On his business holdings:
Mr. TAYLER. What is your business ?
Mr. SMITH. My principal business is that of president of the church.
Mr. TAYLER. In what other business are you engaged?
Mr. SMITH. I am engaged in numerous other businesses.
Mr. TAYLER. What?
Mr. SMITH. I am president of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution.
Mr. TAYLER. What kind of an institution is that?
Mr. SMITH. A mercantile institution.
Mr. TAYLER. Has it a capital stock?
Mr. SMITH. It has.
Mr. TAYLER. How large ?
Mr. SMITH. I think it is a little over a million.
Mr. TAYLER. Without having time to go into it, is that corporation, through its directorate, controlled by officers of the church?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is controlled by directors.
Mr. TAYLER. Yes. I am not speaking of any churchly control of it, but I mean are the directors or a majority of them officers also in the church, just as you are an official and a director?
Mr. SMITH. I hardly think a majority of them are officials of the church.
Mr. TAYLER. Of what other corporations are you an officer ?
Mr. SMITH. I am president of the State Bank of Utah, another institution.
Mr. TAYLER. What else ?
Mr. SMITH. Zion Savings Bank and Trust Company.
Mr. TAYLER. What else?
Mr. SMITH. I am president of the Utah Sugar Company.
Mr. TAYLER. What else?
Mr. SMITH. I am president of the Consolidated Wagon and Machine Company.
Mr. TAYLER. What else ?
Mr. SMITH. There are several other small institutions with which I am associated.
Mr. TAYLER. Are you associated with the Utah Light and Power Company ?
Mr. SMITH. I am.
Mr. TAYLER. In what capacity ?
Mr. SMITH. I am a director and president of the company.
Mr. TAYLER. A director and the president?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. Had you that in mind when you classified the others as small concerns ?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I had not that in mind.
Mr. TAYLER. That is a large concern?
Mr. SMITH. That is a large concern.
Mr. TAYLER. Are you an officer of the Salt Lake and Los Angeles Railroad Company?
Mr. SMITH. I am.
Mr. TAYLER. What?
Mr. SMITH. President and director.
Mr. TAYLER. That is a large concern ?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is a very small concern.
Mr. TAYLER. Of what else are you president ?
Mr. SMITH. I am president of the Salt Air Beach Company.
Mr. TAYLER. The Salt Air Beach Company?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. What else, if you can recall?
Mr. SMITH. I do not recall just now.
Mr. TAYLER. What relation do you sustain to the Consolidated Light and Power Company ?
Mr. SMITH. That is the same institution that you have mentioned, sir the Consolidated Light and Power Company. That is now consolidated. It is the Utah Light and Railroad Company now.
Mr. TAYLER. The Utah Light and Railroad Company ?
Mr. SMITH. The Utah Light and Power Company is the same thing-
Mr. TAYLER. They have been consolidated into the Light and Power Company ?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; the Consolidated Light and Railway Company.
Mr. TAYLER. The Consolidated Light and Railway Company ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. Do those corporations furnish the electric light and urban traction in the city of Salt Lake?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. Altogether?
Mr. SMITH. I believe they do.
Mr. TAYLER. What relation do yon sustain to the Idaho Sugar Company ?
Mr. SMITH. I am a director of that company and also the president of it.
Mr. TAYLER. Of the Inland Crystal Salt Company ?
Mr. SMITH. Also the same position there.
Mr. TAYLER. The Salt Lake Dramatic Association?
Mr. SMITH. I am president of that and also a director.
Mr. TAYLER. Are you president of any other corporation there?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know. Perhaps you can tell me. I do not remember any more just now.
Mr. TAYLER. It would seem that the number has grown so large that it would be an undue tax upon your memory to charge you with naming them all.
Mr. SMITH. It is rather sudden and unexpected to me. I perhaps might have prepared myself for it.
Mr. TAYLER. What relation do you sustain to the Salt Lake Knitting Company? Did I ask you about it?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; you did not.
Mr. TAYLER. The Salt Lake Knitting Company ?
Mr. SMITH. I am president of it, and also a director.
On whether apostles are called by revelation:
Mr. SMITH. In the first place they were chosen by revelation. The council of the apostles have had a voice ever since in the selection of their successors.
Senator McCoMAS. Had a voice?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. Have they had the election of their successors to perpetuate the body of apostles since the first revelation ?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know that I understand your question.
Senator McCoMAS. You say the first apostles were selected in accordance with revelations.
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. Revelations to whom ?
Mr. SMITH. To Joseph Smith.
Senator McCoMAS. And the twelve apostles were then first named ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what body were the vacancies in the twelve apostles filled?
Mr. SMITH. Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body, the twelve themselves, by and with the consent and approval of the first presidency.
Senator HOAB. Was there a revelation in regard to each of them?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean in the beginning?
Senator HOAR. I understand you to say that the original twelve apostles were selected by revelation ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator HOAR. Through Joseph Smith ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.
Senator HOAR. Is there any revelation in regard to the subsequent ones?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.
Senator McCoMAS. Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession by their own act and the approval of the first presidency ?
Mr. SMITH. That is right.
On whether he receives revelation as President of the Church:
Senator HOAR. Does or does not a person who does not believe that a revelation given through the head of the church comes from God reject a fundamental principle of Mormonism?
Mr. SMITH. He does; always if the revelation is a divine revelation from God.
Senator HOAR. It always is, is it not? It comes through the head of the church?
Mr. SMITH. When it is divine, it always is; when it is divine, most decidedly.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand that "when it is divine." You have revelations, have you not?
Mr. SMITH. I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations. I never said I had a revelaton except so far as God has shown to me that so-called Mormonism is God's divine truth; that is all.
and later...
Senator DUBOIS. Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became president of the church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?
Mr. SMITH. I can not say that I have.
Senator DUBOIS. Can you say that you have not?
Mr. SMITH. No; I can not say that I have not.
Senator DUBOIS. Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelation as you have described, or whether you have not?
Mr. SMITH. Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far as that is concerned, I say yes; I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense revelations.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator, do you think it is important to pursue that further?
Senator DUBOIS. No.
On how long plural marriages were performed:
Mr. TAYLER. That is to say, no plural marriages were solemnized in the church after October, 1878?
Mr. SMITH. No; I can not say as to that.
Mr. TAYLER. Well, if the church solemnized marriages after that time it did not accept that decision as conclusive upon it, did it?
Mr. SMITH. 1 am not aware that the church practiced polygamy, or plural marriages, at least, after the manifesto.
Mr. TAYLER. Yes, I know; but that was a long, long time after that. 1 am speaking now of 1878, when the Supreme Court decided the law to be constitutional.
Mr. SMITH. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that I do not know of any marriages occurring after that decision.
On D&C 132:
Mr. TAYLEK. The next verse.
Mr. SMITH. All right.
"64. And again, verily, verily I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe, and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God, for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."
Senator PETTUS. Now , what is the meaning of the word "destroyed," there, as interpreted by the church ?
Mr. SMITH. I have no conception of the meaning of it more than the language itself conveys, that the woman who disobeys is in the hands of the Lord for Him to deal with as He may deem proper. I suppose that is what it means.
Senator FORAKER. Has the church ever construed that language to give authority to it as a church to destroy the woman ?
Mr. SMITH. Never in the world. It is not so stated. It is that the Lord
Senator FORAKER. The church construes it, as 'I understand, to mean that she is in the hands of the Lord, to be destroyed by the Lord.
Mr. SMITH. By the Lord, if there is any destruction at all.
Senator PETTUS. Have there ever been in the past plural marriages without the consent of the first wife?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any, unless it may have been Joseph Smith himself.
Senator PETTUS. Is the language that you have read construed to mean that she is bound to consent?
Mr. SMITH. The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how He will do it.
Senator BAILEY. Is it riot true that in the very next verse, if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent.
Senator BAILEY. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement?
Mr. SMITH. Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law.
Senator BEVERIDGE. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing ?
Mr. SMITH. It amounts to nothing but her consent.
No comments:
Post a Comment