lds apologist response to joseph f smith's testimony in reed smoot trial

[nickleus]

here is the transcript of the reed smoot trial (1904):

http://www.archive.o...befor01unitrich

what are the apologetic responses to these issues?

* prophet joseph f smith claiming to never have had any revelation *

(page 99)

Chairman: "You have revelations, have you not?"

Joseph F Smith: "I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations."

* apostles and prophets after joseph smith are not chosen by revelation, but by succession, appointment and voting *

(page 91)

Senator McCoMAS. I should like to ask one question. You say that the councilors are appointed by the president of the church.

How are the apostles selected?

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.

(page 92)

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.

Senator BAILEY, who selects the first president?

Mr. SMITH. The first presidency was chosen in the same way. They are elected--

Senator BAILEY. I believe the presidency consists of the president and two councilors.

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Senator BAILEY. I do not refer to the councilors. You have already said that the president chooses or designates them. Who chooses or elects the president? For instance, who elected you to your present position?

Mr. SMITH. 1 was nominated by the twelve apostles and submitted to the whole church and sustained by the whole church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Explain what you mean by the word "sustained" in that technical sense.

Mr. SMITH. That is, voted upon.

Senator BAILEY. I understand that. As a matter of fact, the apostles nominate the president and the church elects him. Do I understand that to be the case?

(page 93)

Mr. SMITH. Well, yes, sir; that has been the case. And then, again, the senior apostle, through custom of the church since the death of Joseph Smith, has been recognized on the death of the president as the legitimate successor to the president.

Senator BAILEY. It is a question of succession rather than of election ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. Has that the force of law?

Mr. SMITH. Still he is elected, just the same.

Senator BAILEY. Has that the force of law or has it merely the persuasion of custom?

Mr. SMITH. Merely a custom. There is no law in relation to it. It does not of necessity follow that the senior apostle would be or should be chosen as the president of the church.

Senator BAILEY. And if they did not elect him it would do no violence to the church or the organization?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in the least.

Senator McCoMAS. You say the church elects the president?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. At that election there is but one nomination for the election?

Mr. SMITH. There is only one. There has been only one. There never has been more than one that I know of.

Senator DUBOIS. The name of the president is presented to the conference, and they are asked if they desire to sustain the selection to hold up their hands. I believe that is the custom?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. That is all there is of it.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask if, within your knowledge, a vacancy in the list of the twelve apostles has ever been filled in opposition to the wishes of the first presidency?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think such a case has ever occurred.

Mr. TAYLER. Has anyone of the first presidents after Joseph Smith been appointed to his place in consequence of revelation?

Mr. SMITH. I was not present on the selection or choice of President Young to succeed Joseph Smith, but I have been led to understand by the history of the church that it was by the spirit of revelation that he was chosen to be president of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, was any successor of his in like manner chosen?

Mr. SMITH. We believe that there is inspiration in all those things.

Mr. TAYLER. And you believe therefore that all of the first presidents from Joseph Smith down have been chosen through inspiration or revelation?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That there has been actual divine interposition in that choice?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I believe that.

Mr. TAYLER. Affecting that particular circumstance as such?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The church teaches that, does it not?

Mr. SMITH. That is held as a principle by the church.

Mr. TAYLER. By the church?

in an amendment of the legal articles of incorporation for the corporation of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints in 1940, succession to the presidency by the senior apostle or by someone appointed by the quorum of the twelve was made a an actual law, for legal purposes:

http://www.xmission....tral/chorg3.htm

[Brade]

Here, I'll give it a shot. He was lying for the Lord.

[David Bokovoy]

If you ever get a chance to watch some of the film of the proceeding, it is very clear that President Smith felt extremely uncomfortable throughout the inquisition. His answers here and in other sections of the transcript sustain this perception. President Smith was put on the spot in front of a group of powerful men and did not handle the pressure very well. It happens. Personally, I don't take people's immediate responses in moments of duress too seriously. Some people have a natural gift for responding to this type of interrogation whereas most of us simply do not. The Lord never calls perfect men and/or women to the work, including the work of the Presidency.

Personally, I would for the transcript to read in a way that made President Smith out to to be a type of Abinadi, responding to the pressure put upon him by corrupt politicians with elegance and ease, yet I suspect that even that scriptural account of a prophet holding up to duress has been greatly romanticized and that Abinadi's answers and behavior when put upon the spot were probably not quite so impressive.

Just my personal take.

[urroner]

If you ever get a chance to watch some of the film of the proceeding, it is very clear that President Smith felt extremely uncomfortable throughout the inquisition. His answers here and in other sections of the transcript sustain this perception. President Smith was put on the spot in front of a group of powerful men and did not handle the pressure very well. It happens. Personally, I don't take people's immediate responses in moments of duress too seriously. Some people have a natural gift for responding to this type of interrogation whereas most of us simply do not. The Lord never calls perfect men and/or women to the work, including the work of the Presidency.

Personally, I would for the transcript to read in a way that made President Smith out to to be a type of Abinadi, responding to the pressure put upon him by corrupt politicians with elegance and ease, yet I suspect that even that scriptural account of a prophet holding up to duress has been greatly romanticized and that Abinadi's answers and behavior when put upon the spot were probably not quite so impressive.

Just my personal take.

How did Peter react to pressure?

[nickleus]

If you ever get a chance to watch some of the film of the proceeding, it is very clear that President Smith felt extremely uncomfortable throughout the inquisition. His answers here and in other sections of the transcript sustain this perception. President Smith was put on the spot in front of a group of powerful men and did not handle the pressure very well. It happens. Personally, I don't take people's immediate responses in moments of duress too seriously. Some people have a natural gift for responding to this type of interrogation whereas most of us simply do not. The Lord never calls perfect men and/or women to the work, including the work of the Presidency.

Personally, I would for the transcript to read in a way that made President Smith out to to be a type of Abinadi, responding to the pressure put upon him by corrupt politicians with elegance and ease, yet I suspect that even that scriptural account of a prophet holding up to duress has been greatly romanticized and that Abinadi's answers and behavior when put upon the spot were probably not quite so impressive.

Just my personal take.

where can i get my hands on film footage of the interview?

was joseph f smith, god's anointed prophet, not a powerful man? =)

can you cite a scriptural reference of a prophet not handling pressure well under interrogation?

so what is written in the book of mormon about abinadi and his testimony is not accurate?

comparing smith to abinadi is unacceptable. in the abinadi story, he was threatened with his life and was bound in chains, but even abinadi still confounded his accusers, which smith clearly does not. the prophet shouldnt need a special gift to tell the truth when asked something. it should be straight forward, yet smith is led into saying multiple contradictions and there is no report of smith's face glowing "with exceeding luster" either as to astonish his interrogators.

[nickleus]

How did Peter react to pressure?

nice try, but peter was not a seasoned prophet of god at that point. nor did he have the gift of the holy ghost =)

[Brade]

If you ever get a chance to watch some of the film of the proceeding, it is very clear that President Smith felt extremely uncomfortable throughout the inquisition. His answers here and in other sections of the transcript sustain this perception. President Smith was put on the spot in front of a group of powerful men and did not handle the pressure very well. It happens. Personally, I don't take people's immediate responses in moments of duress too seriously. Some people have a natural gift for responding to this type of interrogation whereas most of us simply do not. The Lord never calls perfect men and/or women to the work, including the work of the Presidency.

Personally, I would for the transcript to read in a way that made President Smith out to to be a type of Abinadi, responding to the pressure put upon him by corrupt politicians with elegance and ease, yet I suspect that even that scriptural account of a prophet holding up to duress has been greatly romanticized and that Abinadi's answers and behavior when put upon the spot were probably not quite so impressive.

Just my personal take.

Wait, what? I've never heard that any portion of the Smoot hearings were filmed. Will you provide sources for this?

[David Bokovoy]

where can i get my hands on film footage of the interview?

Honestly, I do not have any clue how much of the proceeding was filmed, nor do I have immediate access to it. About 16 years ago, I watched a brief clip of President Snow seated upon the stand. He looked extremely nervous.

was joseph f smith, god's anointed prophet, not a powerful man? =)

Of course he was, but he was still a man.

can you cite a scriptural reference of a prophet not handling pressure well under interrogation?

Ancient portrayals of historical events are always romanticized by their authors.

so what is written in the book of mormon about abinadi and his testimony is not accurate?

Given the pattern it was probably exaggerated I suspect.

comparing smith to abinadi is unacceptable. in the abinadi story, he was threatened with his life and was bound in chains, but even abinadi still confounded his accusers, which smith clearly does not. the prophet shouldnt need a special gift to tell the truth when asked something. it should be straight forward, yet smith is led into saying multiple contradictions and there is no report of smith's face glowing "with exceeding luster" either as to astonish his interrogators.

I believe that that was my point.

[David Bokovoy]

Wait, what? I've never heard that any portion of the Smoot hearings were filmed. Will you provide sources for this?

I'm afraid I can't. The brief clips I saw many years ago were black and white and lacked audio. They had the feel of a news report. How much was filmed this way by reporters, I have no idea.

Best,

--DB

[nickleus]

Honestly, I do not have any clue how much of the proceeding was filmed, nor do I have immediate access to it. About 16 years ago, I watched a brief clip of President Snow seated upon the stand. He looked extremely nervous.

snow? i think you misunderstand. we are talking about president smith in 1904. lorenzo snow was dead at the time of the trial.

[Brade]

I'm afraid I can't. The brief clips I saw many years ago were black and white and lacked audio. They had the feel of a news report. How much was filmed this way by reporters, I have no idea.

Best,

--DB

Hmmm, very interesting. The whole Smoot thing was a very big deal in the media at the time, so it wouldn't surprise me if there is footage of some bits of the hearing. I'd really like to find this if I can. Here I Go!

[Deborah]

Pearls before Swine?

[nickleus]

Ancient portrayals of historical events are always romanticized by their authors.

thats why this reed smoot trial transcript is so important =) it is a verbatim documentation of a prophet and his answers to critical questions.

Of course he was, but he was still a man.

i dont know if you are lds or not, but when members use this kind of rhetoric it actually diminishes the credibility, power and specialness of the church and its authority...

[nickleus]

Pearls before Swine?

as if the concept of revelation is some sacred secret? its one of the things that the church boasts about: we have continued revelation. it is a defining characteristic of joseph smith: the great revelator.

[Ceeboo]

Pearls before Swine?

Nothing to do with my salvation?

Line upon line?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[nickleus]

Given the pattern it was probably exaggerated I suspect.

again, this diminishes the value of the book of mormon, "the most correct of any book on earth" (JS).

what you are implying is that prophets exaggerate their experiences.

[Bob Crockett]

On the "I never had a revelation" statement, he corrected it the next day. He apparently interpreted the question as meaning the type of revelation to be canonized in the D&C. He testified that he routinely had the inspiration of the HG as president of the Church.

I've read his statements for years, possessing a transcript long before it went up on the internet. I thought he did very well with a very hostile questioner.

[volgadon]

nice try, but peter was not a seasoned prophet of god at that point. nor did he have the gift of the holy ghost =)

What is known as moving the goalposts. You did not specify a "seasoned prophet of God with the gift of the Holy Ghost." I suspect that had you been shown a "seasoned prophet of God with the gift of the Holy Ghost," you would have found another objection. Peter may not have been "seasoned prophet of God with the gift of the Holy Ghost," but he had known Jesus the Christ (the son of God himself) personally for several years, and been witness to his power and miracles. That surely ought to count for something.

[nickleus]

Nothing to do with my salvation?

it does if what you base your salvation on are prophets who actually DONT receive revelation and who select apostles and prophets, NOT based on revelation.

[nickleus]

What is known as moving the goalposts. You did not specify a "seasoned prophet of God with the gift of the Holy Ghost." I suspect that had you been shown a "seasoned prophet of God with the gift of the Holy Ghost," you would have found another objection. Peter may not have been "seasoned prophet of God with the gift of the Holy Ghost," but he had known Jesus the Christ (the son of God himself) personally for several years, and been witness to his power and miracles. That surely ought to count for something.

additionally, like the abinadi comparison earlier, joseph f smith's life wasnt on the line whereas peter's was. he reacted that way for fear of being taken by the people like jesus was.

[volgadon]

again, this diminishes the value of the book of mormon, "the most correct of any book on earth" (JS).

what you are implying is that prophets exaggerate their experiences.

So when did Abinadi find the time to commit his experiences to writing? Reminds me somewhat of Henry Fielding's Shamela, a send up of epistolary novels. "Thursday Night, Twelve o'Clock.

Mrs. Jervis and I are just in Bed, and the Door unlocked; if my Master should come

[Vex]

I find this rather interesting. I have been reading this manuscript and I find it interesting that one of the reasons the case was brought before the senate was for a charge that was dismissed after the first day of testimony (which seems to be de facto exactly what the hearing is about):

I think it is pretty generally understood by the country, and i was

understood even by three or four members of this committee up to

yesterday, that objection was made to Mr. Smoot being a United States

Senator on the ground that he is a polygamist. Now we find, not that

that charge is withdrawn, but that the attorney for the protestants

declares he never made it. So as to the popular notion that Mr.

Smoot is being tried as a polygamist, not only is that not asserted,

but, so far as this investigation is now concerned, it is conceded by

protestants that his life in that particular is as correct as that of any-

one else.

So in other words the preliminary issue that was stated for objection to his seat in the senate:

We protest as above upon the ground and for the reason that he is

one of a self-perpetuating body of fifteen men who, constituting the

ruling authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,

or "Mormon" Church, claim, and by their followers are accorded the

right to claim, supreme authority, divinely sanctioned, to shape the

belief and control the conduct of those under them in all matters what-

soever, civil and religious, temporal and spiritual, and who thus, unit-

ing in themselves authority, in church and state, do so exercise the

same as to inculcate and encourage a belief in polygamy and polyga-

mous cohabitation; who countenance and connive at violations of the

laws of the State prohibiting the same regardless of pledges made for

the purpose of obtaining statehood and of covenants made with the peo-

ple of the United States, and who by all the means in their power pro-

tect and honor those who with themselves violate the laws of the land

and are guilty of practices destructive of the family and the home.

Very interesting indeed...

[USU78]

On the "I never had a revelation" statement, he corrected it the next day. He apparently interpreted the question as meaning the type of revelation to be canonized in the D&C. He testified that he routinely had the inspiration of the HG as president of the Church.

I've read his statements for years, possessing a transcript long before it went up on the internet. I thought he did very well with a very hostile questioner.

RC is, as always, quite correct here. One must put these events in context as well in order to understand why a Prophet was being crossexamined in this fashion and by whom.

The Utah War of 1857-58 ended with an uneasy settlement that left field pieces placed on the bluff East of Salt Lake City, overlooking all of the important buildings, including the hastily buried Temple site. The uneasiness continued until the Civil War, and continued thereafter until BY's death in 1877, with increasingly vicious press attacks on polygyny, alleged antiAmericanism, and whatnot, until the Reconstruction Republican party passed a series of acts aliening Mormons until the second settlement under which polygyny's illegality was recognized by the Church and the roadblock preventing Utah's statehood was finally removed. Smoot was one of the duly elected Utah Senators, and the Senate Republican Caucus decided to make a show trial of his seating, hoping to keep the blood on the shirt yet wet. The issues were the same issues: polygyny, alleged antiAmericanism, and whatnot. They hoped to prove Mormons, and specifically that Mormon, were antiAmerican revolutionaries and successionists. JFS, of course, lived through all of this, seeing his friends and relatives being schlepped out to the Sugarhouse Pen for "cohabitating" with their plural wives and the assets of the Church and Church leaders being nationalized and Mormons being disenfranchised.

It is a foolish and shortsighted enemy who would look to those days of state-sponsored pogroms against Mormons with affection. It is monstrous of that enemy to parse the show trial that would have unseated a duly elected Senator before he ever sat.

[nickleus]

He apparently interpreted the question as meaning the type of revelation to be canonized in the D&C.

the statement "i dont pretend to receive revelation" actually bars him from *ever* receiving revelation in the future, because he doesnt pretend to receive revelation (including your "D&C type of revelation").

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

the statement "i dont pretend to receive revelation" actually bars him from *ever* receiving revelation in the future, because he doesnt pretend to receive revelation (including your "D&C type of revelation").

It does no such thing. There that was really easy to assert something.