-- Nov 30, 1896; Monday
This morning Presidents [Wilford] Woodruff and [Joseph F.] Smith met at their office with Elders L[orenzo]. Snow, F[ranklin]. D. Richards, B[righam]. Young [Jr.] and C[harles]. W. Penrose, when a communication from President Snow which he had prepared with the assistance of Brother Penrose for publication, was read and passed upon, to be published in the Deseret News of the evening, as follows:
The following correspondence needs neither explanation nor comment, save the suggestion that President Snow's letter is deserving of, and doubtless will receive, the most careful consideration of all Latter-day Saints.
Salt Lake City,
Nov[ember]. 27, 1896.
Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Twelve Apostles:
Dear Brother -- As there has been much discussion over the correspondence between Moses Thatcher and yourself and some of our own people are at sea in regard to the primary cause of Brother Thatcher's lack of harmony with your quorum, leading to his excommunication therefrom, in behalf of a number of such persons we pen you this communication.
We are aware that the difficulty mainly rested with the Twelve and one of its members; also that when action was taken in the case there was no need of your making further explanations. We can appreciate your abstinence from controversy, on a purely Church matter, through the public prints. But seeing that there appears to be a misapprehension of the facts in the case, and that many good people are liable, in consequence of that, to form incorrect conclusions, we respectfully ask you, if it be not inconsistent with any rule of the Church or of the Council
over which you preside, to make some public statement which will serve to place this matter in its true light before the Saints, and clear away the mists which, to some at least, seem to surround the subject of Moses Thatcher's deposition. As he has given to the world the private correspondence that passed between you and him in a Church capacity, is it fair, even to yourself and your associates, to leave the matter in its present condition and open to so much misconstruction? If you would make an explanatory statement through the Deseret News, we believe it would be highly esteemed by many others, as well as
Your brethren in the Gospel,
Nephi L. Morris,
Arnold G. Giauque,
Arthur F. Barnes,
R[odney]. C. Badger,
T[homas]. A. Clawson.
-----
Salt Lake City,
November 30, 1896
Nephi L. Morris, Arnold G. Giauque, Arthur F. Barnes, R. C. Badger and T[homas]. A. Clawson:
Dear Brethren: -- In response to your esteemed communication of the 27th inst., I have determined, after conference with several of the Apostles, to offer some explanations on the case of Moses Thatcher and comments on the correspondence to which you refer, through the columns of the Deseret News.
The Apostles did not view the publication of the letters that passed to and from Brother Moses Thatcher and them as calling for any controversy on their part. Nor did they think it a proper thing to give those ecclesiastical communications general publicity through secular newspapers. The letters bearing my signature were not prepared with a design for publication, whatever the others might have been--and were regarded as Church matters for the consideration solely of the respective parties. It is only because those letters have been given to the public, and because it seems, from what you see, that an improper impression has been made upon the minds of some people thereby, that I comply with the request to meet some of the statements they contain.
The evident purpose in publishing those communications was to excite public sympathy; and the unnecessary and superfluous appeals they contain convey the impression that they were concocted for that purpose. They were not relevant to the issue involved. Moses Thatcher was not on trial for his fellowship. Specific charges were not preferred either in public or in private. The question was solely as to his standing as one of the Apostles, in consequence of his lack of harmony with the Quorum of the Twelve of which he was a member. That question he could have settled at any time if he had so desired, and that without a formal trial. By placing himself in harmony with his Quorum, in the spirit of humility and conformity with its rules, of which he was not in ignorance, he could have saved himself all the trouble and
deprivation of which he complains.
In his review of what he calls his case, he lays great stress on the matter of the Declaration of Principles, which he refused to sign after it had received the endorsement of the First Presidency, the Apostles (excepting himself), the Seven Presidents of the Seventies, the Patriarch, and the Presiding Bishopric, comprising the general authorities of the Church. His excuse is that he had only about an hour and thirty minutes in which to consider it. Usually men do not require much time to consider a matter which they have always held to be right. There was nothing new in that document as it relates to Church discipline. It contains that which has always been an established doctrine of the Church. When the committee which prepared it submitted it to the other Church authorities, they signed it after reading without hesitation and without requiring time to deliberate. It embodies so manifestly a conceded and necessary rule that every one in harmony with the Church authorities accepted it at once, and the Church as a body has received and adopted it as an essential rule. Why should Moses Thatcher alone, of all the Church authorities, feel that he could not sign it as he alleges, "without stultification?" Was not that in itself evidence that he was and had been out of harmony with his brethren? And are they not men as little disposed as any one living to stultify themselves, or to assent to anything wrong that is of vital importance to them and to the Church?
He charges that his letter refusing to sign the Declaration was "suppressed." There was no suppression in the matter at all. The letter was not addressed to the Conference nor to the public. Out of mercy and compassion to him no reference was made to his contumacy at the April Conference, but his name was simply dropped from the list of authorities presented. How could he have been sustained under the circumstances? There are six of the Twelve now living who voted for his appointment to the Apostleship. Not one of them would have sustained him for that position if it had been known that he then entertained views entirely out of harmony with those of that body. The letter addressed at that time to his associates was a deliberately composed communication showing that he was able to understand the document which he refused to sign, and his prompt publication of that letter, in a secular newspaper, shows that he had a deliberate intention to oppose the Declaration and defy his brethren who promulg[at]ed it. But if he did not have sufficient time to consider the Declaration at the April Conference, what about the six months which elapsed before the October Conference? Was not that time enough? During that interval he was visited by many of his brethren, some of them Apostles, and no change was effected, but he failed even to attend the October Conference or to manifest a disposition to conform to the principle of the Declaration.
It is true that he was in poor bodily health during that period. But he was not too ill to upbraid brethren who tried to impress him with the danger of his position, nor to accuse
some of them of having "blanketed their conscience" in signing the Declaration.
He states in his letters that he would have attended the October Conference if it had not been for the "assurances and reassurances" he had received that nothing would be done concerning his standing until his health should be restored. He then complains bitterly of the explanation given to the Conference as to his position and seeks to convey the impression that they were a breach of good faith.
The "assurances" to which he refers were faithfully fulfilled. He was left in statu quo. Every time it was shown that the condition of his health would not admit of his meeting with his quorum the question of his standing was postponed. But meanwhile he and his friends were not slow to talk about his associates and to convey unwarranted impressions concerning their course in his case. So much misunderstanding was thereby created that it became absolutely necessary to make some explanations that the Latter-day Saints might not be deceived. President Woodruff was so strongly impressed with this that he addressed the Conference on the subject and his statements were endorsed by several of the Twelve who followed him.
This was no "trial" of Moses Thatcher. It was simply a necessary explanation of his status. It involved the question of his lack of harmony with the Church authorities. His claims that he was publicly accused and therefore should have a public trial is astonishingly absurd. He was not accused in the sense of a trial or investigation. The act of his lack of harmony with the authorities was explained and shown to be of much earlier date than his refusal to sign the Declaration and his engaging in active politics. To place himself in harmony with the Twelve, or refuse to do so, required no "trial" either public or private. He did neither. Yet the assurances given him which he misconstrues were observed and his ?case? was not called up until he was able to appear.
It was but a few days after the Conference, even if it had entirely closed, before he appeared and spoke at public meetings as though he still held the authority in which he had not been sustained at Conference. This necessitated the announcement from the First Presidency through the Deseret News that he had no right to officiate in the Priesthood while in his suspended condition.
Notwithstanding that announcement, when he chose to present himself to the authorities he presumed to attempt entrance to the temple for that purpose, and at a time when the First Presidency as well as the Twelve met for the consideration of other Church matters and for holding their prayer circle. No one could attend but those of their own body or even enter the House unless in good standing. No member of the Church without the proper recommend can obtain admittance to the Temple, no matter how much he may have contributed to its erection. That would cut no figure at all in the right of entrance. It is amazing that Moses Thatcher should attempt to
intrude the boast of his contributions into the question of entering the Temple of God when not in good standing and full fellowship.
His exclusion from the Temple he construes into being "denied the privilege of meeting with the quorum." No one knew better than he that there was no such denial. The assurance given him by Elder F[ranklin]. D. Richards and others of the quorum was proof of their willingness to meet him and their joy at his manifestation of even a desire to meet them. That there were other places and occasions when he could properly have an interview with his brethren he fully understood, and he subsequently applied for it as he should have done long before.
In passing I will notice his technical quibble about the closing of the Temple against him on October 15th for his disregard of my letter of October 23rd, which he says is hard for him to understand. A careful reading of my letter will show that the difficulty is of his own manufacture. What I said conveys no such meaning as he asserts. I said, "This being the condition of affairs you were not admitted to the Temple on the forenoon of Thursday." "The condition of affairs" which caused that exclusion is set forth in the first paragraph of my letter, and relates to occurrences before the 15th. It is true that my letter of the 23rd in rely to his of the 16th is incidentally mentioned but only as something growing out of what happened on the 15th, and of course was not intended to apply as a condition existing before that date. This perversion of plain language shows what small evasions will be resorted to when one gets into the dark.
Reference to the Conference discourses published in the Deseret News was made that Brother Thatcher might know exactly what the brethren said, that he might see the necessity there was for the people to understand where he stood, and that he might see the need of putting himself in harmony with the Church authorities.
It is necessary to notice his complaint that he had not been invited to attend the meeting at which final action was taken in his case. In his letter dated November 4th, he says:
I returned to this city Thursday--a week ago tomorrow--and have daily expected to hear respecting a time when I could see the brethren once more together. No word having reached me respecting that matter, I adopt this means of respectfully asking you when such meeting can be arranged. As early a reply as convenient will greatly oblige,
Your brother in the Gospel,
Moses Thatcher.
To this I replied, as has been published, under date of November 6:
In accordance with your wishes for a meeting, I take pleasure in appointing 2 o'clock on Thursday next at the Historian's Office, upon which occasion the quorum will be pleased to meet with you. With kindest regards, your
brother and fellow servant,
Lorenzo Snow.
On the day thus appointed the Apostles met, at the time and place thus designated, when they received his lengthy communication dated Nov[ember]. 11, in which he said:
I shall not trouble my brethren therefore to convene in a special meeting named for Thursday at 2 p.m. at the Historian's Office.
Thereupon the Council of the Apostles gave him one week more, and notified him that his case would be called up for action at a meeting to be held in the Historian's office at 10 a.m. on Thursday, the 19th inst., as appears in my letter, published by him with the other correspondence.
When that day arrived we received his last letter in which he said:
As there is to be no trial of my case and as I am not requested to be present, I take it to be the purpose of considering my case, etc.
Why should there have been any further tampering with the case? Moses Thatcher was entirely out of harmony with his brethren the Apostles. He was simply requested to put himself in accord with them as is required by the Gospel and the order of the councils of the Priesthood. That he declined to do. After asking for a time and place to be appointed when he could meet with them, and in response to that request a time and place were set, and the Apostles came from distant points for the purpose of meeting with him, instead of appearing he coolly notified them by letter that he would "not trouble them to convene!" Then when they gave him another week in which to appear, and notified him that his case would be called up for consideration and action, he still treated the Council with contempt and asserted: "I am not requested to be present."
That the Council of the Apostles took the only consistent action that was left open must be evident to every Latter-day Saint who has eyes to see and a heart to understand. Why Moses Thatcher did not meet with his brethren, after they had assembled at his own request, is best known to himself. Notwithstanding his past course they were ready to receive him with open arms if he had come in the proper spirit and put himself in accord with them. As he would not, they expelled him from the Priesthood as they were in duty bound to do.
It should be known that the disaffection of Moses Thatcher dates back to a time long before political difficulties could enter into the matter. President Woodruff has stated publicly that Moses Thatcher had not been in full harmony with his quorum since the death of President John Taylor. trouble was had with him before that time.
In 1886 he proclaimed in public discourses ideas and predictions not endorsed by his brethren. At Lewiston, Cache county [Utah], notes were taken of these utterances and published on a flyer. He was subsequently written to by President [John] Taylor, and his answer is on file. While he
claimed that he had not been accurately reported, he gave his own language, under his own hand, to the effect of predictions of events to occur within five years, which have failed of fulfilment and which were founded on erroneous interpretations of Scripture. He wrote for publication a sort of retraction which really took nothing back but merely charged partial errors in the report of his extravagant remarks.
He was out of harmony with his brethren in relation to a standing appellate High Council, which he claimed should be appointed and which he has never acknowledged was incorrect.
He disputed with President Taylor as to the appointment of President of the Logan [Utah] Temple and contended for a man of his own selection, even after the President announced the appointment by revelation.
His bearing with his brethren of the Twelve was such that he could not brook dissent and resented their non-acceptance of his personal views.
When Wilford Woodruff's accession to the Presidency was under consideration, as the proper successor, he expressed opinions which showed that he regarded human smartness and business ability as above that simplicity of character and susceptibility to divine impressions which are notable in that faithful servant of God, and objected that such a man could not grasp the situation of affairs or cope with the difficulties arising. He was overruled but persisted in his views.
When President George Q. Cannon, after the decease of President Taylor, was in prison for infraction of the anti-polygamy laws, Moses claimed that Brother Cannon had defrauded him, and he threatened in the presence of President Woodruff and others of the Twelve to sue him at law and thus bring many private affairs before the public through the courts. Only on being emphatically warned by President Woodruff and others that such a course, particularly in Brother Cannon's condition, would result disastrously to him in his Church position did he desist. On President Cannon's release from confinement the matter was fully investigated and it was demonstrated that instead of Brother Cannon's owing him he was in Brother Cannon's debt to an amount which he subsequently paid. For his insult and hard language towards Brother Cannon, he has never apologized nor made any amends. This incident is referred to in President Cannon's absence from the State. He has always preserved silence on this matter and did not wish it to be mentioned against Brother Thatcher. But it is important as showing Moses Thatcher's spirit and bearing towards his brethren.
Brother Thatcher makes great pretension of devotion to the Church and declares he has "never shirked any responsibility." The people in many of the various Stakes of Zion who have been visited by the Apostles may ask themselves when they have ever seen Moses Thatcher at their quarterly conferences or other Church gatherings.
He has neglected the meetings of his quorum for years. This
was not always on account of ill health. He was able, at least, in the earlier part of the time, to attend to business and pleasure affairs, apparently in good health and spirits. The roll book of meetings of the Presidency and the Apostles shows that from May, 1889 to April, 1896, a period of about seven years, he was in attendance at the regular weekly meeting but 83 times. There were held 277 of those meetings, at which President Woodruff, though weighted down by age and numerous cares, was present 256 times. His absence was always on account of sickness. Brother Thatcher's residence was most of the time in Logan, but the hour was set so that he and others at a distance could have reasonable opportunity to attend.
Brother Thatcher's spirit has been contumacious and he has been self-opinionated and arbitrary. Previous to the dedication of the Temple his brethren labored with him for many hours to bring him into the proper frame of mind to unite with them in that sacred ceremony. His condition was not entirely satisfactory at the close of the protracted interview, but was accepted out of charity and mercy to him that he might not be excluded from the dedication, with the hope that the spirit of the occasion would influence him to thorough reconciliation. President Woodruff's announcement of harmony among the brethren was made with this understanding, but has been adroitly turned by Brother Thatcher to shut off all that occurred before that time, and which would not now be alluded to but for his own utterances and reference to his pretended humility and harmony.
In accepting nomination for a political office, which if elected thereto would have taken him away from his ecclesiastical duties for long periods, without consultation with his quorum and the Presidency, he could not but have known that he was violating a requirement of high officials in the Church. Yet he would not consult with them, while he was able to attend political gatherings and business meetings although in poor health. Here again he was out of harmony with his brethren.
There was no need for any loss of manhood or proper independence nor the forfeiture of any of the rights of citizenship. But if he did not value his Apostleship and Priesthood as of the very first consideration he was not worthy to hold them, and his subsequent course shows that he held them in great esteem in theory but in very small esteem in practice. Fine words and sympathetic phrases do very well to influence the public, but they count for nothing in the face of deeds that contradict them, or the failure to do that which is so rhetorically professed.
The standing and fellowship of Moses Thatcher as a member of the Church has not been brought into question, therefore there has been no trial. He has been dealt with by his quorum for lack of harmony with his associates, something that was entirely in his own power to correct without great exertion or much time. If his standing in the Church was at stake specific charges would be made, and he would have to answer
to them in the usual way, which is not and has not been by public demonstration.
What has been done was necessary and a duty. Action was not taken until it was certain that no further delay would be of any use or benefit. Moses Thatcher has been treated with greater consideration and mercy than any other man who has taken the course which he has pursued. He has been prayed for, waited upon, pleaded with and wept over until his rebellion and contumacy were seen to be invincible, and he is in open hostility to regulations which the whole Church has adopted and ratified. He could not and cannot be any longer empowered to act in the authority of the Holy Priesthood.
And now let the Latter-day Saints ponder upon the situation, and take the warning given by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a key to the Church for all time. It is as follows;
I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity. That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. -- History of Joseph Smith, July 2, 1839.
In conclusion I repeat the words of Him who spake as never man spake:
He that exalteth himself shall be abased but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Your brother in the Gospel,
Lorenzo Snow. (1)
-- Nov 30, 1896
This morning Presidents [Wilford] Woodruff and [Joseph F.] Smith met at their office with Elders L[orenzo]. Snow, F[ranklin]. D. Richards, B[righam]. Young [Jr.] and C[harles]. W. Penrose, when a communication from President Snow which he had prepared with the assistance of Brother Penrose for publication, was read and passed upon, to be published in the Deseret News of the evening, as follows:
The following correspondence needs neither explanation nor comment, save the suggestion that President Snow's letter is deserving of, and doubtless will receive, the most careful consideration of all Latter-day Saints.
Salt Lake City,
Nov[ember]. 27, 1896. Elder Lorenzo Snow, President of the Twelve Apostles:
Dear Brother—As there has been much discussion over the correspondence between Moses Thatcher and yourself and some of our own people are at sea in regard to the primary cause of Brother Thatcher's lack of harmony with your quorum, leading to his excommunication therefrom, in behalf of a number of such persons we pen you this communication.
We are aware that the difficulty mainly rested with the Twelve and one of its members; also that when action was taken in the case there was no need of your making further explanations. We can appreciate your abstinence from controversy, on a purely Church matter, through the public prints. But seeing that there appears to be a misapprehension of the facts in the case, and that many good people are liable, in consequence of that, to form incorrect conclusions, we respectfully ask you, if it be not inconsistent with any rule of the Church or of the Council over which you preside, to make some public statement which will serve to place this matter in its true light before the Saints, and clear away the mists which, to some at least, seem to surround the subject of Moses Thatcher's deposition. As he has given to the world the private correspondence that passed between you and him in a Church capacity, is it fair, even to yourself and your associates, to leave the matter in its present condition and open to so much misconstruction? If you would make an explanatory statement through the Deseret News, we believe it would be highly esteemed by many others, as well as
Your brethren in the Gospel,
Nephi L. Morris,
Arnold G. Giauque,
Arthur F. Barnes,
R[odney]. C. Badger,
T[homas]. A. Clawson.
—–—
Salt Lake City,
November 30, 1896 Nephi L. Morris, Arnold G. Giauque, Arthur F. Barnes, R. C. Badger and T[homas]. A. Clawson:
Dear Brethren:—In response to your esteemed communication of the 27th inst., I have determined, after conference with several of the Apostles, to offer some explanations on the case of Moses Thatcher and comments on the correspondence to which you refer, through the columns of the Deseret News.
The Apostles did not view the publication of the letters that passed to and from Brother Moses Thatcher and them as calling for any controversy on their part. Nor did they think it a proper thing to give those ecclesiastical communications general publicity through secular newspapers. The letters bearing my signature were not prepared with a design for publication, whatever the others might have been—and were regarded as Church matters for the consideration solely of the respective parties. It is only because those letters have been given to the public, and because it seems, from what you see, that an improper impression has been made upon the minds of some people thereby, that I comply with the request to meet some of the statements they contain.
The evident purpose in publishing those communications was to excite public sympathy; and the unnecessary and superfluous appeals they contain convey the impression that they were concocted for that purpose. They were not relevant to the issue involved. Moses Thatcher was not on trial for his fellowship. Specific charges were not preferred either in public or in private. The question was solely as to his standing as one of the Apostles, in consequence of his lack of harmony with the Quorum of the Twelve of which he was a member. That question he could have settled at any time if he had so desired, and that without a formal trial. By placing himself in harmony with his Quorum, in the spirit of humility and conformity with its rules, of which he was not in ignorance, he could have saved himself all the trouble and deprivation of which he complains.
In his review of what he calls his case, he lays great stress on the matter of the Declaration of Principles, which he refused to sign after it had received the endorsement of the First Presidency, the Apostles (excepting himself), the Seven Presidents of the Seventies, the Patriarch, and the Presiding Bishopric, comprising the general authorities of the Church. His excuse is that he had only about an hour and thirty minutes in which to consider it. Usually men do not require much time to consider a matter which they have always held to be right. There was nothing new in that document as it relates to Church discipline. It contains that which has always been an established doctrine of the Church. When the committee which prepared it submitted it to the other Church authorities, they signed it after reading without hesitation and without requiring time to deliberate. It embodies so manifestly a conceded and necessary rule that every one in harmony with the Church authorities accepted it at once, and the Church as a body has received and adopted it as an essential rule. Why should Moses Thatcher alone, of all the Church authorities, feel that he could not sign it as he alleges, "without stultification?" Was not that in itself evidence that he was and had been out of harmony with his brethren? And are they not men as little disposed as any one living to stultify themselves, or to assent to anything wrong that is of vital importance to them and to the Church?
He charges that his letter refusing to sign the Declaration was "suppressed." There was no suppression in the matter at all. The letter was not addressed to the Conference nor to the public. Out of mercy and compassion to him no reference was made to his contumacy at the April Conference, but his name was simply dropped from the list of authorities presented. How could he have been sustained under the circumstances? There are six of the Twelve now living who voted for his appointment to the Apostleship. Not one of them would have sustained him for that position if it had been known that he then entertained views entirely out of harmony with those of that body. The letter addressed at that time to his associates was a deliberately composed communication showing that he was able to understand the
200 document which he refused to sign, and his prompt publication of that letter, in a secular newspaper, shows that he had a deliberate intention to oppose the Declaration and defy his brethren who promulg[at]ed it. But if he did not have sufficient time to consider the Declaration at the April Conference, what about the six months which elapsed before the October Conference? Was not that time enough? During that interval he was visited by many of his brethren, some of them Apostles, and no change was effected, but he failed even to attend the October Conference or to manifest a disposition to conform to the principle of the Declaration.
It is true that he was in poor bodily health during that period. But he was not too ill to upbraid brethren who tried to impress him with the danger of his position, nor to accuse some of them of having "blanketed their conscience" in signing the Declaration.
He states in his letters that he would have attended the October Conference if it had not been for the "assurances and reassurances" he had received that nothing would be done concerning his standing until his health should be restored. He then complains bitterly of the explanation given to the Conference as to his position and seeks to convey the impression that they were a breach of good faith.
The "assurances" to which he refers were faithfully fulfilled. He was left in statu quo. Every time it was shown that the condition of his health would not admit of his meeting with his quorum the question of his standing was postponed. But meanwhile he and his friends were not slow to talk about his associates and to convey unwarranted impressions concerning their course in his case. So much misunderstanding was thereby created that it became absolutely necessary to make some explanations that the Latter-day Saints might not be deceived. President Woodruff was so strongly impressed with this that he addressed the Conference on the subject and his statements were endorsed by several of the Twelve who followed him.
This was no "trial" of Moses Thatcher. It was simply a necessary explanation of his status. It involved the question of his lack of harmony with the Church authorities. His claims that he was publicly accused and therefore should have a public trial is astonishingly absurd. He was not accused in the sense of a trial or investigation. The act of his lack of harmony with the authorities was explained and shown to be of much earlier date than his refusal to sign the Declaration and his engaging in active politics. To place himself in harmony with the Twelve, or refuse to do so, required no "trial" either public or private. He did neither. Yet the assurances given him which he misconstrues were observed and his "case" was not called up until he was able to appear.
It was but a few days after the Conference, even if it had entirely closed, before he appeared and spoke at public meetings as though he still held the authority in which he had not been sustained at Conference. This necessitated the announcement from the First Presidency through the Deseret News that he had no right to officiate in the Priesthood while in his suspended condition.
Notwithstanding that announcement, when he chose to present himself to the authorities he presumed to attempt entrance to the temple for that purpose, and at a time when the First Presidency as well as the Twelve met for the consideration of other Church matters and for holding their prayer circle. No one could attend but those of their own body
201 or even enter the House unless in good standing. No member of the Church without the proper recommend can obtain admittance to the Temple, no matter how much he may have contributed to its erection. That would cut no figure at all in the right of entrance. It is amazing that Moses Thatcher should attempt to intrude the boast of his contributions into the question of entering the Temple of God when not in good standing and full fellowship.
His exclusion from the Temple he construes into being "denied the privilege of meeting with the quorum." No one knew better than he that there was no such denial. The assurance given him by Elder F[ranklin]. D. Richards and others of the quorum was proof of their willingness to meet him and their joy at his manifestation of even a desire to meet them. That there were other places and occasions when he could properly have an interview with his brethren he fully understood, and he subsequently applied for it as he should have done long before.
In passing I will notice his technical quibble about the closing of the Temple against him on October 15th for his disregard of my letter of October 23rd, which he says is hard for him to understand. A careful reading of my letter will show that the difficulty is of his own manufacture. What I said conveys no such meaning as he asserts. I said, "This being the condition of affairs you were not admitted to the Temple on the forenoon of Thursday." "The condition of affairs" which caused that exclusion is set forth in the first paragraph of my letter, and relates to occurrences before the 15th. It is true that my letter of the 23rd in rely to his of the 16th is incidentally mentioned but only as something growing out of what happened on the 15th, and of course was not intended to apply as a condition existing before that date. This perversion of plain language shows what small evasions will be resorted to when one gets into the dark.
Reference to the Conference discourses published in the Deseret News was made that Brother Thatcher might know exactly what the brethren said, that he might see the necessity there was for the people to understand where he stood, and that he might see the need of putting himself in harmony with the Church authorities.
It is necessary to notice his complaint that he had not been invited to attend the meeting at which final action was taken in his case. In his letter dated November 4th, he says:
I returned to this city Thursday—a week ago tomorrow—and have daily
expected to hear respecting a time when I could see the brethren once more together.
No word having reached me respecting that matter, I adopt this means of respectfully
asking you when such meeting can be arranged. As early a reply as convenient will
greatly oblige,
Your brother in the Gospel,
Moses Thatcher.
To this I replied, as has been published, under date of November 6:
In accordance with your wishes for a meeting, I take pleasure in appointing 2
o'clock on Thursday next at the Historian's Office, upon which occasion the quorum
will be pleased to meet with you. With kindest regards, your brother and fellow
servant,
Lorenzo Snow.
On the day thus appointed the Apostles met, at the time and place thus designated,
202 when they received his lengthy communication dated Nov[ember]. 11, in which he said:
I shall not trouble my brethren therefore to convene in a special meeting
named for Thursday at 2 p.m. at the Historian's Office.
Thereupon the Council of the Apostles gave him one week more, and notified him that his case would be called up for action at a meeting to be held in the Historian's office at 10 a.m. on Thursday, the 19th inst., as appears in my letter, published by him with the other correspondence.
When that day arrived we received his last letter in which he said:
As there is to be no trial of my case and as I am not requested to be present, I
take it to be the purpose of considering my case, etc.
Why should there have been any further tampering with the case? Moses Thatcher was entirely out of harmony with his brethren the Apostles. He was simply requested to put himself in accord with them as is required by the Gospel and the order of the councils of the Priesthood. That he declined to do. After asking for a time and place to be appointed when he could meet with them, and in response to that request a time and place were set, and the Apostles came from distant points for the purpose of meeting with him, instead of appearing he coolly notified them by letter that he would "not trouble them to convene!" Then when they gave him another week in which to appear, and notified him that his case would be called up for consideration and action, he still treated the Council with contempt and asserted: "I am not requested to be present."
That the Council of the Apostles took the only consistent action that was left open must be evident to every Latter-day Saint who has eyes to see and a heart to understand. Why Moses Thatcher did not meet with his brethren, after they had assembled at his own request, is best known to himself. Notwithstanding his past course they were ready to receive him with open arms if he had come in the proper spirit and put himself in accord with them. As he would not, they expelled him from the Priesthood as they were in duty bound to do.
It should be known that the disaffection of Moses Thatcher dates back to a time long before political difficulties could enter into the matter. President Woodruff has stated publicly that Moses Thatcher had not been in full harmony with his quorum since the death of President John Taylor. trouble was had with him before that time.
In 1886 he proclaimed in public discourses ideas and predictions not endorsed by his brethren. At Lewiston, Cache county [Utah], notes were taken of these utterances and published on a flyer. He was subsequently written to by President [John] Taylor, and his answer is on file. While he claimed that he had not been accurately reported, he gave his own language, under his own hand, to the effect of predictions of events to occur within five years, which have failed of fulfilment and which were founded on erroneous interpretations of Scripture. He wrote for publication a sort of retraction which really took nothing back but merely charged partial errors in the report of his extravagant remarks.
He was out of harmony with his brethren in relation to a standing appellate High Council, which he claimed should be appointed and which he has never acknowledged was incorrect.
He disputed with President Taylor as to the appointment of President of the Logan [Utah] Temple and contended for a man of his own selection, even after the President
203 announced the appointment by revelation.
His bearing with his brethren of the Twelve was such that he could not brook dissent and resented their non-acceptance of his personal views.
When Wilford Woodruff's accession to the Presidency was under consideration, as the proper successor, he expressed opinions which showed that he regarded human smartness and business ability as above that simplicity of character and susceptibility to divine impressions which are notable in that faithful servant of God, and objected that such a man could not grasp the situation of affairs or cope with the difficulties arising. He was overruled but persisted in his views.
When President George Q. Cannon, after the decease of President Taylor, was in prison for infraction of the anti-polygamy laws, Moses claimed that Brother Cannon had defrauded him, and he threatened in the presence of President Woodruff and others of the Twelve to sue him at law and thus bring many private affairs before the public through the courts. Only on being emphatically warned by President Woodruff and others that such a course, particularly in Brother Cannon's condition, would result disastrously to him in his Church position did he desist. On President Cannon's release from confinement the matter was fully investigated and it was demonstrated that instead of Brother Cannon's owing him he was in Brother Cannon's debt to an amount which he subsequently paid. For his insult and hard language towards Brother Cannon, he has never apologized nor made any amends. This incident is referred to in President Cannon's absence from the State. He has always preserved silence on this matter and did not wish it to be mentioned against Brother Thatcher. But it is important as showing Moses Thatcher's spirit and bearing towards his brethren.
Brother Thatcher makes great pretension of devotion to the Church and declares he has "never shirked any responsibility." The people in many of the various Stakes of Zion who have been visited by the Apostles may ask themselves when they have ever seen Moses Thatcher at their quarterly conferences or other Church gatherings.
He has neglected the meetings of his quorum for years. This was not always on account of ill health. He was able, at least, in the earlier part of the time, to attend to business and pleasure affairs, apparently in good health and spirits. The roll book of meetings of the Presidency and the Apostles shows that from May, 1889 to April, 1896, a period of about seven years, he was in attendance at the regular weekly meeting but 83 times. There were held 277 of those meetings, at which President Woodruff, though weighted down by age and numerous cares, was present 256 times. His absence was always on account of sickness. Brother Thatcher's residence was most of the time in Logan, but the hour was set so that he and others at a distance could have reasonable opportunity to attend.
Brother Thatcher's spirit has been contumacious and he has been self-opinionated and arbitrary. Previous to the dedication of the Temple his brethren labored with him for many hours to bring him into the proper frame of mind to unite with them in that sacred ceremony. His condition was not entirely satisfactory at the close of the protracted interview, but was accepted out of charity and mercy to him that he might not be excluded from the dedication, with the hope that the spirit of the occasion would influence him to thorough reconciliation. President Woodruff's announcement of harmony among the brethren was made with this understanding, but has been adroitly turned by Brother Thatcher to shut off all that occurred
204 before that time, and which would not now be alluded to but for his own utterances and reference to his pretended humility and harmony.
In accepting nomination for a political office, which if elected thereto would have taken him away from his ecclesiastical duties for long periods, without consultation with his quorum and the Presidency, he could not but have known that he was violating a requirement of high officials in the Church. Yet he would not consult with them, while he was able to attend political gatherings and business meetings although in poor health. Here again he was out of harmony with his brethren.
There was no need for any loss of manhood or proper independence nor the forfeiture of any of the rights of citizenship. But if he did not value his Apostleship and Priesthood as of the very first consideration he was not worthy to hold them, and his subsequent course shows that he held them in great esteem in theory but in very small esteem in practice. Fine words and sympathetic phrases do very well to influence the public, but they count for nothing in the face of deeds that contradict them, or the failure to do that which is so rhetorically professed.
The standing and fellowship of Moses Thatcher as a member of the Church has not been brought into question, therefore there has been no trial. He has been dealt with by his quorum for lack of harmony with his associates, something that was entirely in his own power to correct without great exertion or much time. If his standing in the Church was at stake specific charges would be made, and he would have to answer to them in the usual way, which is not and has not been by public demonstration.
What has been done was necessary and a duty. Action was not taken until it was certain that no further delay would be of any use or benefit. Moses Thatcher has been treated with greater consideration and mercy than any other man who has taken the course which he has pursued. He has been prayed for, waited upon, pleaded with and wept over until his rebellion and contumacy were seen to be invincible, and he is in open hostility to regulations which the whole Church has adopted and ratified. He could not and cannot be any longer empowered to act in the authority of the Holy Priesthood.
And now let the Latter-day Saints ponder upon the situation, and take the warning given by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a key to the Church for all time. It is as follows;
I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity. That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.—History of Joseph Smith, July 2, 1839.
In conclusion I repeat the words of Him who spake as never man spake:
He that exalteth himself shall be abased but he that humbleth himself shall be
exalted.
Your brother in the Gospel,
Lorenzo Snow.
205 Listened to reading of a letter from President L[orenzo]. Snow, by C[harles] W Penrose to appear in this evening's "[Deseret Evening] News" A statement of circumstances in which Moses Thatcher been not in harmony with his brethren Apostles several years was published in This Evening News. (2)
Endnotes:
1 - First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve minutes
2 - Journal History; Franklin D. Richards, Diary
LDS History Chronology: Lorenzo Snow
Mormon History Timeline: the life of Lorenzo Snow
http://lds-church-history.blogspot.com/
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LDS Church History" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to LDS-church-history+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
