SIR,-Your latest communication, though a long one, contains but few points that have not already been considered, and, to my mind, satisfactorily disposed of. It reminds me of a lawyer's special plea in the ingenuity with which it darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge. "I shall not attempt to reply to your paragraphs seriatim, but will simply take up those that seem to require, from the manner in which they are presented, a passing consideration.

You claim that Adam, Noah and Lehi were each the husband of but one wife. We grant that we cannot prove from the Scriptures that they had more than one each, but we can prove that men equally beloved and favored of God, and bearing most important commissions to mankind, did observe the law of plural marriage, and further, that the Lord never rebuked or found fault with them because of this practice. You mention the dispensation of Lehi as being monogamic; in contradistinction we refer to the parallel work commenced by the founders of the Jaredite nation, who were polygamists. God made the polygamist Abraham the father of his peculiar chosen people, and gave him a promise that in him and his seed should all the families of the earth be blessed. He called the polygamist Moses to be its great leader and law-giver, when He made Israel a nation; He conversed with both these men face to face, and never a word is to be found of condemnation from His divine lips because they had more than one wife. In fact, in the law of Moses, He sanctioned polygamy by express regulations. Think of it, ye who oppose polygamy, of God regulating sin by law! What an outrage! What an absurdity! In one of His laws He says:

"If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."

God would not make a distinction with regard to polygamists; it is reserved for you to have the questionable honor of doing this thing.

I might go on piling up example to example of holy men of God, His chosen servants who practiced this law, but it is unnecessary, as you must be acquainted with these instances as well as I am; but I venture the assertion that I can produce a dozen instances where it can be directly proven that the Lord's favored servants had more than one wife, to every one whom you can positively demonstrate to have been a monogamist. Polygamy was the rule, not the exception, in ancient Israel.

In your reference to Lamech, you so word your sentence as to convey the idea that he was a murderer because he was a polygamist. If this was not the intent, why mention him at all? Or why mix up his blood-guiltiness and his polygamy? But you know better. The translation of the holy scriptures, published by yourselves, (you individually being one of the publishing committee) gives the true reason ; and you are well aware it had nothing to do with polygamy. And now I ask, what about Cain, the first murderer? Why not ascribe the bloody death of Abel to plural marriage? It would be quite as consistent as some of your other reasoning. Just as well make polygamy responsible for the death of Abel as for that of Lamech's victim. Or would it not be as good reasoning to ascribe it to monogamy? I think so. Indeed one American writer-and he not a " Mormon"-argues that such was the case, that monogamy was directly answerable for Cain's blood-thirstiness and crime.

You strongly urge that God would be a changeable Being if the law of celestial marriage emanated from Him. I cannot admit it. Your reasoning is imperfect. God has given such laws to His people for their guidance as were best adapted to their circumstances. He has fed them with milk or strong food as they were able to receive it. The Savior in His "sermon on the mount," contrasts the law of the old and new dispensations. But had God changed because of the difference in the spirit of these instructions? Jesus, amongst other things on that occasion, said:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou * * shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

Do these teachings show any duplicity in the great Creator? You would scarcely assert such a thing, yet such would be the result of the position taken by you ; neither do His instructions to different people, at different times, under different circumstances, regarding the law of marriage, make any change in Him. The eternal principle is not changed; simply more or less is revealed as the people are prepared for it. Let me also cite to you the word of the Lord to Eli, High Priest of Israel:

"Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed, Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm , and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house."

There is a striking parallel between this word of the Lord to the house of Eli, and that regarding plurality of wives, which came to the people of Lehi. Both were given because of the abuse of God's law. But in the latter case there is the remarkable proviso:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Do you, Mr. Smith, mean to tell the world that God would use polygamy as a means to raise up a seed unto Him if it were the abomination that you represent? Yet this passage can mean nothing else than that for good and sufficient reasons, for the time being monogamy was to be the law unto the Nephites, but when God's people were sufficiently advanced in the laws of life and the principles of Heaven, then the other command would be given for the express purpose of raising up a holy seed unto Him. Until that higher law was given, the Nephites were to observe the monogamic law. If this is not so, what is the value of the expression, " otherwise they shall hearken unto these things?" Furthermore, I am of the opinion that I can draw stronger indirect proof from the Book of Mormon that the law of plural marriage was revealed to and practiced by the Nephites in later years than you can to the contrary.

You claim I have done the very thing foreshadowed by Jacob, when I refer to what is written in the Scriptures concerning David. You mistake. The Latter-day Saints do not ground their faith in the divinity of the law of celestial marriage on anything said to or done by David. We base it on the word of the Lord to your martyred father. But if we wished to appeal to God's holy word regarding those men, we should be doing nothing inconsistent or unlawful, or be in anywise acting as did the Nephites of Jacob's day. They sought "to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon his son." We have no excuses to make for whoredoms. We well know that "the Lord God delighteth in the chastity of women," and no people in the world prize this virtue so highly as we do, or are so severe upon the adulterer and whoremonger. Nor can we find in the Scriptures handed down to us any excuses for this grievous sin. Therefore the remarks of Jacob cannot have reference to any people who act as we do. We simply appeal to God's word for support for obeying God's law.

It appears to me that your expression " fortunes of war," on which your argument hinges regarding the wives of Saul that were given to David, is a very inapt and unfortunate one. David did not succeed Saul as king of Israel by war or by conquest, but by the holy anointing put upon him by Samuel, the Prophet of God. He was no alien conqueror who drove the Israelitish ruler from his throne, but a youth of one of Israel's foremost tribes, who succeeded to the kingly state by divine right, and he then accepted nothing but what God bestowed upon him-kingdom, power, wives, people were all given him of Heaven. God says He gave David these wives; you argue to the contrary. It is you and the Lord for it; I prefer to believe Him whose "word is truth." And again, let me ask, what means the Lord's statement to David, after telling him that He had given him his master's house, wives, etc.? "If that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." According to your construction it would be necessary to have raised up another king unto Israel, and then have David conquer him and take his wives, or have permitted him by the " fortunes of war" to rob the monarchs of other lands of their families. Such a construction is preposterous, but the only escape, I perceive, out of the difficulty created by your unwillingness to accept the word of God as it is written. Let me also ask you what you are going to do about the "Lord's portion" of the captive women which were given by His command to certain persons mentioned in the thirty-first chapter of Numbers? If polygamy be an abomination, this is a very strange proceeding on His part. Further, you contend that David did not receive his wives by the same methods as the Elders of Israel do to- day. This is another of your mistakes. David received his wives through Nathan and other servants of God appointed unto this power; the Elders of Latter-day Israel have received theirs through Joseph your father, and his successors in this ministry. There is not a shadow of difference between the two examples. David received his wives as we receive ours, or as Joash, the righteous young king of Israel received his from the hands of Jehoiada, God's High Priest. That is the way; if you are wise, walk ye in it. And remember when you speak of plural marriage as a crime, a sin against God, an abomination, and much else that is evil, you become a perverter of the Scriptures and are reviling that which, when observed according to God's law, has always had His approval; and never from Genesis to Revelation, from Nephi to Moroni, is there a word of condemnation of its practice, only of its abuse, when it was degraded and prostituted, as monogamy also frequently is, to gratify the passions of men, not to raise seed to the Lord. Are we to receive Jehovah's word, or yours? Are we to believe His plain and direct statement that He gave David the wives of Saul? Or are we to give credence to your feeble sophistries regarding the fortunes of a war that never took place? Saul was fighting the Philistines, not David, when he was killed. If any one was entitled to his wives, according to the practice which you assert prevailed, it was the king of that people, not the man whom God had anointed as Saul's successor.

The law of celestial marriage is not for the world, but for God's people. All others are governed by the usages of the civilization in which they dwell, be it monogamic or polygamic. But polygamy without Jehovah's sanction is not celestial marriage. The world is constantly confounding the two systems. The essence and virtue of celestial marriage is that it extends beyond the veil into the eternal worlds; other marriage, single or plural, is of no force or binding power in the great hereafter; it is not recognized there because not performed by Heaven's authority. Herein is the difference, and all polygamy (such as that denied by your father,) illicit intercourse, unlawful connections or associations, are as repugnant to the Gospel now, and worthy of our condemnation to- day, as when stigmatized by Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and denied by President John Taylor. Let me also remind you that the article on marriage that formerly appeared in the appendix to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and which you misuse so largely in your argument, is not a revelation from God; it does not come with "thus saith the Lord," and has none of its binding force; at any rate, I presume you will not argue that the Lord was bound by it; neither was His Church (even if your construction be correct, ) after a revelation had been given which modified its declarations. If there be a hidden meaning in it, then it is simply on a par with the policy which caused Abraham to say of Sarah, on certain perilous occasions, " She is my sister."

You take strong ground with regard to submitting the revelations of God to the various Quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance. There were many revelations given to your father of which you know nothing. Nor were they ever submitted to any but those whom they concerned. They were no less the word and will of the Lord for all that. But in the case of the revelation on celestial marriage, it was submitted by your father to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and was accepted by the members of that Quorum. Of that we have abundant testimony. It was also submitted to the High Council at Nauvoo and accepted by that body, though three of its members individually rejected it. On this point we have the testimony and affidavits of members of the Council who were present on the occasion, one of whom, Elder Thomas Grover, still lives in Utah, and he can be cross- examined if you wish to do so. The names of the members of the High Council of Nauvoo, who were present on that occasion, who make this affidavit, are David Fullmer, Thomas Grover, Aaron Johnson and James Allred, all men well known in Israel.

. . .

I think it would be rather a hard task for you, or any other man, to disprove by cross-examination the fact that certain women were the wives of your father, as they have testified under oath. Surely they know, beyond peradventure, that the sealing ceremony was performed in their cases, and that they lived with him as his wives. You might as well try to argue a woman out of her existence or identity as that she makes a mistake in matters of such vital importance to her as these. No sir; the chain of evidence is complete, and no cross-examination will change the main facts ; they were and are known to hundreds; and to tell us that they were not, is as wise in our eyes as if you were to tell us we dwelt on Mercury or Mars, or were not men, but birds or fishes. All your arguments are as lost as that of the blind man who endeavored to persuade his neighbors, blessed with good eyesight, that the sun did not shine. They knew better, and so do we.

Your argument regarding the expression "they twain" seems to me without weight. It can be as truly said of a man and his second or third wife that "they twain shall be one flesh," as of a husband and his first consort. And to me the words of 1 Cor. vi, 16 : "Know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh," proves that it has no relation to the subject of monogamic marriage. And now let me tell you, Mr. Smith, that God made man polygamic. The history of this world in all its generations proves it. To-day three-quarters of the human family accept it as the natural law of marriage; the other quarter pretend not to believe in it; but it is only a pretence. Their actions prove to the contrary. They have adopted in place of honorable polygamy, a vile, a damnable and a God-accursed substitute which is corrupting the life-streams and eating out the vitals of the self-styled monogamic communities. No amount of sophistry can palliate their hypocrisy; their sins have reached up to heaven, and swift judgment will follow their disregard of nature's methods, which are the methods of man's great Creator.

You denounce celestial marriage as a crime against mankind and a sin against God. We assert that God never has so denounced it, but has approved it, sanctioned it, encouraged it, legalized it, and made special laws for its direction; that the polygamist child was always recognized as legitimate, and, under the law of God, entitled to the blessings of His holy house, while the bastard could not enter therein until the tenth generation; and further, that many children born in polygamy were the special subjects of God's care, or of His most abundant or special blessings. We need only refer to Joseph, Samuel, Solomon, and even Ishmael, as cases in point. The prophets, the Savior Himself, His apostles and disciples, all ministered to a polygamic people; and while they denounced without stint the sexual crimes of those people, they never uttered a sentence in reproof of their marriage institutions. And how do you account for it, if polygamy was so sinful in the sight of Heaven as you assert, that the Almighty Father in selecting a lineage for His Son, chose one that was so well known to be polygamic.

I shall not now take up the question of the authority of Brigham Young as the successor of Joseph Smith; God has testified by His Holy Spirit to scores of thousands that he was the man, and this testimony and revelation are sufficient for us.

You have signally failed in all the leading points that you have attempted to combat. In the first place you have failed on the subject of polygamy; the fact still stands in unmistakable plainness that God did ordain it, that His Prophets did give men wives, that He regulated it by His laws, and approved and blessed those who practiced it.

. . .

Now, sir, the position taken in my open letter that Joseph Smith, your father, was a polygamist in belief and practice, I have sustained most amply by the introduction of testimony which you are unable to controvert. You have made unsupported allegations regarding your father's wives which are met with affidavits, years ago published to the world, and numerous others exist which can be furnished if deemed desirable. But if you still ask for more proof, you can have it. If all this fails to convince you, I shall regard your obstinacy as not being a characteristic of a Latter- day Saint who is truly honest at heart. And as you are a son of that great man whom God has placed at the head of this dispensation, I regret much the spiritual barrenness of your mind, and desire that the Lord may enlighten you upon this matter. With this earnest solicitude for your enlightenment, the following passage in your second letter creates some unpleasant forebodings, for I infer from its wording that no matter how much proof may be laid before you, you will still be obstinate and refuse to yield the position you have assumed. You say:

"It is unnecessary to attempt to prove that Joseph Smith secretly taught and practiced celestial, or plural marriage, or polygamy. For when that is proved the issue remains unchanged. All that could be effected by it, so far as I am concerned, would be to lessen my respect for him as a man, and give me one more heart pang to bear through life."

As you style yourself a Latter- day Saint, and stand as a leader to your people, this seems to be unwarrantable ground for you to occupy. All who read these words, who desire to have respect for your love of truth, must be dismayed at their import. Though it be proved your father was a polygamist, still " the issue remains unchanged," and all that it could effect, so far as you are concerned, would be to lessen your respect for him as a man, and give you one more heart pang! Then, Joseph Smith, of Lamoni, these heart pangs will assuredly be felt, and your respect for your illustrious father will be lessened. For if you are not convinced by what evidence is now presented, the day will assuredly come when you will be convinced. This passage I regret to see incorporated in your letter, because it indicates in you a settled purpose not to be a true and faithful follower of your father. No truly honest-hearted Latter-day Saint would go so far as that. Does not personal pride, the love of position and a willingness to affiliate with the powers that be in political ranks, to win their applause, entice you to assume this unenviable attitude? I earnestly hope you will reconsider this clause in your letter, and form more just and becoming resolutions.

I do not court this controversy for the sake of the mastery in discussion. I have a sincere desire that you may know, as I do, that your honored father was a polygamist. Utah is filled with witnesses upon this point, and it will be a fruitless labor for you, however much it may wound your pride, to establish your assertions that he was not a polygamist.

With sentiments of personal respect, allow me to subscribe myself,

Yours truly,

L. O. LITTLEFIELD.