Lying to Promote the “Interests of the Church” as an Evidence of Apostasy

James Talmage gives an evidence of the Great Apostasy:

> “Disregard for truth. As early as the fourth century, certain pernicious doctrines embodying a disregard for truth gained currency in the Church. Thus, it was taught ‘that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interests of the church might be promoted.’—(Mosheim, ‘Eccl. Hist.,’ Cent. IV, Part II, ch. 3:16.) Needless to say, sins other than those of falsehood and deceit were justified when committed in the supposed interests of church advancement, and crime was condoned under the specious excuse that the end justifies the means. Many of the fables and fictitious stories relating to the lives of Christ and the apostles, as also the spurious accounts of supernatural visitations and wonderful miracles, in which the literature of the early centuries abound, are traceable to this infamous doctrine that lies are acceptable unto God if perpetrated in a cause that man calls good.” (James Talmage, The Great Apostasy, ch. 7)

It’s a good thing Mormonism doesn’t do that kind of thing, right? Otherwise, that’d be an evidence of apostasy.

PS It might sound like Talmage is quoting an early church father, but he’s not. He is quoting the historian Johann Lorenz von Mosheim.

This entry was posted in Great Apostasy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Lying to Promote the “Interests of the Church” as an Evidence of Apostasy

  1. Rick B says:

    At first I really thought this topic was about js and his church he built. I guess it could still fit them since we know they do that.

  2. falcon says:

    What would qualify as “apostasy”.
    Paul warned about wolves coming in and ravenging the flock. Before him, Our Lord talked about false prophets.
    Jude writes about it extensively. I’ve posted the essential Christian doctrines on this blog many times over the years. When people get these basic doctrines wrong I’d qualify them as apostates.
    Mormons, for example, want to call themselves the true church and Christians. Yet they reject God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God’s plan of Salvation, the Word of God and embrace an occult based religion founded by a practitioner of magic arts.
    I wouldn’t even consider them “apostates” because they don’t have enough Christianity in the religion to be characterized as fallen away.
    They do however lie and deceive.

  3. grindael says:

    The Mormon Hierarchy has always blatantly broken the law under the auspices of “the end justifies the means.” Here is a great example of that:

    Dec. 17, 1892: At my Quorum meeting on Thursday the brethren were told that our success in the Church suits was in a great measure due to the fact that we have a partner of Justice [Stephen J.] Field of the Supreme Court of the United States in our employ, who is to receive a percentage of the money if the suits go in our favor, and the property is returned to us. It was decided at this meeting that we would dispense with the services of the Church attorneys at the end of the year. Those now employed are F[ranklin] S. Richards and Le Grand Young. The former receives $5,000 per year, and the latter $3,000. The latter has felt some reluctance at accepting his pay for the work now being done, but the former has felt it was his due. (Diary of Abraham H. Cannon, Signature books, experts found here online.)

  4. grindael says:

    Joseph F. Smith was concerned about their lying getting out and gave this directive after he was forced to testify before Congress (and got caught lying) in the Reed Smoot Hearings:

    “Pres. [Joseph F.] Smith said that he wanted to refer to a matter that had given him much concern—namely, the private journals of the brethren of the council. Many things were written in them which, if they were to fall into the hands of the enemy, might bring trouble upon the church. After the death of the brethren, you cannot tell what may become of their journals, and even now the brethren felt an anxiety in relation to Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon’s journal, who made a pretty full account of everything that transpired in the councils of the brethren; the same with Abram Cannon and others. Elder Jno. H. Smith said that he was very much concerned about this matter and had been for a long time and felt ‘that some action should be taken in the premises. Pres. Winder said that it was very unsafe and risky for the brethren to write down that which occurred in these meetings. This duty belonged to the clerk of the council and nobody else. Pres. Winder moved that it be the sense and feeling of the council that the brethren should not write in their journals that which took place in the council meetings. Carried by unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned. Benediction by Elder Jno. H. Smith.” (Stan Larson, A Ministry of Meetings, The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, October 5, 1904, pages 777-778.)

    This is just what happened with Wilford Woodruff’s Journals, Abraham Cannon’s, and many others that “made a pretty full account of everything that transpired in the councils of the brethren”. If there is any document that damns the Mormons more than this one, I don’t know what it is. You see, if they have one set of minutes, they can doctor them, or order the person to be judicious in what they write down. Notice that these men were not concerned with anyone altering or taking them out of context, only that there was too much information in the private journals. To lie though, in any way, goes against what these men affirm as binding scripture:

    “Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out.” (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 42:10).

    Here, one Mormon “apostle” says that Wars are necessary for the spread of the gospel:

    [October 7, 1898] FD Richards . . . In his opinion wars are necessary for the establishing of Gods work in the land (referred to American Revolution, Civil War opened South to missionary work, Franco-Prussion had Germany) . . . [Met with RR Lyman, Heber Iverson, Sec[retar]y Higgs of the Co. officers Ymmi(?) of Salt Lake.] We chatted on the League matters and it was suggested that I try and get Hon. AW McCune to pay off the League debt of $1,800 and the brethren said if he would do so they would do all in their power to try and make him a United States Senator. I hope Mr. McCune will conclude to do it . (Diary of Abraham H. Cannon)


    [December 29, 1898] After the meeting had a chat with Apostle Francis M. Lyman on the political situation, He objected to my writing letters in favor of Mr. McCune as Senator and referring to anything said to me by Pres[iden]t Snow or Woodruff. I agreed with him & said in the future I would not do so. I regret having ever mentioned the names of the Presidency in any of my letters. Bro[ther] Lyman does not seem to think Mr McCune is worthy to go to the U.S. Senate. I can not blame him for wanting to have his son-in-law Bro[ther] W[ilia]m King made Senator.

    And then Canon writes that the brethren did engage in political bribery and influence, though they have outright denied this for years. Think about what Lyman said, that wars are NECESSARY for the spread of the gospel, and that he objected to the truth being revealed about the involvement of the “brethren” in politics.

    This is unthinkable and deplorable in someone who who claims to be an apostle or prophet of Jesus. These journals and diaries give us the truth about who these men were, and what they taught, believed and did. This is why F. Smith was so terrified that these documents would get out to the public.

  5. grindael says:

    Joseph F. Smith was a notorious liar. Here is some of his testimony under oath at the Reed Smoot Hearings,

    Mr. SMITH. … I should like to draw a distinction between unlawful cohabitation and polygamy. There is a law prohibiting polygamy, plural marriages.
    Senator HOAR. You mean now a law of the State of Utah ?
    Mr. SMITH. I mean the law of the State, and I mean that this is in the constitution of our State. It is required by the enabling act. That law, gentlemen, has been complied with by the church; that law has been kept by the church; and there never has been a plural marriage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto. (Reed Smoot Transcript page 130.)

    These outright lies offended many people, including Abraham’s brother Frank J. Cannon, who painfully recalled these instances of Smith’s perjury:

    “Late in July, 1896, when I was in New York on business for the Presidency, I received a telegram announcing the death of my brother, Apostle Abraham H. Cannon. We had been companions all our lives; he had been the nearest to me of our family, the dearest of my friends—but even in the first shock of my grief I realized that my father would have a greater stroke of sorrow to bear than I; and in hurrying back to Salt Lake City I nerved myself with the hope that I might console him.

    I found him and Joseph F. Smith in the office of the Presidency, sitting at their desks. My father turned as I entered, and his face was unusually pale in spite of its composure; but the moment he recognized me, his expression changed to a look of pain that alarmed me. He rose and put his hand on my shoulder with a tenderness that it was his habit to conceal. “I know how you feel his loss,” he said hoarsely, “but when I think what he would have had to pass through if he had lived—I cannot regret his death.”

    The almost agonized expression of his face, as much as the terrible implication of his words, startled me with I cannot say what horrible fear about my brother. I asked, “Why! Why—what has happened?”

    With a sweep of his hand toward Smith at his desk—a gesture and a look the most unkind I ever saw him use—he answered: “A few weeks ago, Abraham took a plural wife, Lillian Hamlin. It became known. He would have had to face a prosecution in Court. His death has saved us from a calamity that would have been dreadful for the Church—and for the state.”

    “Father!” I cried. “Has this thing come back again! And the ink hardly dry on the bill that restored your church property on the pledge of honor that there would never be another case—”I had caught the look on Smith’s face, and it was a look of sullen defiance. “How did it happen?” My father replied: “I know—it’s awful. I would have prevented it if I could. I was asked for my consent, and I refused it. President Smith obtained the acquiescence of President Woodruff, on the plea that it wasn’t an ordinary case of polygamy but merely a fulfilment of the biblical instruction that a man should take his dead brother’s wife. Lillian was betrothed to David, and had been sealed to him in eternity after his death. I understand that President Woodruff told Abraham he would leave the matter with them if he wished to take the responsibility—and President Smith performed the ceremony.”

    Smith could hear every word that was said. My father had included him in the conversation, and he was listening. He not only did not deny his guilt; he accepted it in silence, with an expression of sulky disrespect.

    He did not deny it later, when the whole community had learned of it. He went with Apostle John Henry Smith to see Mr. P. H. Lannan, proprietor of the Salt Lake Tribune, to ask him not to attack the Church for this new and shocking violation of its covenant. Mr. Lannan had been intimately friendly with my brother, and he was distressed between his regard for his dead friend and his obligation to do his public duty. I do not know all that the Smiths said to him; but I KNOW that the conversation assumed that Joseph F. Smith had performed the marriage ceremony; I know that neither of the Smiths made any attempt to deny the assumption; and I know that Joseph F. Smith sought to placate Mr. Lannan by promising “it shall not occur again.” And this interview was sought by the Smiths, palpably because wherever the marriage of Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin was talked of, Joseph F. Smith was named as the priest who had solemnized the offending relation. If it had not been for Smith’s consciousness of his own guilt and his knowledge that the whole community was aware of that guilt, he would never have gone to the Tribune office to make such a promise to Mr. Lannan.

    All of which did not prevent Joseph F. Smith from testifying—in the Smoot investigation at Washington in 1904—that he did not marry Abraham Cannon and Lillian Hamlin, that he did not have any conversation with my father about the marriage, that he did not know Lillian Hamlin had been betrothed to Abraham’s dead brother, that the first time he heard of the charge that he had married them was when he saw it printed in the newspapers!*

    If this first polygamous marriage had been the last—if it were an isolated and peculiar incident as the Smiths then claimed it was and promised it should be—it might be forgiven as generously now as Mr. Lannan then forgave it. But, about the same time there became public another case—that of Apostle Teasdale—and as this narrative shall prove, here was the beginning of a policy of treachery which the present Church leaders, under Joseph F. Smith, have since consistently practised, in defiance of the laws of the state and the “revelation of God,” with lies and evasions, with perjury and its subornation, in violation of the most solemn pledges to the country, and through the agency of a political tyranny that makes serious prosecution impossible and immunity a public boast. (Frank J. Cannon and Harvey J. O’Higgins, Under the Prophet in Utah: The National Menace Of A Political Priestcraft, p.176-179. )

    This was not the only instance of the Smiths going to Lannan. In his diary entry for Friday, September 23, 1898, John Henry Smith writes,

    “The Republican Salt Lake Co. Convention convened at the Salt Lake Theatre, about 400 delegates present. Things went along harmoniously. In company with Prest. J. F. Smith, I called upon P[atrick]. H. Lannan [owner of the Salt Lake Tribune] and talked over the course being taken by the Tribune in its asaults on B. H. Roberts. Mr. Lannan made lots of talk and said nothing, really. Prest. J. F. Smith presented him a paper setting forth that no marrying was going of the plural kind. He said that will not do.” Jean Bickmore White, Church, State, and Politics, The Diaries of John Henry Smith, Signature Books, p.409.

    Frank Cannon’s recollection along with John Henry Smith’s diary entry, show how Joseph F. Smith further perjured himself at the Smoot Hearings:

    Mr. TAYLER. What inquiry did you make to find out whether Abraham H. Cannon, one of the twelve apostles of the church, had made a plural marriage?
    Mr. SMITH. I made no inquiry at all.
    Mr. TAYLER. Did you set on foot any inquiry ?
    Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not myself.
    Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any interest in finding out whether there had been?
    Mr. SMITH. Not the least.
    Mr. TAYLER. Not the least?
    Mr. SMITH. Not the least.
    Mr. TAYLER. So that the public charge that an apostle of the church had married a plural wife as late as 1896 did not concern you at all?
    Mr. SMITH. The public charge, or what you call a public charge, is simply the charge made by the bitterest a**i-Mormon publication in Salt Lake City, and its charges are of such a vicious character that I pay no attention to them. If I were to undertake to answer one-hundredth part of the vicious and vile charges that are made in the a**i-Mormon papers against me and my people I would have nothing else to do in the world.
    Mr. TAYLER. Yes; but was not the charge respecting Abraham H. Cannon taking a plural wife made with much circumstance and detail?
    Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of, any more than it was newspaper talk.

    Mr. TAYLER. Then you mean to say that as a general proposition, notwithstanding your sensitiveness on the subject of plural marriages having been authorized or performed under the sanction of the church, you do not investigate any charges that are made of that character ?
    Mr. SMITH. It is not my business to investigate them. I have given to this honorable committee
    The CHAIRMAN. The question is. Do you make any investigation?
    Mr. SMITH. I have made the assertion and explanation here to this [478] honorable committee that our courts of original jurisdiction in the church are the bishops’ courts, and it is the duty of the bishops to inquire into the moral character and the moral standing and the good fellowship of members of the church who reside in the wards of the bishops.
    Senator HOAR. Including officials ?
    Mr. SMITH. Yes. sir.
    Senator HOAR. Including all officials ?
    Mr. SMITH. They have jurisdiction over all members of the church, and all officials are members of the church.
    Mr. TAYLER. Did you not feel any duty laid upon you to investigate this, in the interest of the church, apart from any personal lapse?
    Mr. SMITH. No; not in the way that these reports and rumors came to me. They were the reports and rumors of malicious persons.
    Mr. TAYLER. Malicious persons?
    Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. TAYLER. Sometimes malicious persons tell the truth.
    Mr. SMITH. That may be.
    Mr. TAYLER. Or is it your assumption that they never do ?
    Mr. SMITH. We become habituated to hearing reports of malicious persons until we pay no attention to them, even if they do tell the truth.
    Mr. TAYLER. Suppose it were charged that Francis M. Lyman, president of the twelve apostles, who does not, I believe, live in your ward, had performed a plural-marriage ceremony at Provo; would that induce
    you to make any inquiry ?
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is not a supposable case.
    The CHAIRMAN. Would you make the inquiry ? That is the question.
    Mr. SMITH. It is not a supposable case, and if it were the case I could not tell you
    The CHAIRMAN. That is the only answer you desire to make ?
    Mr. SMITH. It is the only answer I can give. It is not a supposable case. I suppose I am not required to answer suppositions.
    The CHAIRMAN. May I ask just a question ? In any instance where you have learned that these high officials, or anyone else, have been guilty of a plural marriage, or of performing a ceremony of that kind,
    since 1890, have you made inquiry into it?
    Mr. SMITH. It has not, Mr. Chairman, been my business to do it.
    The CHAIRMAN. Answer my question. Have you inquired?
    Mr. SMITH. No, sir; because it has not been my business.
    The CHAIRMAN. I understand.
    Mr. SMITH. I wish to say further
    The CHAIRMAN. That covers it.
    Mr. SMITH. I wish to say, in connection with that, Mr. Chairman, that the circumstances that are referred to by this gentleman occurred[ 479] before I was president of the church, and before it was my duty to inquire into anything of the kind, if it was possible to be construed that the president of the church should interfere with the duties of the lesser authorities of the church.
    The CHAIRMAN. I understand you to say, Mr. Smith, now, as president, it is not your duty to make inquiry ?
    Mr. SMITH. It is not, because it belongs to the lesser authorities. (Reed Smoot Transcript, pages 477-479).

    Not only is Smith lying here about this specific instance, he is lying about Church interest in the Tribune. The “charges” that the Tribune were making WERE TRUE! They were not “vicious”. Smith absolutely knew this, and knew that the First Presidency and the “apostles” had been discussing the Tribune for YEARS, and that they had even prayed to God to stop the Tribune from printing the TRUTH! The following diary entries show that the Tribune was of ongoing concern to the Church Hierarchy, and was read and discussed often in Smith’s presence:

    “Prest. W. Woodruff, Jos. F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Moses Thatcher, F. D. Richards, A. H. Cannon and I met in Council. The Tribune questions were answered by F. S. Richards and all approved by the brethren present. I took them to Mr. Lannan. (Jean Bickmore White, Church, State, and Politics, The Diaries of John Henry Smith, p.285, Thursday, January 26, 1893).

    [January 26, 1893:] [Salina] writing journals letters and answers to Tribune questions.

    [January 27, 1893:] [Manassa] I wrote to Pres[ident] Jos[eph] F. Smith and sent him list of answers to Tribune questions as bro[ther] Roberts prepared them and we approved.

    [January 19, 1895:] Showed to Bro[ther]s Jos[eph] F. Smith and John Henry Smith an editorial in the Millard County Blade taking bro[ther] John Henry to task for calling Herald man a liar through the Tribune.

    [March 13, 1889] In council at Gardo with Pres[iden]t WW FDR Geo[rge] QC, JFS, MT, JHS, HJG, JW Taylor & considered the impropriety of Bro JW Taylor denouncing statement of Delegate JT Caine that Polygamy in Utah was politically a dead issue as a damned lie &c as reported in Nephi Ensign and copied into Tribune. (Diary of Franklin D. Richards)

    “Called at the office of the First Presidency to arrange an interview with Pres[iden]t Lorenzo Snow and Senator Jos[eph] L. Rawlings, but failed on account of Pres[iden]t Snow not being in. [Later at quorum meeting] Asked God to direct us politically and preserve the saints from being lead away from a right course by wicked men. Asked God to confound those who are running the Tribune. . . . Mattias F. Cowley . . . Felt the spirit of God should lead in all matters, business, political and religious. There are men among us who would go in direct opposition to what the wishes of the Presidency were politically if they should learn their wishes, and yet these men claim to be in fellowship in the Church. I feel that such men are sure to lose the faith unless they repent and change their course of action. [A mean Tribune editorial today] Marriner W. Merrill Expressed himself freely on political matters and said that while it might not be a wise thing to publicly say it yet, in his opinion it was the right of the Presidency of the Church to express their opinions on all matters, political as well as religious and what he wanted to know is what the Presidency desire and then he wanted to do it, and was only too willing to lay aside his own feelings if they were not in harmony with the feelings of the apostles. Was sorry that there were some who profess to have faith and yet will go in direct opposition to the mind and will of the Presidency. Heber J. Grant Told of how Bro[ther] Taylor had been impressed to sign a Bond for the Bullion Beck and Champion mine for $100,000 when all of the apostles were opposed and how it has turned out to be the right thing. At 5 PM(board m[ee]t[in]g State Bank) After supper I called on Pres[iden]t Lorenzo Snow and he said he would be pleased to meet Senator Rawlings. We had a confidential chat regarding the condition of Zion’s Savings Bank and Trust Co. I hope and pray in case he should take the Presidency of that Bank that he will stop dividends and cut down the expenses. This evening attended in company with Anthony W. Ivins the Democratic ratification meeting in the Theater. . . . I heard more of OW Powers’ talk than any other speaker. (Diary of Heber J. Grant, October 4, 1898).

    “[Irate at Tribune letter] I would give considerable time and energy if I had the power to show the Tribune up to the people in their true colors. Anthony Ivins [Juárez Stake President and later “apostle”] and I chatted until 11:15 Speaking of plural marriage he said there were quite a number of them being performed in Mexico, said he was on hand and willing to take another wife if his brethren felt that it was the wisest thing to do under all the circumstances. He had no desire for another wife, but at the same time had a strong desire to fail in doing any duty devolving upon him and he wanted me and my fellow apostles to know that he was on hand to perform any and every duty required of him. Had all his life accepted in his heart of plural marriage and was making an effort to get another wife when the Manifesto came along. I was glad to have him say this much.” (ibid, October 7, 1898)

    They were angry at the Tribune for reporting the continuance of plural marriages, which the Church was publicaly denying, but that Grant just admitted in his diary!

    “…Speaking of the Salt Lake Tribune, which is vilifying the our [sic] people, he [Heber J. Grant] thought [it] a disgrace for the saints to patronize it. The question of the attitude of the Deseret News toward the [p.57] Tribune was discussed. It was the feeling of the brethren that Editor Penrose was a little too pugnacious—and that the better policy would be to treat that paper with silent contempt. Pres. Snow intimated that he would have a talk with Bro. Penrose respecting the matter. Benediction by Pres. Jos. F. Smith. “ (Stan Larson, A Ministry of Meetings, The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, p. 56-7, entry of May 4, 1899).

    Treating the Salt Lake Tribune “with silent contempt” by way of the Deseret News, did not stop them from reading and discussing it:

    “…12:30 noon. Meeting at the President’s office. Present: the First Presidency, [Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith], Apostles B. Young, [Jr.] J. H. Smith, A. H. Lund, A. O. Woodruff, R. Clawson, Reed Smoot, Bp. W. B. Preston, J. R. Winder, Attorneys LeGrande Young and F. S. Richards, C. W. Penrose, and Bp. H. B. Clawson, and G. F. Gibbs, clerk.

    Pres. Snow stated that a very serious charge had been made by The Salt Lake Tribune against the Presidency of the church to the effect that they had sold out or bargained away for a money consideration the United States senatorship to Thos. Kearns. The purpose of the meeting, therefore, was to consider the wisdom and propriety of starting a suit for libel against the publishers of that paper. By request of Pres. Snow, Elder C. W. Penrose read a number of excerpts from different issues of the Tribune covering the change.” (Stan Larson, Diaries of Rudger Clawson, p.243, Tuesday, 29 January 1901).

    “Salt Lake City. Cloudy; heavy rain during night. 10:15 a.m. Meeting at the temple. Present: Presidents Jos. F. Smith, Jno. R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, and Elders Jno. H. Smith, Geo. Teasdale, Marriner W. Merrill, Rudger Clawson, Hyrum M. Smith, Jno. Smith, pat., and the clerk.

    Some informal talk was indulged in regarding Brother Reed Smoot at Washington, and the information was brought out by the reading of an excerpt from the Tribune that Dr. [Samuel E.] Wishard was in Washington to enter formal protest against the seating of Brother Smoot. Pres. Smith remarked that the activity of Satan and his hosts against us in the present case was only a further testimony to him of the divinity of Mormonism. In view of the fact that the question of seating Brother Smoot would probably be under consideration while we were in session, he suggested that special prayers be offered up in his behalf.” (Stan Larson, Diaries of Rudger Clawson, p.552, Thursday, 5 March 1903).

    This was a year before Smith testified at the Smoot hearings that “we pay no attention to them, even if they do tell the truth.” The charge by the Tribune about the Senate election involving Thomas J. Kearns was also true. As Frank J. Cannon writes,

    “Apostle Heber J. Grant, a Republican by sentiment but a Democrat by pretension, was selected by President Snow to barter the Senatorship to McCune. There can be no doubt of it. Everyone immediately suspected it. Letters from Grant, published in the newspapers of January, 1899, subsequently confirmed it. And President Snow’s actions, toward the end of the campaign, proved it.” (Under the Prophet in Utah, pages 221-222).

    Heber J. Grants diary confirms his and the church’s involvement in the campaign:

    [August 13, 1898] Hon. AW McCune is thinking of running for the United States Senate and he asked me today if I would help him. I told him I had no objections to doing what little I could to aid him in securing the place, although I assured him that I could not on account of the ecclesiastical position which I occupied, devote any time to laboring for his cause. [Talked of Utah loan & trust; he gave check for $5000.] I chatted today with Pres[iden]t Joseph F. Smith and Elder John Henry Smith and asked them if they had any objections whatever to my doing a little work in a quiet way in the interests of friend McCune securing the office of United States Senator. They both assured me that they had no objections whatever and did not know of any Democrat that they would sooner see go to the U.S. Senate than Mr McCune. Pres[iden]t Smith suggested that I call and chat the matter over with Pres[iden]t Woodruff and get his opinion in the premises. I went to Pres[iden]t Woodruff’s house to chat with him, but his carriage had just left for the Rio Grande Depot. He and his wife, Pres[iden]t Cannon and wife and others leave on the noon train today for California.

    [October 7, 1898] FD Richards . . . In his opinion wars are necessary for the establishing of Gods work in the land (referred to American Revolution, Civil War opened South to missionary work, Franco-Prussion had Germany) . . . [Met with RR Lyman, Heber Iverson, Sec[retar]y Higgs of the Co. officers Ymmi(?) of Salt Lake.] We chatted on the League matters and it was suggested that I try and get Hon. AW McCune to pay off the League debt of $1,800 and the brethren said if he would do so they would do all in their power to try and make him a United States Senator. I hope Mr. McCune will conclude to do it .

    [November 9, 1898] The Herald announces that the Democratic Party had won the elections. Pres[iden]t L. Snow’s Democratic Headquarters, Cha[rle]s W. Penrose’s & St. Car. Co’s. At the last place chatted with Hon. AW McCune and explained that tomorrow three notes of $500 each signed by Richard W. Young, Cha[rle]s W. Penrose and Benj. Hampton and endorsed by me, I told him I was not able to pay these notes and he gave me $1500 and told me to loan it to the above parties and if I ever collected it then to repay same to him and if I lost it then I need never repay it. I feel very thankful indeed for this assistance as I don’t know how I could have maintained my credit had it not been for the assistance from Bro[ther] McCune. I chatted with him on the political situation and assured him of my best efforts in trying to make him the US Senator. Called and chatted with Pres[iden]t Jos[eph] F. Smith and was much pleased to learn that he would prefer to see AW McCune the next Senator in preference to Frank J. Cannon. I chatted with Bro[ther] John R. Winder and he promised me to do all he could to aid me in getting AW McCune elected as US Senator. At the Theatre wrote Jos[eph] Howell and John R. Murdock asking them not to pledge their vote for US Senator.

    [December 29, 1898] After the meeting had a chat with Apostle Francis M. Lyman on the political situation, He objected to my writing letters in favor of Mr. McCune as Senator and referring to anything said to me by Pres[iden]t Snow or Woodruff. I agreed with him & said in the future I would not do so. I regret having ever mentioned the names of the Presidency in any of my letters. Bro[ther] Lyman does not seem to think Mr McCune is worthy to go to the U.S. Senate. I can not blame him for wanting to have his son-in-law Bro[ther] W[ilia]m King made Senator.

    [January 19, 1899] Chatted with Pasper Robertson of Emery Co. in Mr. McCune’s interest. Met McCune and had a talk with him in regard to his employing Edward H. Snow as his private sec[re]t[ar]y if he is made US Senator.

    This is just one example of some of Smith’s lying to Congress. When the actual facts concerning what went on in the Church are revealed, it paints a wholly different picture than what the Church does. That is why Smith ordered the “brethren” to no longer write down any of the doings in their councils. That is also why D. Michael Quinn’s two books on The Mormon Hierarchy are so important to read to gain a total understanding of how much they have lied over the years.

  6. Rick B says:

    Jesus said that the Devil was a liar from the beginning and said to some religious leaders, You of your father the devil and you speak his language. Seems like the Mormon church is following in there fathers foot steps. Fits like a glove.

  7. spartacus says:

    It would appear that Talmage was not aware, or maybe he was able to excuse, that JS lied to nonmembers and members about polygamy all his life even unto allowing a section of the DnC to state that monogamy was the truth of God and the policy of the LDS church. Oh and that section was notnremoved until decades after JS’s death and even after the church was openly teaching it in Utah.

    Apostasy. It’s what happens when lies are made scripture.

  8. Mike R says:

    Mormon leaders have gotten quite creative in trying to convince people that a universal
    apostasy from the doctrine taught by Jesus and His apostles happened soon after all His
    apostles were gone . This alleged apostasy , departure , from the true gospel of Jesus and His
    church caused spiritual darkness to cover the earth and 1700 years later God restored this very
    same gospel of salvation taught by Jesus’ apostles through Mormon prophet Joseph Smith .
    To add further to this ridiculous theory is that it’s also taught by Mormon authorities
    that because of this apostasy , ” Christianity sickened and died ” , that those members
    of Jesus’ church body that were around after the original apostles all were killed or
    had died off , those members were all hunted down and ” exterminated ” by evil men who had
    succumbed to the apostasy . Thus the only “church ” that was left was an apostate one etc.
    This type of rhetoric is what has come from the pen of Mormon authorities to prove their
    erroneous doctrine of a complete/universal apostasy of the Christian religion .
    We should expect this type of reasoning from those who seek to introduce the need for people
    to accept them as God’s sole mouthpiece for these latter days . Jesus said to Beware of such
    men —-Matt. 24 :11 .

  9. Clyde6070 says:

    Wow, the guy in the 1700s came up with this disregard for truth as early as the 4th century certain pernicious doctrines embodying a disregard for truth gain currency in the church. The us, it was taught that it was an act of virtue deceive and lie, when by that means the interest of church might be promoted.
    It is interesting he drew this conclusion. The fourth century was an interesting time in church history, a time in which trinitarianism became dominant. Emperors kicked Arian bishops out of the towns, wouldn’t let them build churches, wouldn’t allow pagans to offer sacrifices, and when Christians destroy a jewish synagogue and did not pay the damages when the Emperor had ordered them to made for very interesting times. Who was in charge?

    could you explain your timeline I am trying to understand your superblog.

  10. falcon says:

    We’ve answered your basic question at length previously. I really don’t want to go all through the early history of the Church again with you. You need to get yourself a couple of good books by reputed Church historians and study them.
    Let me add, I don’t know what your point is but if it’s to do the Mormon conclusion, “therefore the (Mormon) church is true” routine, you’re not going to get that out of a study of the history of the Christian Church.

  11. grindael says:


    Joseph F. Smith committed multiple instances of Perjury. Mormon “apostles” and “prophets” engaged in bribery and used their influence to rig elections. They were terrified that individual journal/diary accounts would bring this out.

  12. falcon says:

    What do you think? Is grindael making all of this up? Is it “out of context”. Is it all very innocent and he’s drawing the wrong conclusions?
    Really, you need to begin to see this organization and its leaders, past and present, for what they are.
    Why do you think grindael along with Ironman and Kate walked away from the Mormon church specifically and Mormonism generally? The point is that there isn’t a testimony of the Mormon church that will hold up to the evidence that’s available that it’s all a sham. That is, of course, unless someone is totally delusional. I can understand why some Mormons would hang around for other reasons, but not because they believe it’s true.

  13. Clyde6070 says:

    Okay Falcon
    Is he making it all up? No Is it out of context? Yes because they are from personal journals and the background for the statements are not quit clear. The history is not clear either. Were senators directly elected or by the state house back then? If it could be written better –organized,collated,whatever- it would make a better story. Very good research but a better explaination of the back ground is needed. Is it innocent and is he drawing the wrong conclusion? I don’t know.but I don’t think so. Now grindael don’t feel sad because I like Thomas B. Costain’s series Last Of The Plantagenents and that was I believe faction ( fiction mixed with a lot of Fact.) Remember this someone else can draw different conclusion or see something different in the information you put out.
    I need to get a couple of good books by reputed church historians. I am sure that is going to be unbiased. They paint a glorious picture of Constantines’ triumph , the victory of Trinitarian thought over the other heresies, dominance of the church at Rome, and all of this being divinely inspiring. Well maybe your right Falcon I probably do.

  14. falcon says:

    Given your mind set, anything can be true, it’s just a matter of selecting the thing that has the most appeal.
    There are scholars who write factually about the history of the Christian Church and the formulation of the theology that explains what the Bible reveals. I’ve got a book here called “Early Christian Doctrines” by J.N.D. Kelly that gives a good historical account of these matters. Here’s what is said about the book.
    “This revised edition of the standard history of the first great period in Christian thought has been thoroughly updated in the light of the latest historical findings. Dr. Kelly organizes an ocean of material by outlining the development of each doctrine in its historical context. He lucidly summarizes the genesis of Christian thought from the close of the apostolic age to the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century-a time teeming with fresh and competing ideas. The doctrines of the Trinity, the authority of the Bible and tradition, the nature of Christ, salvation, original sin and grace, and the sacraments are all extensively treated in these pages.”
    Now I know this isn’t as good as some Mormon prophet saying that he got a revelation about this or that. A scholarly treatment actually takes some work, some thought and a systematic approach to presenting information.
    As long as you are locked into your current mind set, you will not be free to make logical deductions and come to meaningful conclusions. People get sucked into cults because, to a certain extent, they are lazy. They out source their thinking to a bunch of men who they suppose are getting direct revelation from God.
    You’ve been here long enough clyde and have had the testimony of former Mormons who actually did the work of ferreting out the information and facts and in doing so have come to new life in Jesus Christ. You need to follow their example.

  15. grindael says:

    Actually Clyde, I did do a better job, the story is here, on my blog. I simply forgot to put a link to my quotes.

  16. falcon says:

    Your problem is your trying to prove that Mormonism is the real deal by trying to prove Christianity isn’t. That’s a backwards way of thinking but that’s how cults work. The “prophet” proclaims that the established sect has lost its way but now he/she has the correct revelation and will set all things straight.
    You may as well jump on board any one of several sects that have emerged since the time of Joseph Smith forward. It’s all pretty much the same story. You just happened to latch on to Mormonism. BTW, the FLDS say that your particular sect of Mormonism has lost its way and you’re a bunch of apostates.
    Funny how that works!

Leave a Reply