of himself as "Lee." Directly I asked, "Do you know any such man as John D. Lee?"

"That's what some folks call me."

"You? Why, I thought your name was Doyle."

"So it is -- John Doyle Lee -- but I'm generally known about here as "Major Doyle." I used to be a Major in the militia."

His wife here spoke stating what she had told me, and asked him to explain, which he did thus:

Well, you see, they've been making a fuss about polygamy, McKean and them; and I'm a man that's had

EIGHTEEN WIVES AND FIFTY-TWO CHILDREN,

so I just moved over here and fixed my wives comfortable around, each with her own share, and if anybody speaks of me, my wives call me Doyle -- that's the name they know me by. But now the Supreme Court has decided polygamy's a part of a man's religion and laws got nothin' to do with it, it don't make any difference, I reckon. Suppose you've heard of me?"

Of course I knew this was only a subterfuge, but forbore to speak if the real reason of his seclusion until he made a slight reference to it again, just after supper. Then I requested "If it was not disagreeable to him, I should like to hear the true account of that affair with which he was charged, etc."

I suppose you mean that Mountain Medder business," he replied, clearing his throat nervously and shifting in his chair. I assented and he broke suddenly into a perfect torrent of speech -- denials, asseverations, repetitions and the like -- calling on the name of the Deity every sentence."

Yes, sir, I'll give you the account exactly as it stood, and the truth too. Yes, sir, all of it. I've [rested] for years under the most infamous lies and infernal charges ever cooked up on a man. I've moved from point to point and lost my property, and broke up my family, when I might have cleared myself any minute; but I could not do it without bringing in other men, and I never will betray my brethren. No, never, never! Which I can prove by men now living that I wasn't there; that I went against it from the first, but not without betraying them whose motives at first were pure, bad as it turned out. They trusted me, and their motives were good at the start, and so my name's heralded all over the country as the biggest villain in America; which it is published for a sworn fact that I violated two girls as they were kneeling and begging to me for life; and so help me God, it is an infernal lie!" All this and much more he rattled off so rapidly that I could only make out part of it, it had meanwhile grown dark. He seemed more composed and went on:

CHARGES AGAINST THE EMIGRANTS.

Now about the emigrants. They were just the worst lot that ever I saw, and they got here just when we were at war. Buchanan had sent his army to destroy us, and we made up our minds they shouldn't find any spoil. We had been making preparations for a year or two, drying wheat and caching it in the mountains; and we intended to burn and destroy everything and take to the mountains and fight it out guerilla [style]. I tell you our people was all hot and enthusiastic then, and just at this time these emigrants come.

DR. FORNEY AND THE CHILDREN.

Now to give you an idea what a hard set they was, when Dr. Forney gathered up the children -- fifteen, I believe they was -- two years after, and sent word back, their relations sent answer they didn't want 'em, and wouldn't have anything to do with 'em. And that old Dr. Forney treated the children like dogs, hammerin' 'em around with his big cane.

Well, the company had quarreled on the plains and separated, but the biggest half got here first. They came in just as all the men was going out to war. Their conduct was scandalous. They acted more like devils than men. They swore and boasted openly that Buchanan's whole army was coming right behind 'em, and would kill every g__d d__n Mormon in Utah, and make the women and children slaves and ____.

Well, our people didn't know as much then as they do now, and lots of the foreign born believed it. They had two bulls, which they called one 'Heber' and the other 'Brigham,' and whipped 'em thro' every town, yelling and singing, blackguarding and blaspheming oaths that would a made your hair stand on end. At Spanish Fork -- it can be proved -- one of 'em stood on his wagon tongue, and swung a pistol, and swore that was the pistol that helped KILL OLD JOE SMITH.

And by the bloody ___ it was for Brigham Young

MURDER AND POISONING.

When they got to where the Pahvant Indians was they shot one dead and crippled another. But the worst's a comin'. At Corn Creek, near Fillmore, they poisoned a spring, and the flesh of an ox -- or it drank of the spring -- anyway it was poisoned, and they give it to the Indians to eat, and some few of them died, and the widow Tomlinson there had an ox die of the poison, and she undertook to save the hide and taller, and renderin' it up the poison got in her face, and swelled up her face and she died.

Then they wouls take them big Missouri whips and snap off the heads of chickens and throw them into their wagons. And the widow Evans, this side o' Corn Creek, come out and said to them, Don't kill my chickens, gentlemen, I am a poor woman.' And one man yelled, 'Shut up, you G_d d__n Mormon, or I'll shoot you.' Then her folks got out with guns and swore revenge on the whole outfit.

THE INDIANS' ATTACK.

But the Indians had gathered and was followin' 'em close, though they didn't know it. And they went through Cedar settlement singing, "O, we'll hang Brigham Young and Heber C., we'll hang 'em high before the snow flies" and all such stuff. And at Mountain Medder the Indians overtook them. They planned it to crawl down a ravine and from that make a rush right into the camp. But the dogs got to barking in the corral and let the emigrants know Indians was about. Then fool Indian off on the hill fired his gun and spoilt the whole plan; but all in the ravine fired and killed -- well, six or eight of them. Then a sort o' siege begun. The Indians killed all their cattle and nearly all their horses.

COUNCIL AT CEDAR CITY.

Then came the Council, and the question was, what shall we do? I was sent for, and said, "Persuade the Indians away;" but the rest said, "Let the Indians punish 'em; they deserve it." Well, this thing went on about four days, then I went to the Indians at night, and, says I, "You've killed as many of them as died of your men, and harassed them a good deal, killed their stock and punished them enough. Let them go." Jacob Hamlin was away from home, and there was nobody that could rightly manage the Indians, and it wasn't then like it is now. We've got control over the Indians; but I was getting the Indians all right. I made a rush to try and get into the corral. The balls whistled all about me. One cut my shirt in front, another grazed my arm. I heard women inside there begging and praying, and saying that if the Mormons knowed how they was fixed, they would come and help, no matter if they had treated them badly, and begging some of the men to break out and go and go for help. Well, I couldn't get inside, but had got the Indians about in the notion to quit, then come the thing that spoilt all.

FIRST ATTACK BY THE MORMONS.

Three of the emigrants had broken out of the corral and started back for help, and they met three of our men at a spring, and our men knew 'em in a minute. One was the man that insulted widow Evans, and the other the fellow that swung his pistol and bragged about Joe Smith and Parley Pratt in Spanish Fork. Well, our boys were enthusiastic, and they shot right into them. They killed one and wounded another; but the two of them got away.

THE SECOND COUNCIL.

Well, the council had come together again, and a leading man -- I'll never mention any names; I'll die first -- Brother Joseph, at Nauvoo, always taught us to despise a traitor, and I'll never betray my brethren -- Well, this man says, "Why should We go again the Indians, and risk ourselves, to help a lot o'devils who've abused this people; and will only go on to California, and bring back a lot to murder us -- they must all die." I spoke against this, then the young men came and told of killing one. Thus all the Council said, "Now we've killed one, we can't let any go, or it will be worse for us." I will not betray those men. They were enthusiastic, but their motives were pure. They knelt down and prayed fervently to be guided; then decided the emigrants must die. The country was at war, you know, and those men were their enemies, and had forfeited their lives by their own folly. But I would have nothing to do with it myself. I withdrawed. They joined the Indians and the emigrants was killed. There was but twenty white men in it. I don't believe any one of them was killed by a white man actually. There was eighty men able to fight -- and they fought well, and did the best that could be done -- and about forty of fifty women. And a set of d___d villains told to all the country that I violated two of the girls, and as I expect to stand before God, it is an infernal lie! I could prove that I was not there at all.

THE CHILDREN AGAIN.

Before the last charge was made I went and tried to persuade the Indians to save the women. But they said 'all was mean and all had to die.' Then I told them I would buy the children of them, and seventeen children were saved.

Soon after Lee commenced his account it had become quite dark, and he seemed to become more easy and fluent. He continued with a voluminous account of the distribution of the children, the arrival of Forney two years after the brutal conduct toward the children, and the attempt of Judge Cradlebaugh to have some persons arrested, all of which Lee averred to be in direct violation of the treaty stipulations between Brigham Young and the Peace Commissioners. He concluded: Several have hinted to me about this, but what I've told you I've only told to one other person, that's a man named Brand, a Josephite preacher that I roomed with one night at my son-in-law's, and some keep saying, as was published in the Reporter at Corinne, and another hostile paper in Salt Lake, that I should come out and might criminate President Young. Why look at it, Mr. Hanson, even if Brigham was [civil] enough -- which he ain't -- [he ain't -----] enough to see that such a thing would all be ripped up soon or late, and damage him and this people. A messenger was sent next thing to ask his counsel, and he sent back word, 'By all means, and as you expect salvation, let them go on.' But the rider only got back to Fillmore when the whole thing was over -- brought to a head by the killin' of the man at the spring. And what a pity he didn't get here with Brigham's order; for those enthusiastic men, they all obey counsel."

It was long after midnight when Mr. Lee and I retired to our straw pallet on the ground near his house. Such is his account of the Mountain Meadow Massacre. The reader must judge how much is true; I give him the benefit of a hearing. Ot must be admitted, that in all conscience he has confessed enough, as regards the complicity of white men. But other evidence makes the matter much worse. All the Mormons in that section agree that there were two hundred white men in the affair, and Bishop Windsor of Pipe Springs pointed out to me some cattle in his own herd sprung from stock captured at Mountain Meadow, and avowed his belief that the thing was done only for spoil. I have set down the smallest part of Mr. Lee's statements, there being so many digressions as to his feelings and intentions. In particular he often repeated the words,"I'll die like a man and not be choked like a dog."

His house is a perfect arsenal in the way of loaded guns.

At sun rise on Independence Day I bid Mr. and Mrs. Lee good-bye, and in two and a half days riding reached Kanab.


Note 1: The Tribune article is generally a condensation of Beadle's story of an early July, 1872 encounter with John D. Lee, which was published in Chapter 30 of his 1877 book, Western Wilds. The meeting with Lee is also briefly reported by Beadle in Chapter 20 of his 1882 Polygamy: or the Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism. The narrations are of an actual interview with the notorious Mormon bishop, but the wording in the two texts varies significantly in several places. Evidently, then, one version must be the less accurate. Lee himself mentions the visit with Beadle in his personal journal entries for July 3 and Aug. 28, 1872 (where Lee calls Beadle's published report of his story "nearer true then any other written account previously brought to light"). Possibly both the 1877 book account and the 1872 news article are reconstructions from some fragmentary notes Beadle wrote down soon after talking to Lee, and that unmentioned circumstance explains the conflicting phraseology in the two published texts.

Note 2: Beadle's 1877 book version of his interview with Lee includes the following detail, missing from the above Tribune account: "All the children was saved. The little boy that lived with us cried all night when he left us, and said he'd come back to us as soon as he got old enough. Old Forney, when he come for 'em, got all in his tent and would not let 'em visit or say good-by to anybody. One run away and hid under the floor of the house, and Forney dragged him out and beat him like a dog with his cane. They say he murdered the baby on the plains, because it was sickly and troublesome."

Note 3: John D. Lee's association with the survivor childern at Mountain Meadows is also mentioned in his 1877 book, Life and Confessions of John D. Lee, where he says: "an Indian rushed to the front wagon, and grabbed a little boy, and was going to kill him. The lad got away from the Indian and ran to me, and caught me by the knees; and begged me to save him, and not let the Indian kill him. The Indian had hurt the little fellow's chin on the wagon bed, when he first caught hold of him. I told the Indian to let the boy alone. I took the child up in my arms, and put him back in the wagon, and saved his life. This little boy said his name was Charley Fancher, and that his father was Captain of the train. He was a bright boy. I afterwards adopted him, and gave him to Caroline. She kept him until Dr. Forney took all the children East. I believe that William Sloan, alias Idaho Bill, is the same boy." John D. Lee's "Last Confession" contains a similar assertion regarding "Idaho Bill" -- "I got up, saw the children, and among the others the boywho was pulled by the hair of his head out of the waggon by the Indian and saved by me; that boy I took home and kept until Dr. Forney, Government agent, came to gather up the children and take them East; he took the boy with the others; that boy's name was William Fancher; his father was captain of the train; he was taken East and adopted by a man in Nebraska, named Richard Sloan; he remained East several years, and then returned to Utah, and is now a convict in the Utah Penitentiary, having been convicted the past year for the crime of highway robbery. He is now known by the name of 'Idaho Bill,' but his true name is William Fancher. His little sister was also taken East, and is now the wife of a man working for the Union Pacific Rairoad Company, near Green River. The boy (now man) has yet got the scar on his chin caused by the cut on the waggon-box, and those who are curious enough to examine will find a large scar on the ball of his left foot, caused by a deep cut made by an axe while he was with me."

Note 4: A Sept. 29, 1857 excerpt from Wilfred Woodruff's Journal, first published in 1884 by Penrose, confirm's Lee's claim to have taken and adopted at least one (perhaps two) of the survivor children: "They then rushed into the corral and cut the throats of the women and children, except some eight or ten children, which they brought and sold to the whites.... Brother Lee... had two of the children in his house and he could not get but one to kneel down at prayer time and the other would laugh at her for doing it and they would swear like pirates."

Note 5: See comments attacthed to the article of May 12, 1875 for information of the "Josephite preacher" who was "named Brand."

EMMA  SMITH  AND  POLYGAMY.
_______

As for the doctrine that is promulgated by the sons of Joseph, it is nothing more than any other false religion. We would be very glad to have the privilege of saying that the children of Joseph Smith, Junior, the prophet of God, were form in the faith of the gospel, and following in the footsteps of their father. But what are they doing? Trying to blot out every vestige of the work their father preformed on the earth. Their mission is to endeavor to obliterate every particle of his doctrine, his faith and doings. These boys are not following Joseph Smith, but Emma Bideman. Every person who hearkens to what they say, hearkens unto the will and wishes of Emma Bideman. The boys, themselves, have no will, no mind, no judgment independent of their mother. I do not want to talk about them. I am sorry for them, and I have my own faith in regard to them. I think the Lord will find them by-and-bye -- not Joseph, I have told the people times enough, that they never may depend on Joseph Smith who is now living, but David, who was born after the death of his father, I still look for the day to come when the Lord will touch his eyes. But I do not look for it while his mother lives. The Lord would do it now if David were willing; but he is not, he places his mother first and foremost, and would take her counsel sooner than he would the counsel of the Almighty, consequently he can do nothing, he knows nothing, he has no faith, and we have to let the matter rest in the hands of God for the present. -- Brigham Young, Aug. 24th, 1872.

It has been from the first, that is, since the Mormons left Nauvoo, the very vicious and unmanly habit of Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and others to revile the name of Mrs. Emma Smith Bideman in a most infamous manner. Heber C. Kimball, the eccentric man, who, with all his faults, had sterling stuff in him, has sometimes taken "sister Emmy's" part, as he did in Nauvoo against Brigham, when the latter threatened he would break her up, humble her to his feet and leave her in utter destruction

The chief causes of the vindictive enmity of Brigham Young against the lawful wife of Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, are the injuries which he has done her character, before which even this iron-willed cardinal priest has had to bend. She tried to lead her husband away from the counsel of "that bad man," as she called Brigham Young, and with all her might opposed polygamy. And there can be very little doubt that had Joseph Smith followed the moral promptings of his wife instead of his own passions, the ambitious men who were around him, and the women whom Emma Smith would call her husband's concubines, the Mormon prophet would have been alive to day and at the head of a loyal and unoffending people in the Rocky Mountains.

It was polygamy that broke the tie of loyalty between the Mormon prophet and his wife even as it crushed out the fealty he owed to his country. Both in turn madly prophesied against by him, live on, though chastened by trial, in triumph, for both were on the right side, leaving the prophet himself to perish miserably on the side of wrong.

For years one could often hear the story told in Salt Lake City, both by men and women, how "Emmy Smith" rebelled against Joseph, opposed polygamy and burned the revelation. This was all said then in reproach, but there are many now who are turning it to her praise. When she burned that revelation, that foul imposture which has corrupted a religious people and made victims of evey woman who has been entrapped into the system. Every woman in the Mormon Church should have done the same and there would have been no polygamy, but in that case the Mormon "sisters" would have been treated as man's equal, instead of the pattern, [an] Elder of Israel being able to say, "I think no more of taking a wife than I do of buying a cow." these 'authorities' have taken too many wives and thus demoralized both sexes.

We would like to see Emma and her sons, with their followers, come up to "Zion" and let their monogamic church and the polygamic church of Brigham Young contend. We think that if the thousands of Josephites were to flock into Utah under such leadership, this priest-ridden polygamic system would be shaken to its foundations, and the mineral development of this country would justify their coming now. Altogether outside of the Mormon Church there are hundreds of our best citizens who would delight to honor the woman who for thirty years has so nobly fought for the honor of marriage and the integrity of her sex under such trying and peculiar circumstances,


Note: For Brigham Young's entire speech, delivered at Farmington, Utah, on Aug. 24, 1872, see Journal of Discourses XV:135.

"AS  YE  SOW,  YE  SHALL  REAP."
_______

This morning we publish the affidavit of Philip Klingon Smith in relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as also the editorial of the N. Y. "Herald" on the subject.

This terrible and unatoned for crime is yet destined to exert a powerful influence in the resolution of Mormonism, as it was the result of a condition of society brought about through the teachings of a fanatical priesthood acting on the minds of ignorant men, literally creating a reign of terror among the disaffected Mormons as well as Gentiles who in any way opposed the will of the leaders.

It is well known that for many years the Indians were accused of the massacre, and the complicity of Mormons was stoutly denied -- the charge of polygamy too at one time it will be remembered, was also as energetically disavowed -- yet subsequent events have only proved how much duplicity they are capable of in the interests of the Kingdom. For years probably a large portion of the Mormon people believed it was the work of Indians, but to-day there are but few who believe that the atrocious outrage was not the work of men calling themselves Latter-day Saints, acting either on their own responsibility or upon orders "from headquarters." Of course the Mormon diplomats East have denied in the most emphatic terms, time after time, any knowledge of the affair further than that it was the work of Indians, yet Brigham Young, as Governor, never took any steps to punish the Indians for so wholesale a slaughter of men and women.

The question whether orders did or did not emanate from "headquarters" for the fiendish butchery, is not the point. We aver that it and other crimes have been the legitimate results of the blood atonement teachings of the leaders of the Church, uttered in the security of isolation and when it was fanatically but, nevertheless, confidently expected that in a few years the Church would gain the ascendancy over the United States Government, and even it should be swept away in "avenging the blood of the prophets."

Granting this premise we say that, with such unlimited power as the Spiritual and Secular headship of this community gave him, his teachings could have been such as to render crime almost unknown in Utah, but such expressions as "sending men to hell across lots," the "unsheathing of the bowie-knife," "avenging the blood of the prophets" and a score of other anti-Christian sentiments have taken strong hold upon an ignorant people who believed him to be the mouthpiece of God to them. The Mountain Meadows massacre was then the effect of a religious belief, the same as polygamy is alleged to be, and we here ask the question, whether in justice leaders, such as Brigham Young, Geo. A. Smith, Geo. Q. Cannon and others, are entitled to the rights of American citizenship? Long has been the forbearance and great has been the generosity of this nation towards them.

Notwithstanding the 'religion' which keeps a republican side in view to the government, and still maintains strictly theocratic views in their public and private teachings to the people, such consummate hypocrisy is treason, a treason infinitely greater than that of the South during the war, inasmuch as it is not open and avowed but is secretly hopeful and defiant.

When Geo. Q. Cannon goes to Congress let him go with the Mountain Meadow record before him and let the nation understand that he is a believer in the ancient dogma of destroying his enemies and in saving apostates by killing them!

The belief in such doctrines should be met by immediate disfranchisement of every man holding them, and no sentimentality about the rights of religion should prevail a moment against banishing such relics of barbarism. These practical exponents of the Mosaic theory must learn that in this republic as they sow they must reap.

---

THE  MOUNTAIN  MEADOWS  MASSACRE.
____

PHILIP KLINGON SMITH'S AFFIDAVIT.
_____

State or Nevada, County of Lincoln, ss. -- Personally appeared before me, Peter B. Miller, Clerk of Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Nevada, Philip Klingon Smith, who being duly sworn on his oath, says: -- My name Is Philip Klingon Smith. I reside in the county of Lincoln, in the State of Nevada. I resided at Cedar City, in the County of Iron, in the Territory of Utah from A. D. 1852 to A. D. 1859. I was residing at Cedar City at the time of the massacre at Mountain Meadows, in said Territory of Utah. I had heard that a company of emigrants was on its way from Salt Lake City, bound for California. Said company arrived at Cedar City, tarried there one day, and passed on for California. After said company had left Cedar City

The Militia was Called Out

for the purpose or committing acts of hostility against them. Said call was a regular military call from the superior officers to the subordinate officers and privates of the regiment at Cedar City and vicinity, composing a part of the militia of the Territory of Utah. I do not recollect the number of the regiment. I was at that time the Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints at Cedar City. Isaac C. Haight was President over said Church at Cedar City and the southern settlement in of said Territory. My position as Bishop was subordinate to that of said President. W. H. Dame was President of said Church at Parowan, in said Iron County. Said W. H. Dame was also colonel of said regiment. Said Isaac C. Haight was lieut.-colonel of said regiment, and John D. Lee, of Harmony in said Iron county, was major of said regiment. Said regiment was duly ordered to muster, armed and equipped, as the law directs, and prepared for field operations. I had no command nor office in said regiment at that time, neither did I march with said regiment on the expedition which resulted in said company's being massacred at the Mountain Meadows in said county of Iron. About four days after said company of emigrants had left Cedar City that portion of said regiment then mustered at Cedar City took up its line of march in pursuit of them. About two days after said company had left Cedar City, Lieutenant Colonel I. C. Haight expressed in my presence a desire that said company might be permitted to pass on their way in peace; but afterwards he told me that he had

Orders from Headquarters to Kill

all of said company of emigrants except the little children. I do not know whether said headquarters meant the regimental headquarters at Parowan or the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief at Salt Lake City.

When the said company had got to Iron Creek, about twenty miles from Cedar City, Captain Joel White started for the Pinto Creek settlement, through which the said company would pass, for the purpose of influencing the people to permit said company to pass on their way in peace. I asked and obtained permission of said White to go with him and aid on in his endeavors to save life. When said White and myself got about three miles from Cedar City we met Major John D. Lee, who asked us where we were going. I replied that we were going to try to prevent the killing of the emigrants. Lee replied, "I have something to say about that."

Lee was at that time on his way to Parowan, the headquarters of Colonel Dame. Said White and I went to Pinto Creek, remained there one night, and the next day returned to Cedar City, meeting said company of emigrants at Iron Creek. Before reaching Cedar City we met one Ira Alien, who told us that "the decree had passed

Devoting Said Company to Destruction."

After the fight had been going on for three or four days a messenger from Major Lee reached Cedar city, who stated that the fight had not been altogether successful, upon which Lieutenant Colonel Haight ordered out a reinforcement. At this time I was ordered out by Captain John M. Higby, who ordered me to muster "armed and equipped as the law directs." It was a matter of life or death to me to muster or not, and I mustered with the reinforcing troops. It was at this time that Lieutenant Colonel Haight said to me that it was the orders from headquarters that all but the little children of said company were to be killed. Said Haight had at that time just returned from headquarters at Parowan, where a military council had been held. There had been a like council held at Parowan previous to that, at which were present Colonel Dame, Lieutenant Colonel I. C. Haight and Major John D. Lee. The result of this first council was the calling out of said regiment for the purpose already stated. The reinforcement aforesaid was marched to the Mountain Meadows, and there formed a junction with the main body. Major Lee massed all the troops at a spring and made a speech to them, saying that his "orders from headquarters were to kill the entire company except the small children." I was not in the ranks at that time, but on one side talking to a man named Slade, and could not have seen a paper in Major Lee's hands.

The Devil's Flag of Truce.

Said Lee then sent a flag of truce into the emigrant camp, offering said emigrants that "If they lay down their arms he would protect them." They accordingly laid down their arms, came out from that camp and delivered themselves up to said Lee... separated from the men, and were marched ahead of the men. After said emigrants had marched about half a mile towards Cedar City the order was given to shoot them down. At that time said Lee was at the head of the column. I was in the rear. I did not hear Lee give the order to fire, but heard it from the under officers as it was passed down the column.

The Emigrants were then and there Shot Down,

except seventeen little children, whom I Immediately took into my charge. I do not know the total number of said company, as I did not stop to count the dead. I immediately put the little children in baggage wagons belonging to the regiment and took them to Hamlin's Ranch and from there to Cedar City, and procured them homes among the people. John Willis and Samuel Murdy assisted me in taking charge of said children. On the evening of the massacre, Colonel W. H. Dame and Lieutenant-Colonel I. C. Haight came to Hamlin's, where I had the said children, and fell into a dispute, in the course of which said Haight told Colonel Dame that if he was going to report of the Killing of said emigrants "he should not have ordered it done." I do not know when or where said troops were disbanded. About two weeks after said massacre occurred said Major Lee (who was also Indian Agent) went to Salt Lake City, and, as I believe, reported said fight and its results to the commander-in-chief. I was not present at either of the before-mentioned councils, nor at any council connected with the aforesaid military operations, or with said company. I gave no orders except those connected with the saving of the children, and those after the massacre had occurred, and said orders were given as a Bishop and not in a military sense. At the time of the firing of the first volley

I Discharged my Piece.

I did not fire afterward, though several subsequent volleys were fired. After the first fire was delivered I at once set about saving the children. I commenced to gather up the children before the firing had ceased. I have made the foregoing statement before the above entitled Court for the reason that I believe that I would be assassinated should I attempt to make the same before any Court in the territory of Utah. Alter said Lee returned from Salt Lake City, as aforesaid, said Lee told me that he had reported fully to the President (meaning the commander-in-chief) the fight at Mountain Meadows and the killing of said emigrants. Brigham Young was at that time the commander-in-chief of the militia of the Territory of Utah; and further deponent saith not.

PHILIP KLINGEN SMITH.    

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 10th day of April, A. D. 1871.

P. D. Miller, County Clerk.    

[District court, Seventh Judicial district, Lincoln county, Nevada. Copy of seal.]

Utah Territory, county of Salt Lake: -- I. O. F.

---

A   TERRIBLE  REVELATION.
____

Fifteen years ago a very wealthy train of emigrants left Arkansas for California, there to seek new homes. From all reports it was considered the most comfortably outfitted company of emigrants that ever crossed the Plains. In addition to the usual wagons, freighted with provisions, clothing and the portable valuables of their former homes, together with the implements of agriculture and mechanics, there were several carriages for the more convenient traveling of the ladies, the young and the aged. Altogether, the appearance of the train and the excellent conduct and pleasant associations of the emigrants with one another bespoke the moving of farmers and tradespeople in comfortable circumstances. They rested every seventh day in their journey, and engaged in religious exercises in their own way, as had been their custom at home. They appeared to be related to each other by families or by marriage, and with the toddling infant playing in the camp at night might be seen the venerable patriarch of three score years and ten. All seemed happy together. Such was the emigrant train that passed through Utah in 1857 and perished on the Mountain Meadows, two hundred and fifty miles south of Salt Lake City.

During the past fifteen years this Mountain Meadows massacre has been frequently charged to the Mormons, but with unyielding pertinacity they have denied the implication, and with the boldness of their assertions they have managed to induce even astute Congressmen to believe that the massacre was the work of the Indians. But, singularly enough, on the fifteenth anniversary of that foul and treacherous deed, in which one hundred and twenty men, women and children were murdered, there comes to us from the city of the Prophet Brigham the full and frank confession of one of his own bishops that the bloody work was ordered by the Mormon leaders and executed by their militia.

Philip Klingon Smith makes oath before the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial district of the State of Nevada that the massacre of the large body of Arkansas emigrants on their way to California was perpetrated by the Mormon militia, and by order of the Mormon authorities at "headquarters." We need not recite the horrifying story as related in Smith's affidavit, for that can be seen by our readers. Smith was a bishop in the Mormon Church, and was a member of the force sent by the Mormon authorities to massacre the Arkansas emigrants. There seems to be no reason to doubt the statement he makes under oath, and he was certainly in a position to know the facts. We would willingly believe if we could that no people claiming to bo civilized could be guilty of such a horror and base treachery as he describes; but the details are so circumstantial, and the crime was so much in accordance with the fanaticism and revenge of the Mormons generally at that period that the statement cannot be doubted. * * *

What makes it more horrifying is that after these brave emigrants had fought successfully against their assassins, the Mormon militia, for four days, they were treacherously entrapped by a flag of truce and induced to lay down their arms under a promise of security, and then mercilessly butchered. None but the small children were spared, and these only, perhaps, because the treacherous and brutal Mormons thought they could appropriate persons of such tender years to their own use. There is nothing in the history of civilized countries more fearfully atrocious than this massacre, and no act of treachery dastardly than that by which the emigrants were induced to lay down their arms.

It is an awful confession, and one that will awaken the whole United States to demand that this dark page in our history be illuminated by a full investigation and the prompt punishment of the guilty wretches who slew innocent and unoffending men, women and children. It was with this confession before them that a few honorable citizens of Utah asked Congress, during its last session to so provide for the holding of courts that the murders in Utah could be properly investigated and the guilty brought to punishment. Brigham Young, who knew what was hanging over his head, sent a deputation of two Mormon Gentiles and their wives, together with his favorite Apostle Cannon, to lobby and corrupt where they could, to prevent legislation. And while that was natural enough for Brigham Young to do, it was currently reported that his financial agent at the seat of government had permanently secured in the judiciary committees of both the Senate and the House all the influence necessary to frustrate every measure that promised the dreaded investigation.

With such a record now sworn to by an eyewitness and a participator in the foul deed it will be interesting to watch the action of the Government. Even at this late day it should promptly investigate tho whole matter and bring the guilty wretches to condign punishment A people who could commit such a crime, and a community that would tolerate and cover it up are unfit to be recognized. as civilized. Fortunately, the frightful ulcer of Mormonism in Utah is in process of being eradicated, and the sooner it is completely removed the better. -- N. Y. Herald, 14th.


Notes: (forthcoming)

THE  MILKY  APOSTLE  AND  HIS
"VENOMOUS  APOSTATES."
_______

The Apostolic editor of the News for speciousness, sophistry and dealing in generalities in a sort of obscure and mystified way, is remarkable; in fact he dodges, twists, squirms and evades everything of a definite character. He is eternally harpong about "some people," a "certain class," "enemies of the people," "good citizens," "unprincipled plotters," "corrupt officials," and a thousand other vague expressions, without point and without argument. The News contained last evening one of these characteristic editorials, which to a stranger, conveyed not the slightest idea of what it was driving at, yet the facts are simply these, which we interpret for our readers.

The News is the organ of Brigham Young. This is fact the first, and the leaders of the Church through the columns of the News are squirming over the Mountain Meadows affair -- fact the second -- and not knowing exactly what to say in refutation of the recent affidavit of Mr. Smith, they carefully avoid any direct allusion to it, but recklessly pitch into "affidavit signers" and apostates generally, thinking thereby to invalidate the testimony of such men, simply because they are "venomous."

The Mountain Meadows affair is, just now, the subject of newspaper articles everywhere, and we have distinctly asserted that it was the result of certain Church teachings promulgated by such men as the editor of the News, and have furnished their own language in support of the assertion, yet do these same individuals meet these direct charges with any direct answer or argument? No, never have they done so, but fall back on their old tirade of abuse against everybody, Gentile or Apostate, who alleges anything against them.

If the News is the honest and "only reliable" journal it but lately proclaimed itself to be, and its masters are not afraid of investigation and opposition, why does it not come out boldly as the representative of the leaders of the Church and Mormonism, and deal with the Mountain Meadows massacre instead of speaking in parables and dealing in innuendos against those who are made "venomous" by reason of the venom Mormonism has itself implanted?

Those who carefully read the three Church organs cannot fail to be struck with the studied shyness and avoidance of all mention of the Mountain Meadows affair, as also the ignoring of all statements made by the free press of this country. The most ever said is that our statements are the vile misrepresentations of "slanderous sheets," but we ask, is that either rebutting testimony or argument? Candid people everywhere cannot fail to see the cloven foot under these haughty assumptions, claiming all truth for their statements and that all [is] misrepresentation on the part of their opposers...

---

MORE  ABOUT  SMITH'S  AFFIDAVIT.
______

The Mormons dare not face Philip K. Smith in Court.
______

PIOCHE, Sept. 20, 1872.    

Editor Record: I was present at the time when Philip Klingon Smith made his affidavit concerning the massacre at the Mountain Meadows. That affidavit is sealed with the seal of our District Court. Smith's statements were straight-forward, and from his manner it was evident that he intended them to be the truth and nothing but the truth. The affidavit, though in narrative form, was taken by question and answer.

The Salt Lake "Herald," in a late issue, in evident alarm, calls for the arrest and punishment of Smith. That call is not sincere. They dare not face Philip K. Smith in Court. He is ready to go at any time that he is wanted. From that affidavit we learn, among other things, that Brigham Young was Governor of Utah and Superintendent of Indian Affairs at the time and a long time after the massacre, and that John D. Lee was his Indian Agent for Southern Utah; that the force sent against the emigrants was a regular military expedition -- a part of a regiment of the militia of Utah Territory, regularly called out, and armed and equipped, officered by the proper regimental officers, and marching with regimental baggage wagons and a regular military outfit, except artillery; that it was understood by the rank and file that the expedition had been ordered by Gov. Young; that Major John D. Lee, who was in immediate command, had invited the Indians within his superintendency to join the expedition, which they did; and finally, that Gov. Young never court-martialed Major Lee for his action in that bloody affair, nor called him to account as Indian Agent, nor as a fellow member of the Mormon Church. These, Mr. Editor, are some of the ugly facts contained in that affidavit, and neither the Salt Lake "Herald" folks nor Brigham Young dare face them and Philip Klingon Smith in open court.   CITIZEN.

(The writer of the foregoing is a pioneer of Lincoln County. He knows of what he writes, and the public may rely upon the correctness of his judgment as well as the reliability of his statements -- Ed. Record.) --  Pioche Record, Sep. 21.

---

MOUNTAIN  MEADOWS  MASSACRE.
______

Editor Salt Lake Tribune:

The Mormon leaders owe to the Mormon community a frank avowal of what they know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Here is a people charged with that great crime, the majority of whom knew no more about the deed, until after it was committed, than the people of New York; and to this day the ignorant masses of this community, living in the northern part of the Territory, believe it was the work of the Indians, so persistently have the Mormon leaders denied that they know aught of the deed, only that they heard it was an Indian massacre. But facts are stubborn things and here are a few of them.

In the fall of 1857, Utah was in open rebellion against the United States Government, and the prejudice was great against the Gentiles. To fan the flames of fanaticism a great religious reformation was going on in the Mormon Church, and judgment was being laid to the line and the word of the President and Bishops was supreme throughout the Territory. This company of emigrants happened to be passing through the Territory that Fall on their way to California and, it being late in the season, concluded to go the Southern route. On their way South through the settlements they seem to have exasperated some of the Mormon people; reports said some of their party boasted they had helped to slay Smith and Pratt in the States; others poisoned running streams of water, and one teamster had the audacity to call two of his bull team, old Brigham and Heber, so the story runs; and by the time they had got near Parowan and Cedar City the excitement was great, and it was evident that some move was on foot for their destruction. There is no doubt but a council was held at Parowan, where the fate of the emigrants was sealed, and it is well known that an express was sent to Brigham Young informing him of what was going on. What answer was given to that express by Brigham is yet to be found out; some say it was to stop the fighting, others say it was to "spare the women and children." Again it is said when the express returned to the south the fight was over with, and his orders could not be heeded. After the massacre John D. Lee, the leading sporit in the horrid deed, came to Salt Lake City and gave a full account of the whole affair to his superiors. It is said Brigham kept [to] his room for two days and wept bitterly for what had been done, but the deed was over with, and how could such a horrid crime be covered up? It must be denied, and laid to the Indians, for it would never do to have it known that the Mormons had anything to do with such a crime. In the fall of that year John D. Lee and Isaac Haight came up to Salt Lake City to attend the legislature, and while here, it is said, made a further report of all connected with the massacre to Brigham, and from that time until the present there are but few of the intelligent portions of the Mormon people but what have known that a portion of the Mormons living in the southern part of the Territory were connected with the Mountain Meadows massacre. But justice demands that charity should be extended to the poor ignorant men who were deluded and led into that horrid affair by those priestly leaders whom they had been taught to implicitly obey. God knows, the men who were urged into that massacre (and many against their will) have suffered enough since then, and feel to curse the priesthood and fanaticism that led them into such a crime. If Brigham Young years ago, when his word was law from one end of the Territory to the other, had caused the leaders in that crime to have been arrested and executed, he would have pleased every intelligent Mormon in the Territory, for they have felt ashamed and bowed down that they had to bear the disgrace of a crime in which they had no part or sympathy; and now for the Mormon leaders to deny knowing about it, and the Deseret News and Herald to ignore the above facts, which are known to three-fourths of the Mormon people, is enough to consign them to utter contempt and oblivion.

When that man stood at the Mountain Meadows manument, a few years ago, and read -- "Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord," he little thought in so short a time that others would rule in the land of Zion, or he would not have turned from the monument and said, "Vengeance is mine and I have repaid, saith the Lord."  l OLD SETTLER.


Note: The "last evening" mentioned by the Tribune writer, was Sept. 27, 1872, when the daily Deseret News ran a cryptic editorial in response to the Klingensmith affidavit. This editorial was reprinted in the weekly Oct. 2nd.

THE  LOST  TRIBES  AND
THE  MORMONS.
_______

A dispatch from Salt Lake City announces that G. A. Smith, elected prophet, seer and revelator in the Church of the Latter Day Saints, has started on a tour, for Jerusalem and the Holy Land generally, with the view of establishing a connection between the Mormon Church and the Lost Ten Tribes of the House of Israel. Our readers may remember that the Book of Mormon professes to be a record of a remnant of the Ten Tribes, who escaped after the whole people had been carried away captive by the Assyrians in 721, B. C., which remnant finally sailed for America, arriving somewhere on the coast of Chili. The story of the American Indians being the long lost Ten Tribes is a very old one, and suggested the romance written by Solomon Spalding, of Connecticut, which is known to be identical with the so-called revelations according to Joe Smith. Of course, if the Mormons choose to send a delegation to assist the explorations now going on in Palestine, no one has a right to complain, and if they can clear up the mystery as to the Ten Tribes, they will do what has hitherto baffled learned men in all ages. Gentiles, however, must regard it as significant that the Church which has heretofore professed to deal with difficult questions only be revelations, now begins to search for matter of fact proof, demonstrable to the senses. --   Gold Hill News.


Note 1: During the last weeks of 1872, several noted Utah Mormons (George A. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Eliza R. Smith Young, etc.) embarked on a journey to the Ottoman province of Palestine. Their primary pupose reportedly was to renew Orson Hyde's earlier dedication of that place for the "gathering of Israel," and to re-dedicate and "consecrate the land to the Lord, that it may be blessed with fruitfulness, preparatory to the return of the Jews in fulfillment of prophecy." The delegation arrived in Palestine in the early in 1873. See Eliza's 1875 publication, Correspondence of Palestine Tourists for samples of various communications that these travellers sent back to Utah during their trip abroad -- none of which indicate that those Mormon dignataries were especially interested in determining the fate or the location of the "Lost Ten Tribes of the House of Israel." Perhaps the Nevada editors unduely accentuated that particular element in writing their news item for the Gold Hill News.

Note 2: In its issue for Jan. 24, 1857 the LDS Millennial Star featured a doctrinal article by Elder Elias L. T. Harrison, in which the LDS Church pronounced the Solomon Spalding claims for the authorship of the Book of Mormon to be effectively "refuted." Among many other things, that article states: "These statements [by witness to the contents of Spalding's writings] prove the point in question... How the "ten lost tribes," then, migrated to America and are now Indians, was the subject of Spaulding's work. How they did not migrate to America, but went somewhere else, and never saw the Indians; and how a people who never heard of them for 600 years occupied America in their stead, is the subject of the Book of Mormon.... Again we repeat, that the point in this argument may be kept before the mind, if the Book of Mormon was based or 'grounded entirely,' upon a history showing how the ten tribes migrated to America, and are now Indians -- the Book of Mormon is at hand -- therefore point out the part of the book that 'shows' how they migrated to America. Pray produce the part that 'shows' they 'are now Indians;' and this, of course, our opponents ought to be able easily to do, or Spaulding's friends are liars, for they declared, or our enemies have made them declare, which is more likely, that they could see such a history 'immediately.' They either did see it, or they did not. If they did, where is it? If they did not, how did they know it? If Joseph Smith so altered the Spaulding MS. that none of its original features remain, then Spaulding's friends have testified falsely, in declaring that they 'recognized perfectly' his original work."

WANDELL'S LECTURE. -- Last evening C. W. Wandell gave his lecture on the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" to an intelligent audience of about three hundred. The lecturer described his journey with a company of emigrant Mormons from Santa Cruz to Cedar City via the Mountain Meadows, in November, 1857, about four months after the massacre. Rumors had already reached California of the horrible tragedy before the company started. When they reached Fort Tejon, where great excitement raged against the perpetrators of the bloody deed, they learned that white men and not Indians were the principals in the massacre, and that they were men in authority in the Mormon Church. The company repudiated that statement and were permitted to pass on their way. Arriving at the scene of the massacre they saw the bones at the scene of the massacre which had been dug up by wolves. The speaker gave a graphic description of the desert road, the emigrants' fort and the scene of the massacre. His company continued their way to Cedar City where, from common talk, the speaker became convinced that the rumor was correct -- that white men had done the deed. In the second part of his lecture the speaker described the Arkansas emigrants; their journey south from Bear Lake; the friendly Indians; the brave women; hostilities negative and positive; the militia called out; the troops march; the seige; the treacherous flag of truce; the surrender; the massacre. The part closed with an apostrophe -- O, ye slaughtered ones!" In the third part Mr. Wandell described the closing atrocities of the massacre, the orphan children, the meeting of the Governor and the chief demons of the massacre," and John D. Lee and Isaac Haight partaking the Sacrament at the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City at Conference, just three weeks after the massacre. This sacred "feast" Mr. Wandell delivered in another apostrophe. The audience entered into the horrors of this massacre of the Mountain Meadows with evident wrath, and we heard faithful Mormons affirm that it was one of the most barbarous tragedies found in the annals of civilized man, but that they did not believe Brigham Young was responsible.


Notes: (forthcoming)

THAT  BLACK  BOOK.
______

Some Fearful Facts From its Horrible Pages.
______

Something for Tender Hearted Congressmen to Consider.
______

Eds. Tribune: -- Sunday morning's Herald gives us infliction No. 4, from Apostle John Taylor's pen. He reviews litigation in Utah... He says: "In England they have a blue book -- I am afraid I shall have to open the Black Book." ...This book tells of hundreds of foul, premeditated, cowardly, fiendish murders, committed in this Territory. They were not all committed in one day, but have been done day after day, month after month, year after year.... Have any been indicted?" Have any been tried, committed or discharged? Will Apostle Taylor tell us if any of the murdering fiends that butchered the Arkansas emigrants, under the

SACRED FOLD OF A FLAG OF TRUCE,

have ever been brought to trial? Has any one of them ever been arraigned? Where were they indicted, and when? Give us a transcript from all the Probate Courts in Utah, and give us the record if any, of the Mountain Meadows heroes who have been brought by outraged justice to face the crime of

MURDERING 119 UNARMED MEN AND DEFENCELESS WOMEN,

and stripping them of their clothing, and gobbling up their stock, horses and cattle, appropriating their poanos, their spring wagons, and their jewlry. Is it not a fact, that the leaders of the murdering outfit are at large, and are well known? Who killed the Parrishes? Who killed Morris, and shot down two women, ine of them with an infant in her arms?...

One hundred and nineteen human beings were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows, and no one denies but that it was done by Mormon soldiers, under the command of Major John D. Lee. Brigham Young was Governor at that time and commander-in-chief of the army of Utah. In the execution of

THIS HELLISH WORK,

no one will, for a moment, believe that he (Lee) was not under orders from a superior officer. Lee received orders from some heads, and the large presumption is, that it came from the head of the Church. If he acted contrary to orders, why has he not been called to account? The facts are, he accomplished his work to the satisfaction of his superiors. Now, until you can show that some attempt has been made to ferret out the crime of crimes, to find the courageous heroes that dared to

SHOOT DOWN LOVELY WOMEN AND INNOCENT CHILDREN,

and bring them to justice, I cannot take any stock in your long arguments concerning Mormon courts and their earnest desire that the law be impartially administered. And to close, I beg leave to ask you two questions and respectfully ask an answer:

1. Were not 119 men and women shot down in cold blood at Mountain Meadows, in September, 1857?

2. Who was it that killed them, took their stock, stripped their dead bodies of their raiment, and left them to rot on the ground?   SILEX.


Notes: (forthcoming)

THE  PROPHET  JOE  SMITH.
________

His Pretended War Revelation Analyzed.
________

He Steals Old Hickory's Thunder.
________

His Treason and Imposture Fully Exposed.

EDS. TRIBUNE: -- In presenting your readers with the subjoined extract from a proclamation issued by President Jackson, December 11, 1832, which was designed as an appeal to the citizens of South Carolina, and a second extract from a pretended prophecy made by the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, dated December 25th of the same year, it will be well to ask a little of your space to explain briefly the circumstances which called the former forth...

(lengthy discussion on Joseph Smith's "Civil War" prophecy follows)

Notes: (forthcoming)

The  Mormon  Bible.

I find in my scrap-book, set down there thirty years ago, an item which may be of interest at the present time, when the Mormon problem is evidently approaching a civilized solution. The truth of the statement herein given was vouched for in my presence by a man who is above deceit. The origin of the "Book of Mormon, so called has been a puzzle to many, much of it being evidently the production of a cultivated mind, and yet springing to light from the hands of illiterate men.

It was written un 1812-13, as a literary recreation, by Rev. Solomon Spalulding, a graduate of Dartmouth College, at that time residing in New Salem, Ohio, and, as he wrote it, it professed to be a historical romance of a lost race, the remains of whose numerous mounds and inscriptions [sic] are found on the banks of the Ohio. After the work had been completed, the author had thoughts of having it printed, and for that purpose he gave the manuscript into the hands of a printer, in whose office it remained for several years, but the design of printing was not carried into execution.

As foreman [sic] in the printing-office where Mr. Spaulding's romance was lodged, was employed Sidney Rigdon, who afterward figured conspicuously in Mormon history, and there is no doubt that he copied the manuscript, and subsequently gave it to Smith. Upon the appearance of the Book of Mormon in 1830, there were those living to whom Mr. Spaulding had read parts of his romance, and they recognized the verbiage in the book. Upon search, the original manuscript was found among the papers of the deceased clergyman, and on comparison the Mormon Bible proved to have been not materially altered from this parent text. Of course this discovery soon made considerable talk. A great many people went to see the manuscript, and at the expiration of a few weeks it mysteriously disappeared. As there was a Mormon preacher in New Salem at the time, with proselytes at his heals, the mystery of the disapperance was not very deep     S. C. Jr.


Note: The above item, from the writer's "scrap-book" appears to be a somewhat extended paraphrase of an article that originally appeared in the Boston Advertiser in April of 1839. In the process of the telling and re-telling of this old story, Sidney Rigdon gets promoted from, at first having a "connection" with the printing office where Solomon Spalding's manuscript was taken; to being a journeyman printer there; and finally, to being the foreman of the shop! There is absolutely no historical evidence to indicate that Rigdon ever worked in the printing trade. As for the allegation that "a great many people went to see the manuscript" while it was being exhibited in New Salem, Ohio -- that too is a gross exaggeration of the probable facts. In the final days of December, 1833, the ex-Mormon preacher D. P. Hurlbut reportedly displayed in public, in and around Geauga Co., Ohio, what he claimed was Spalding's "Manuscript Found." There is no testimony on record saying that he ever exhibted that document in New Salem (or Conneaut, as the place was being called by 1833). The manuscript Hurlbut was displaying in Geauga Co. did quickly disappear from public view. Also, he is known to have taken another Spalding manuscript to Conneaut, at the end of Dec. 1833, and to have shown it to a small number of people there. This document survived in the keeping of Painesville newspaper editor Eber D. Howe throughout the year 1834 and was subsequently misplaced among his news office files. The writer of the above article has either conflated these two incidents of manuscript exhibition, or, more likely, has simply exaggerated yet another part of the old report from the Boston Advertiser.

BIBLE  AND  BOOK  OF  MORMON  COMPARED.
_____

The Fraud of Joseph Smith Fully Exposed.
_____

The Rev. C. C. Stratton's lecture in the M. E. Church on Sunday evening was listened to by a crowded congregation. His subject was the Book of Mormon and the Bible compared, and in discussing this unpromising subject he produced an argument which, for logical compactness and force and beauty of language, has rarely been surpassed by the most noted speakers.

The lecturer assumed that there were thousands among his hearers who believed in the Book of Mormon as frimly and conscientiously as he believed in the Bible. In the warmth of his argumnet he might say something that would sound harsh to such persons, but he assured them he would be carefull not to [offend].

He had frequently heard it asserted by Tabernacle orators that the Book of Mormon is as

WELL  AUTHENTICATED  AS  THE  BIBLE.

Such preaching was deletrious, because the deluded believer, when he discovers his error, is too apt to lose faith for what is really true. He briefly described the nature and objects of the Word of God. It tells of the Creation of the world, the Deluge, God's covenant with Abraham, the deliverance of the Hebrews, and the many other events which mark the early history of our race. It is broad and catholic in its tone, is applicable to the wants of all races of men, and teaches a system of morals and religion which will never become obsolete.

THE  BOOK  OF  MORMON

gives an account of three different families, one of whom (Jared) crossed the Atlantic to this country shortly after the building of Babel; the second wandered off about the time of the Babylonian captivity, crossed the Pacific, divided up into two peoples, the Nephites and the Lamanites, filled the two American continents, until one race was exterminated by the other.

The third family left Asia a few years later, came to this country, and settled farther north.

The golden plates which Joseph claims to have discovered were deposited by an ancient priest, and inscribed with certain records of that extinct race. The plates were found by the guidance of an angel, and were transcribed with the aid of Urim and Thummim.

The Bible bases its claim to acceptance upon the internal and collateral evidence of its Divine origin; the Book of Mormon advances a similar claim. How do these several claims stand the test of scrutiny?

The Bible is sustained by prophecy fulfilled, and by undoubted moracle. The deliverance of the Jews was effected by Divine interposition, and the miracles recorded as the means of effecting their escape from bondage, are proved to have taken place by the Jewish festivals commemorative of their occurrence. These feasts were established at the time the miracles were performed, and they establish the truth of the Biblical record. We celebrate national holidays on the 30th of May, the 4th day of July, and other times. We know what these days commemorate. It would have been as difficult

TO  PALM OFF  A  NATIONAL  HOLIDAY,

two thousand years ago, as to-day. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the lecturer held to be just as indubitable evidence that the event they typify took place, as our celebration of Washington's Birthday proves that that hero was born.

He then took hold of the Book of Mormon. In the life of Nephi, three days' darkness are described, occuring about the time of the Crucifixion, and the appearance of the Savior in this country is mentioned. These statements we have on

THE  MERE  AUTHORITY  OF  JOSEPH  SMITH.

There is nothing in the monuments or institutions of the country to support them.

The Speaker referred to the miracles, said to have been wrought by Mormon Elders. He had the authority of the best informed ex-Mormons, to declare these stories apochryphal. If any have seen these miracles their testimony is entitled to weight.

SUCH  MIRACLES  ARE  NOT  PERFORMED  NOW.

If wrought at all they should certainly be wrought in Zion, where we should naturally look to see such evidences of Divine favor.

Noah prophesied that Canaan should serve; Shem was to receive blessings, and from his stock the Messiah came. Japhet was to be enlarged, and he is enlarged in brain, power and influence. If Noah did not speak thus by the Holy Ghost, how could he have foretold the future history of his descendants.

The Book of Mormon foretells events predicted in the Bible, and its prophesyings are plagiarisms from the word of God. The lecturer then read portions of the revelations to Joseph Smith made in 1832, foretelling the South Carolina rebellion; in that blood and thunder story the negroes were to raise against their masters, the Indians were to take a hand in, and our British cousins in full panoply were to swell the confusion and the grand pyrotechnic finale. The falsity of all this highly colored literature has since been abundantly shown forth.

Jackson County, Mo., is described as the seat of the original Eden, and it is to be the final home of the Saints in 1890. The Indians are to aid in building the temple, according to the Book of Mormon, and become a delightful domesticated people.

Brigham Young, in preaching this Order of Enoch, is only carrying out Joseph Smith's prophecy. The vast sums of money which he talks of accumulating by co-operative labor, will be devoted to the purchase of Jackson county.

The predictions contained in the Bible are broad and comprehemsive; those in the Book of Mormon are temporary and local. A season of grasshoppers in the States, abundance in Utah, and the resort of strangers here to purchase grain. These predictions were all reversed in the fulfillment. Scarcity prevailed in Utah, and abundance reigned in the East.

THE  HAND-CART  EXPEDITION

was another instance of the failure of Mormon prophecy.

The internal evidence of the Bible shows that it proceeded from a divine source. The attributes of God are so truthfully shown forth, human character is so accurately embodied, and the pure and elevating religion of Jesus Christ so beautifully elaborated, that the whole work is stamped

WITH  THE  IMPRESS  OF  DEITY.

The nature of this sacred book is to promote the happiness of the human race, to lead us to store our children's minds with knowledge, to yield obedience to law, to live and struggle in the world, and preserve and perpetuate peace, and live in conformity with established institutions. The Book of Mormon requires a man to separate himself from his family, to come out from the world, and its whole tendency is to set him against society. It tells that the Latter-day Saints shall be enlarged, unrighteous Babylon destroyed, and a feeling of rancor and hate towards the human race is inculcated.

Which religion is the more reasonable of the two? The religion of Jesus Christ, which teaches its followers that they are the leaven of the earth, and that a pure life is to be exemplar of their faith? Or the religion of Joseph Smith, which calls its devotees out of the world, which sets them against their families and the State, and which teaches hatred of the race of man? One is spiritual, the other grossly material; one talks of faith, the other deals with affairs of this world.

The lecturer then devoted some time to an examination of collateral evidence. He dwelt upon the character of the old patriarchs, the prophets, Jesus Christ, and the twelve apostles.

He then took up the nature of the evidence which sustains the Book of Mormon. Tucker pronounces the family of Joseph Smith unprincipled, unreliable and addicted to loose habits. Thurlow Weed says he knew Joseph Smith in Palmyra and he speaks in the most disparaging terms of him. Peter Ingersoll of Palmyra says he would not believe Joseph Smith under oath; he also says that the future Prophet admitted to him that his stories about digging gold were a hoax. Fifty one neighbors of the family, in a written testimonial, pronounce them bad subjects, and say that the tradesmen to whom they owed money were gald when they moved away to escape the scandal of their company.

Willard and Parley Chase testify that the Smith family were worthless, indolent, untruthful and not entitled to credit. Henry Harris declares that a jury refused to take Smith's testimony because they would not believe him under oath, and furtehr says that he was frequently see drunk while translating the Book of Mormon.

INTERNAL  EVIDENCES.

The Book of Mormon is claimed to have been written 600 years B. C. Yet scores and hundreds of passages might be called, which are direct plagiarisms from the new Testament. He cited a number. One passage is stolen from Shakspere [sic]. Many modern terms are used which have gained currency from recent theological discussion. The Book of Nephi speaks of Jesus in the past tense, although written 600 [years] before his appearance upon earth.

These facts clearly invalidate the claims of Joseph Smith to be a true revelator. The clumsy fraud attending the discovery of the gold plates was fully exposed. When they were unearthed he claims to have run two miles with them, (weight 200 pounds) being pursued by two men armed with clubs.

The first version of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants was suppressed, as he found himself imperfect in the business of revelation writing; and the one now used is a second attempt, and conflicts in many cases with the other.

The lecturer read from Senate Document No. 189, printed in 1841, where evidence is given to show that Oliver Cowdrey was arrested for stealing, John Whitmer being an accomplice. This is testified to by Sidney Rigdon, Martin (sic. - George W.?) Harris, Daniel Whitmer, (all apostates,) and eighty-four Mormons. Joseph Smith testifies as unfavorably of another of his early supporters, Martin Harris. Eleven witnesses authenticate the story of the discovery of the gold plates; seven of these afterward apostatized -- and three were kinsmen of Joseph -- interested and untrustworthy.

The speaker then showed the falsity of the Book of Mormon in the animals mentioned, the architectural remains, its philology and ethnology. It says the Indians of this continent are descended from the Hebrews, their language shows they are from a different stock.

The peroration was masterly and eloquent. The Bible gives an impetus to the mind, and incites to cultivation. The most enlightened nations are Christian nations. The Book of Mormon holds the mind in chains and the body in thrall. The above is a very imperfect report of a lecture, which occupied two hours in delivery, and which was a model in its skillful arrangement of favts, and searching philosophical analysis.


Notes: (forthcoming)

MOUNTAIN  MEADOWS.
______

A Visit to the Site of the Massacre
______

The Monument Decaying from Neglect.
______

Seventeen Years Elapsed, and the Criminals Unpunished.
______

Hamilton's Fort, Iron Co.    
Aug. 8th, 1874.        

Eds. Tribune: I have just returned from a visit to the noted locality known as Mountain Meadows. Perhaps a few words description of the scene might be acceptable to your readers. As the traveler follows the direct road between Pioche and St. George in a southerly direction, he will come to one of the natural passes leading out of the great western basin. While crossing the divide, he obtains a view of a small plain or valley lying to the southwest, where the mountains appear to converge. There the eye rests upon the spot where the tragedy which has rendered the name of John D. Lee forever infamous, was committed. After getting fairly into the valley, the traveler shortly strikes the old California road. Leaving the main road to the left, and following the declivity about half a mile, he enciunters a mound composed of red-brown granite stones, which mark the spot where the unfortunate emigrants encamped. The incidents of the massacre are well known. While resting there, men, women and children

UNSUSPICIOUS  OF  DANGER,

a band of assassins upon them in the disguise of Indians, from behind the adjoining hills, and treacherously and barbarously murdered the whole company, consisting of 119 persons (though some in this region set the number higher), saving only a few little children who were considered too small to tell tales.

On coming to the "monument," as it is called, about two miles from where the road crosses the divide, it is easy to comprehend the entirely defenceless situation of the emigrants. Two low hills are within easy range, with a ridge connecting them. The emigrants ere probably attacked from behind these hills and connecting ridge, which lie about seventy-five yards west of the monument. A portion of the breastwork erected during the [fight] by the attacking party still stands, which shows the cowardice of the assassins, as they were evidently more ready to trust to the effects of starvation, than to face the weapons of their victims. Although seventeen years have pasted since the massacre, yet no one has been punished

FOR  THE  HORRID  DEED.

The monument, or grave, where the ashes of the poor victims repose, is a pile of loose stones, twenty seven feet long and nine feet wide. The ground where they camped appears to have been once well set with grass, which has since died from being used as a sheep-pasture, and the roots are fast decaying. A deep wash is formed by the rain-floods, and by the small creek that murmurs along the bottom of the wash. The monumnet is within six feet of the bank, which is from twelve to fifteen feet high. By the natural course of the floods, the monument will soon fall into the wash, and from thence the dust of the sleepers will be carried into the Rio Virgin and will soon mingle with the sands of the Colorado. It is the duty of all lovers of justice to contribute something toward erecting

A  MORE  SUITABLE  MONUMENT.

to mark the place where poor victims of fanaticism are reposing.

It may not [be] uninteresting to the curious to know that the "Holy Order of Enoch" was built and launched within twenty-eight miles of the scene of one of the most horrid tragedies that has been witnessed during the present century, and that John D. Lee accompanied it on the trial trips as far as Kanarrah, forty-eight miles.   BOSCO.


Notes: (forthcoming)

SOME  STARTLING  FACTS.
_____

A Saint of Thirty Years' Standing Unburdens His Bosom.
_____

And Tells What He Knows of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
_____

Brigham Young and John D. Lee the Twin Assassins.
_____

Massacre of the Innocent Emigrants by the Profit.
_____

               Hamilton's Fort, Aug. 12, 1874.
Eds. Tribune: I ask the indulgence of a little space in your columns for the purpose of relating a few facts which pertain to myself, and may not be uninteresting to the majority of your readers. In the Semi-Weekly Deseret News, for Saturday, May 23d, 1874, appeared the following:

"Excommunications: -- At a public meeting held in Cedar City, Sunday evening, April 26, 1874, Geo. A. Hicks, of Fort Hamilton, was cut off the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for apostacy."

The above is a very brief and unpretentious paragraph, which a business man might never notice -- a paragraph which my friends who are still of the Mormon faith, would feel sad as they read it, and my enemies would perhaps rejoice at my downfall, and then it would be utterly forgotten. Not so with myself. In the notice of my excommunication, the readers only hear one side of the case, "apostacy." I shall endeavor to give

THE  OTHER  SIDE.

Of the forty yearsof my life, thirty have been spent in the Mormon Church. I, with my father's family, was expelled from Nauvoo. I thought it very cruel at the time, and still think so in fact. I have shared the joys and sorrows, the victories and defeats of the Church for thirty years.

I came to Utah in 1852, strong in the faith of Mormonism. I have seen the church when it was full of Christian charity and brotherly love. In 1856, came what is called.

THE  REFORMATION,

which swept over the country like a tornado. It was then for the first time I heard the doctrine of Blood Atonement. Leading men in the church would say if you should find your father or your mother, your sister or your brother dead by the wayside, say nothing about it, but pass on about your own business. The wildest fanaticism prevailed everywhere. Secret deaths began to be

QUITE  COMMON.

If we heard of a secret murder in San pete or Cache Valley, we knew the work of the Lord was progressing. I was then a citizen of Spanish Fork City, and be it said to the honor of that place, no one has ever been killed by any priestly assassin inside of its borders.

WHOLESALE  MURDER.

In the year 1857, while Johnson's army was on the plains, a company of emigrants came to Utah. I saw them pass through Spanish Fork; they were quiet and orderly. They traveled on to the south and stopped on the bottom between Spanish Fork and Payson to rest their teams, and in a week or two continued their journey. The next news I heard of them was thay had all been killed by the Indians. It was afterwards whispered that white men and Indians together, led by one John D. Lee, had done the deed, but nothing definite was known to the public. In the Autumn of 1853 [sic - 1858?], I, with my family, was "called" on a mission to Washington County to raise cotton. In Washington I was told that many of the men there had been to Sebastapol. "Sebastapol," said I, "what do you mean?" "Oh, the Mountain Meadows -- but don't say that I told you," said my cautious informer. I noticed that all these men were in full fellowship in the church and some of them were the loudest preachers and could bear strong testimony of

THE  WORK.

I thought I would be able to break down their influence in society, as soon as I got a little acquainted. I staid at Washington one year and a half and then removed to Harmony. That settlement was the residence at that time, of John D. Lee, and he was the presiding elder of that branch of the church. Surely, thought I, Brigham Young does not know that Lee is the man who led the Indians and whitemen who

MURDERED  A  TRAIN  OF  CHRISTIAN  WHITE  PEOPLE?

Lee is a Kentuckian. He is an eloquent preacher of Mormonism, and has been very successful in making converts.

When I had been at Harmony one year, Brigham Young came to Harmony, passed through it, and drove up to the residence of John D. Lee! From that time my confidence in Brigham began to wane. Could it be possible that the Prophet of God could find no better men

TO  ASSOCIATE  WITH  THAN  JOHN D. LEE.

Then I tried to argue the circumstance from my mind, by saying it was not my business to say where the servants of God should stop, or whom they should stop with.

Time passed on until the murder of Dr. J. K. Robinson. Soon after that event, Brigham Young preached a sermon in Salt Lake City, in which he used the following language: "There are some things which I cannot bear to contemplate, the hounds will [sic - Brownsville?] massacre; the Mountain Meadows massacre, and the murder of Dr. Robinson are atrocities of this sort. These," said he, "I cannot bear to think about; but

LET  THE  UNITED  BRETHREN  KEEP  THEIR  OATHS  AND  COVENANTS."

That last remark is significant. The sermon containing that extract, was published in the Deseret News. I read it, and re-read it; my mind, which had wavered between two opinions -- one in favor of Brigham Young's innocence, and the other against it. Brother Brigham is all right, I said, and is not in favor of Lee and crime.

The people of Harmony had got tired of Lee, and had put another man in his place to preside over them, but Lee was still allowed to preach two or three times a month. In one meeting I raised an objection, and noted Brigham Young's sermon against Lee, and thought to silence him in public. Lee, who understood his "relations" with the Prophet better than I did, promptly informed me that I did not know Brother Brigham as well as he did; he (Bro. Brigham)

DID  NOT  MEAN  WHAT  HE  HAD  SAID

in his sermon. He had talked that way to blind the eyes of the Gentiles, and to satisfy disaffected individuals, such as I was. I felt indignant in the highest degree that the character of the servant of God should be traduced by a man whose hand I believed to be

STAINED  WITH  INNOCENT  BLOOD.

I immediately informed Brigham Young by letter, of Lee's slanderous statements. recommending that Lee be cut off from the Church. I waited for an answer; it came promptly to hand. The Prophet, did not thank me for the information I had given him, but on the contrary, he pretended to think that I had taken a part in the Mountain Meadows affair, and on that conclusions, advised me to take a

DOSE  OF  ROPE  AROUND  MY  NECK.

"with a jerk." That a little bit of prophetic advice I did not obey. From that time forth. I have believed that Lee is better acquainted with the Prophet than I am.

To the honest believing Mormon, these statements of mine will seem incredible, but they are nevertheless true. I do not wish to do Brigham Young any physical harm, but I will say to all men who read this article, that if I had only been

A  PIOUS  MURDERER

I might have rode "cheek by jowl" with the Prophet as Lee has done, and been in good standing in the Church.

On the seventh day of April 1874, I saw John D. Lee by the side of Brigham Young's carriage, and reported the same to The Tribune. I was suspected of so doing of so doing. Bishop Henry Lunt of Cedar City, questioned me on the subject. I did not deny the fact, and was immediately cut off without even a hearing of any kind.

A few more words, and I will close. I was a member of the Mormon Church for nearly thirty years, and never had a charge of any kind brought against me. I have no faith in any of the religions of the day, but like Madam De Stael, I have loved God, my country, and liberty. The reader must judge whether I have or have not had just grounds for apostacy.                Respectfully,
                         Geo. A. Hicks.

Note: For more on Elder George A. Hicks, see Will Bagley's "His Integrity Paid Off For Pioneer," in the Jan. 21, 2001 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune.

DIED  OF  REMORSE.
_______

Haunted by the Victims of Mountain Meadows --
Incidents by a Mormon
_______

SEVIER VALLEY, Sept. 13, '71.    

Eds. Tribune. -- Excuse the liberty I take in addressing you for the first time, but as this is near the seventeenth [sic - 14th?] anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I could hardly resist taking my pen and induing a few lines in commemoration of that bloody event. I have been a member of the Mormon Church for the past eighteen years, and yet retain my membership. When I first heard of the

HORRIBLE  MASSACRE,

I was young -- a mere youth in fact -- and a resident of Salt Lake. Indians were accused of the murder of those innocent people -- so said the brethren, so reiterated the Priesthood in every meeting house in every stake in Zion. Much deviltry is laid at the door of

POOR  LO,

and he is the scape-goat for too many unhung scoundrels. I believed the Indians were responsible; but vague rumors were afloat -- some of the brethren were absent from their homes on that eventful month, and no good excuse could be given for their absence. It was whispered the Mormons had a hand in the murder of the Arkansas emigrants. I could not believe it. One of our neighbors, who stood high in the Church, said Bro. Brigham on the night of the 14th of September of that memorable year, walked the floor of his office

WRINGING  HIS  HANDS,

excusing and accusing himself, and sobbing aloud. He knew of the intended massacre, gave the order, and knew the day on which it was to take place, else, why did he accuse himself and make so much fuss over a matter which had not yet transpired? But I have digressed; I started out to relate

AN  INCIDENT.

A short time since, an old man died in this valley. He had a history, but it was buried with him, or nearly so. His strange actions frequently led them to inquire into his history, and little by little, I gathered the information that he was one of the men who obeyed the Priesthood one time too often. He was at the Mountain Meadows, and his hands were stained