Can any sane man believe that the Lord gave this "revelation?" Did He not know His mind and will, was not His the "spirit of revelation and wisdom?" or was there a disagreement on the point between the Lord and the Holy Spirit?
Other extracts might be given from these alleged "revelations" showing their inconsistency, but this will suffice. I have not given these in the spirit of ridicule, but for the purpose of opening the eyes of the blind that they might see, and seeing understand. Let our friends straighten out a few things of this kind among themselves, then they can the better attack us on the point of revelation.
At this point I desire to consider another matter. At the Salt Lake Conference, held March 19, 1905, not long after the return of President Joseph F. Smith from the investigation in Washington, he addressed the Saints on the subject of revelation. In the course of his remarks, he referred to his testimony and said:
"Now, with reference to the principle and doctrine of revelation, it may be proper for me to say a few words on this subject while I am on my feet. For me to say, which was the very end that my critics and inquisitors were endeavoring to get me to say, in order that I might be led into that trap which they had made for me, to say that God had given to me a revelation upon some new doctrine, or theory, or principle, or precept, or anything to be written, to be observed, or handed down as a guide to the Church, would have been untrue. I could not have said that, for He has not done this. But has God revealed to me His mind and His will? Has He made manifest to me a knowledge of His truth by and through the Spirit of revelation? Did you ever hear of my denying that? No; no man has ever heard me deny that.
"When I was baptized as a little child, right up here at the junction of East Temple and North Temple streets, where City Creek then ran, but where it is now covered and obliterated—when I was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints, God Almighty revealed to me that I had done an act which He approved; I received then and there a revelation from Almighty God, that has been with me like a well of living water, springing up into everlasting life in me, which has been a stay and a staff to me in all my daily walks, at home and abroad. God revealed to me that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, that his message was divine, that he was raised up by the power of the Almighty to lay the foundation of this great latter-day work. The Lord has revealed to me the truth that he sealed his testimony with his blood, that he was true to the end, as was the Son of God, true until he cried, 'It is enough!' upon the cross. The Lord has revealed to me in terms that are unmistakable and that are undeniable, that Brigham Young succeeded lawfully and divinely to the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the will of the Almighty. I would not be without that revelation for all the gold and wealth of the world. The Lord revealed to me in terms that cannot be mistaken, by me at least, that John Taylor was inspired of the Lord and was a Prophet of God, and was the lawful and divine successor in the Priesthood and Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to Brigham Young. The Lord revealed to me that Wilford Woodruff lawfully and divinely succeeded John Taylor, that Lorenzo Snow lawfully and divinely followed Wilford Woodruff. I leave to you to say whether the Lord willed, and whether it is lawful and right, that I should be in the position in which God has suffered me to be placed. * *
"The Lord Almighty has revealed to me many things for my own guidance, to assist me in the discharge of my duty, as an elder in the Church, as a high priest in the Church, as an apostle, one of the twelve apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I fervently believe that God has manifested to me in my present capacity, many glorious things, many principles and oftentimes much more wisdom than is inherent in myself; and I believe He will continue to do so as long as I am receptive, as long as I am in a position to hear when He speaks, to listen when He calls, and to receive when He gives to me that which He desires."
These remarks were taken up, twisted, and falsified by a Salt Lake newspaper, which is so characterless and vile that it is without an equal, and sent out into the world as a press dispatch, declaring that President Joseph F. Smith had in the Tabernacle confessed that he had lied before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, in relation to the subject of revelation when he was a witness before said committee. They made it appear in their dispatch that he had stated in Washington that he had not received any revelation, and in the Tabernacle he declared that that was false for he had received many of them. He testified in Washington as he testified in the Tabernacle, that he had received revelation, as this will show:
Mr. Tayler: Did Joseph Smith contend that always there was a visible appearance of the Almighty or of an angel?
Mr. Smith. No, sir: he did not.
Mr. Tayler. How otherwise did he claim to receive revelations?
Mr. Smith. By the Spirit of the Lord.
Mr. Tayler. And in that way, such revelations as you have received, you have had them?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. (Investigation, Vol. 1: 100).
Without waiting to verify this falsehood circulated from an unspeakable source in Salt Lake City, the President of the "Reorganization," as editor of the Saints' Herald took up the hue and cry with evident great pleasure and wrote an editorial consigning President Joseph F. Smith to perdition as a perjurer in the following words:
"Who Make and Love a Lie."
"If President Joseph F. Smith has stated in public what it is currently reported he has, that in the statements made by him when a witness before the Senatorial Committee, whose sittings for inquiry have lately been finished, the report of which in regard to the unseating of Senator Smoot is awaited, he testified to that which was not true, he has done an unfortunate and unwise thing. There may have been some moral bravery in doing as he did in stating that he was breaking the law of the State, the law of the United States, and the law of God by continuing to live with his five wives; and such boldness may have made some admirers of the President of the Utah Church; but, when that president publicly states that he lied when he gave his evidence before the Senatorial Committee, those who may have admired him for his avowal of his guilt will not, cannot admire him as a confessed perjurer. It may be said that President Joseph F. Smith did not make oath to what was false, as he was not sworn, that is, no judicial oath was administered to him, but, when a witness chooses to affirm that privilege is granted by the courts; the form of the affirmation is much like this: 'I do solemnly affirm, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury, that the testimony I shall give in the case now pending * * * shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' If President Joseph F. Smith faced the committee on such an affirmation, and gave false testimony, can it be called anything but perjury? We think not.
"We were surprised when he testified as he did; we now are more surprised to learn that he has said that he affirmed what was not true. What can honorable men in or out of the Church think of such a man? What reliance can be placed on what such a man declares? If he sought by falsehood to avoid falling into a "trap" set for him before the committee, by confessing that he did so falsify, he has assuredly fallen into a more open and dangerous one." (Saints' Herald, Vol. 52:314-315).
Immediately after this editorial appeared in the Saints' Herald the attention of the editor, Joseph Smith, was called to the fact that it was based on a falsehood. Among others who requested him to correct the wrong and injustice he had inflicted on his people as well as on President Smith, was the writer, who immediately forwarded a protest with a clipping from a non-"Mormon" Utah paper correcting the false report. Others wrote to him on the same subject, but no satisfactory correction was ever made. This was very unchristianlike conduct; surely not the part of a prophet of the Lord! It is true, that in a later editorial he quoted a portion of the remarks of President Joseph F. Smith delivered at that conference, but without apology or correction for bearing false witness. This is the comment following the brief extract he saw fit to give:
"We give these extracts from President Joseph F. Smith's talk on the afternoon of March 19, 1905, on the subject of revelation, as they contain the statements on which the charge is based that he contradicted and denied what he testified to before the Territorial (Investigation) Committee, offering no comment upon them, leaving those who read them to judge of them without the bias of an expression from us."