This article appeared in 1904, during the height of national scrutiny surrounding the LDS Church and the U.S. Senate investigation into whether Apostle Reed Smoot should be seated as a senator. At the center of that inquiry were questions the public had debated for decades but rarely heard addressed in sworn testimony.
What actually happened inside the Endowment House?
What oaths were required?
Do the oaths conflict with civic loyalty, democratic norms, and basic transparency?
The reporting below relies on testimony given under oath to the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections and presents the claims exactly as they were reported to a national audience. This was not written as theology or internal instruction. It was written as political journalism, aimed at informing a non-Mormon public that largely had no access to temple ceremonies and relied on secondhand descriptions.
Mormon Endowment House oaths have always been spoken of as obligations of a dreadful character, but never until yesterday has it been possible for the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections to hear directly from a sworn witness just what the oaths are and what penalties are attached for revealing them.
They were repeated to the Senators sitting in the Smoot inquiry by J. M. Wallin, of Salt Lake City, a witness subpoenaed by the committee on request of Attorney R. W. Taylor, of counsel for the protestants.
Every Mormon who goes through the Endowment House must first put on what is popularly known as a “union suit,” is a one-piece garment covering the body from head to foot. From that moment to the end of life, a good Mormon never wholly removes such a garment from his person, according to the declaration of those who have been investigating the Mormon practices.
He may take off part of it at one time and part at another, but never draws a breath but that some part of his body is incased in the garment (or a duplicate) worn when he went through the endowment house.
The verbatim oaths concerning which Witness Wallin testified are given herewith. In repeating the fifth obligation, the oath of vengeance, however, the witness stated it as applying to “the nations of the world,” instead of only to “this nation,” the latter being the form in which the protestants claim it is in reality administered.
Today, however, Witness Wallis corrected his testimony of yesterday, and repeated the “law of vengeance,” making it applicable to “this nation” only, as the protestants say it is.
Obligations of secrecy taken by every Mormon elder in the Endowment House before going on any mission, and on being raised to the priesthood:
-
We, and each of us, do solemnly covenant and promise that we will never reveal any of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, word, sign, token or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats may be cut and our tongues torn out by the roots.
We, and each of us, do solemnly covenant and promise that we will never reveal any of this, the second Aaronic priesthood, word, sign, token, or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our left breasts may be torn open and our heart and vitals taken therefrom.
We, and each of us, do solemnly covenant and agree that we will never reveal any of this, the first Melchizedek priesthood, word, sign, token, or penalty. Should we do so we agree that our bellies may be cut asunder and our bowels gush out.
Law of sacrifice- We, and each of us, do solemnly covenant and agree that we will sacrifice our time, talents, and property to the upbuilding of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints.
The law of vengeance- We, and each of us, do solemnly covenant and agree that we will pray, and never cease to pray, Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that we will teach the same unto our children and our children’s children, until the third and fourth generation.
Another article from the same newspaper...
A recital by a sobbing woman of how her husband had gone away from their home to take another woman as a plural wife, and how he had returned home and died within a month afterward—his end hastened, in the witness’ opinion, by remorse—was the principal feature of the Smoot inquiry today, before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The witness was Mrs. Fred Ellis, of Salt Lake City, who was a daughter of Angus Cannon, and married Apostle Abraham H. Cannon as his plural wife. Apostle Cannon had first married Emily Jenkins, then Wilhelmina Cannon (now Mrs. Ellis); then Mary Croxall, and finally Lillian Hamlin.
This last marriage was the one which was brought forward prominently last spring when President Joseph F. Smith was on the witness stand. He denied having performed the ceremony “at any place on earth,” although he admitted, as contended by the protestants, that he had accompanied Apostle Cannon and Lillian Hamlin in an open boat on the Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles and Catalina Island in the early summer of 1898. The protestants claimed that Smith’s denial was an evasion framed to omit reference to a marriage “on the high seas.”
Today Mrs. Ellis described how her husband had announced his intention of going to California to marry Lillian Hamlin, and that she had packed his luggage for him. The marriage took place, she believed, between June 12 and July 2, and said that her husband on his return had confessed to her that he had been married.
He became ill two weeks later, witness said, and complained of pains in his head and chest, became worse and finally died within one month of the ceremony, the date being July 19, 1896.
At this point Mrs. Ellis broke down and between the answers sobbed continually. Attorney Taylor proceeded with his questions slowly and gently and the witness gave her responses in low tones. She told of Apostle Cannon’s funeral from the house. Services followed at the tabernacle in the presence of an enormous crowd.
Her husband’s death, witness thought, was due to mental anguish in consequence of his fourth marriage.
“He did not have a well day after returning from that trip,” she said. “He told me of the marriage and asked my forgiveness. He was a conscientious man, and I think he believed he had broken the law.”
“Do you mean the statutes or the manifesto?” inquired Van Cott, of Smoot’s counsel.
“The statutes and the manifesto both,” was the reply.
On further cross-examination, witness said she had objected to Cannon marrying Lillian Hamlin, because she thought such things could not be after the manifesto. She had also gone to President Smith, to ask him if such things could be, but withholding the names of the persons concerned. Smith was not then president of the Mormon Church, but said a marriage of that sort could not take place. She repeated what she had previously testified to concerning Cannon “not having had a well day afterward.”
Comments
Post a Comment