In the days of Joseph Smith the prophet, a revelation was received that a Temple was to be built and there was a certain tract of land that would be for the building of this Temple in Independence, Missouri ...this land having been obtained was not able to be used as hoped as the Saints were evicted from the area, and the death of Joseph Smith put a halt on any work.
Years later, a group of people made claim to the tract of land, a church called The Church of Christ ... a court case proceeded to determine who the rightful owners were. What is curious here, is that we don't hear much, if anything about this in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in fact I had never heard about the case; just that the land existed and what a shame that it had been hijacked by some counterfeit mormons preventing us, the LDS church from building the Temple that many faithful latter-day saints hoped to see raised up.
I without doubt, being a member of 'The One True Church' thought the land rightfully belonged to the LDS church and was a bit miffed that it somehow didn't .. how was it possible? I think you will be just as astounded as me when you discover the truth! And perhaps feel completely hoodwinked!
The Temple Lot case had evidence presented and gathered over a period of a couple of years, then with the evidence obtained a decision by the courts was made. . .
Guess who the rightful owner was? Not the LDS church!! Why? The evidence had been gathered and witness statements made and cross examination carried out to discover the truth. Here is where we should pay attention. No evidence could be provided to back up any claim from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints!! ..... They could not prove that they were the continuation of the Church that Joseph Smith had established in 1830! Why? Because the doctrine and practices had CHANGED SO MUCH IT WAS NOT RECOGNIZABLE!!! None of the changes brought in since the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith could be attributed to him! No one could prove he established polygamy or spiritual wifery, not one woman could make a belieavable statement under cross examination, NOT ONE could prove that they were a wife of Joseph Smith! No children could be found to be children of polygamous wives of Joseph Smith!
I will remind you, this LDS church has been my world since 1985, I have sacrificed much to be a member of this church which is worthy of its members but has deceived us by not coming clean. No wonder we have been persecuted so much! It wasn't for the truth! It was for the lies! Everyone else seems to know the truth except ourselves! I would plea to the leadership of the Church, it is a fine church now and the past errors have been dropped.. we no longer believe anything that Brigham Young taught, we are teachers and sharers of the values and ideals that Joseph Smith taught and yet we are stained and tainted by history, its NOT FAIR! We don't believe Adam is God, we don't practice polygamy, we don't believe in blood atonement .. yet we are shunned for these doctrines!
As I see it, there are good people and bad people, you can have one good King, and his son be bad, then his son be good, and his son carry on good ..... The Church was good under Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young made HIMSELF president, he wasn't voted upon, he said he would be caretaker and he ended up after three years of establishing himself as the head .. and then introducing his OWN ideas! It was a dictatorship and people were afraid! Polygamy was NOT a happy regime, most of the first wives of the leaders DIVORCED them. BUT when Brigham Young died, changes began to be made, and by the 3rd prophet, and 4th, things were much different until the church was back on track with the teachings of Joseph Smith. So we have a good Church, with a dodgy history, and the Church is not owning up to it all, which is like not letting a wound heal. The church will never make an impact in the world for good and be trusted by good people all the while it holds on to lies such as Joseph Smith brought in polygamy .... if that were true, the Temple Lot would have been awarded rightfully to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints! If they had ANY PROOF! So all the evidence floating about now is all hearsay and fake! BECAUSE IN A COURT OF LAW noone could PROVE anything!
I have been a member as I said for 28 years! I have just discovered that our church is the equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church who claims also to be the One True Church, and yet its teachings also are not the teachings of the church Jesus Christ himself established. I do believe though, that we are not alone, just because we have fake churches does not mean that individuals don't have God's spirit to be with them. This is why so much good IS achieved! The Righteous people are the Church! The progress made, the joys, the harmony, the beauty is THE PEOPLE!!! I always wondered about that! And why is the church full of such good people? A church with such a history? Because the missionaries do not know the history, and with their pure hearts, they teach the truth as they know it, and it is contagious and beautiful. Yes, they teach truth ... they teach what Joseph Smith taught us, so the Holy Ghost witnesses to us, and the church is filled with good people practicing Christ-like lives. Then those same people, like me, discover the truth and their world is shattered! How do you cling on to the good people without condoning bad practices! Why is D&C 132 still held in the scriptures when it is a fabricated lie! It has to be a lie remember, as noone could prove by any words or actions of Joseph Smith, that he ever taught polygamy.
Anyway, food for thought, we need a bit of a revolution to clear the engine of the church and get it back on track so that its members can with a clear heart and mind, be part of a church they believe in! And not leave it :-( President Monson ... there are many broken hearts that have left the church because of the way-ward direction Brigham Young took, we are not that time, we are not those teachings .... please just put things right so that the Holy Ghost can flow through this Church from the head down as it should! All the time you cover up lies and secrets, the Holy Ghost cannot back you, he cannot make you great! You have to come clean and declare the truth and let the people decide themselves, because the members are falling away like flies in this world of technology where all things will be made known! Lies won't be hidden for much longer. Take care of the pure in heart! Do what is right! Is there no leader BRAVE ENOUGH? Has the Church just become a BUSINESS? Do the people not matter?
That's my rant ...... now here are the words of Joseph Smith III from his Memoirs!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Temple Lot Suit
The business which called me from Lamoni was in connection with the important case at law known as the Temple Lot Suit. Testimony was being taken in Independence by the United States Commissioner appointed by the Judge of the Federal Court and I was called to be present.
Soon after beginning my ministry with the Reorganised Church as I read its history to more perfectly acquaint myself with its faith and doctrines, I became thoroughly convinced, as I have stated hereinbefore, that some day, soon or late, the group with which I had identified myself in 1860 would be called to stand before the great American Jury in the civil Courts of the Republic definitely arrayed against the hierarchy known as the Mormon Church in Utah, and there the causes of difference between them, as the two prominent organizations bearing the name of Latter Day Saints - and possibly other factions - would be thoroughly examined, weighed, and determined.
I was impressed that the facts, arguments, and evidences upon which the Reorganization based its position as a religious body must be measured against their opponents of similar or other name, and the truth or error of that position be ascertained before the august tribunals recognized as the Courts of law and justice, established by the American people for the purpose of settling such disputes and justifying the proper claimants in their rights. The idea that this contest would inevitably come became so firmly fixed in my mind that I am quite willing to admit it assumed almost the proportions of a prophetic obsession, so sure was I that it would come to pass.
Somewhere about the year 1831, or between that and 1833, money was raised by the church and land purchased in Jackson County upon which it was intended a Temple should some day be erected. Such papers of right and possession as were needed to create a trust for this purpose were properly executed, and the trust established. The original tract supposed to be covered by this trust amounted to some sixty-three acres lying westward from the Courthouse in Independence.
Soon afterward the church members began to be driven from the County and, in 1838, from the State - through the unjust mandate of the Legislature. The existence of this trust seemed to be forgotten, and in the mutations of human affairs the property was divided into city lots and sold under colour of title by law, with the exception of something like two and a half acres. This little plot remained unoccupied and undisturbed for many years and was commonly known in the County and State as the Temple Lot. Finally, in 1882, it was taken into possession by parties known as 'Hedrickites' ostensible to hold under the name of 'The Church of Christ'.
The statute of limitations in regard to contested property provides that claimants to rights against adverse possession must bring action within ten years from the time such adverse possession takes place. Acting under our conception of that provision, Bishop Kelley was authorized to proceed in court action to recover this piece of property for the Reorganised Church. The suit was begun in 1890, in the United States Court for the Western District of Missouri, John J. Phillips, Judge.
Legal Array
Attorneys and counsel for the Reorganized Church were Bishop E.L. Kelley, his brother Parley P. Kelley of Glenwood Iowa, Judge L. Traber of Kansas City, Honourable George Edmunds of Carthage, Illinois, and Honourable Smith Mcherson of Red Oak, Iowa. For the Church of Christ appeared Colonel John Southern of Independence, and W.O. Broadhead of Saint Louis, assisted by J.L. Tichenor of Kansas City. This was an array of legal talent that was most excellent.
Leaving Lamoni in response to summons to appear at the taking of depositions, a preliminary procedure of the Court, I journeyed to Independence, where the work of obtaining testimony continued for several days. The examinations were conducted for the Church of Christ by Colonel Southern, with Charles A. Hall, then spiritual head of that body, and Richard Hill, its acting Bishop, as advisers. On our part as advisors the attorneys had William W. Blair and myself, Presidents of the Reorganized Church.
......
It became apparent, quite early after the opening of the procedure, that a strong effort would be made to bring into the case the personal character of Joseph Smith (Jun), with a view of showing it to be of a disreputable nature. I foresaw that this effort on the part of our opponents would go so far under the guidance of President Hall as to amount to an attempt to introduce evidence calculated to prove that Joseph Smith was the instigator of polygamy as manifested in Utah, and so stated to our counsel. I assured Advocate P,P. Kelley that should such an attempt be made I greatly desired that my presence - as son of Joseph Smith - should be ignored and so far as legal procedure could bring it about that the absolute truth should be brought to light and firmly established.
My prognostications proved correct. Such an effort was made but fell fruitless before the flood of testimony introduced. In the outcome it happened that our cause materially profited by this too-apparent eagerness on the part of our opponents to introduce such testimony. It was not our fault that their leader did not listen to his advisors when they counseled a more commendatory procedure.
Testimony
I was called before the Commissioner on January 28, for my testimony. It seemed that every possible question that could be devised, having any bearing whatever upon either side of the controversy, was introduced and presented to me for answer and explanation. It is unnecessary to recount them here, for they are all to be found in the record of the suit; but I may state that Colonel Southern frankly said that in all the examination and cross-examination to which I was subjected he could discover no effort or intention upon my part - nor indeed upon that of any other witness for the Reorganized Church - to cover up any facts or knowledge possessed which had any bearing upon the suit or could properly be brought into it.
Among the witnesses whose depositions were taken at this session of the hearing was Elder James Whitehead, a clerk in my father's office from 1842 to the time of the latter's death. Another was Uncle William B. Smith, only surviving brother of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. There were many others who brought personal testimony into the legal records of the suit.
Since I have begun the story of this suit to obtain possession of the Temple Lot in Independence, I may well finish it. For two years the collection of evidence proceeded with more or less dispatch, many depositions being taken at Independence, Denver, Salt Lake City, and perhaps elsewhere for both prosecution and defense. They covered a wide range of topics, directly or remotely connected with the suit, as well as some which were quite foreign and comparatively unimportant.
Either at the request of Elder Hall or upon his own initiative, Joseph Fielding Smith of the Utah Church secured a number of witnesses who were placed upon the stand in an effort to show that my father had introduced polygamy as a faith and practice of the church, as claimed out there. In this effort the fact was brought out that he, Joseph F. Smith, was present at the taking of those depositions and in some instances even indicated to the witnesses the answers that were desired or expected.
This interference or influence was resented, and properly so, by Attorney Kelley, and some strong language was indulged in between him and the Mormon Church official. It is worthy of remembrance that the Commissioner's attention was called to the fact that such interference upon the part of Joseph F. Smith did actually take place and that we, the prosecuting party, desired and requested that the records of the case should show that action.
It is for me to state that the strong effort made by C.A. Hall and others to present credible testimony to prove my father guilty of introducing into the tenets of the church organized by him in 1830, by direct command, supposed revelation, or personal teaching, example or practice thereof, the doctrine of polygamy or plural marriage failed most signally. The examination of many men who were with the church in my father's day failed to bring to light a single thing which would so inculpate him, and the testimony of the witnesses deposing to the contrary in Utah went to pieces utterly.
It was early in 1894 that the final hearing was held in Kansas City. Though I took no active part as counselor I attended throughout the sessions, keeping fully cognizant of the proceedings, step by step. On the first day of the trial, Bishop Kelley and his brother Parley P., Judge Edmunds, Brother Luff and I were invited to dine at Judge Traber's, chief counsel for our side. It proved to be a most pleasant and enjoyable occasion. That gentleman had become very deeply interested in the suit and was favourably impressed by the wealth of evidence we had presented in support of our contention. He was a very genial man, just passing middle age, pleasantly situated in his home, and seemingly kindly disposed towards us and our cause, which he considered a just one under the circumstances.
After the suit had been urged on both sides and left to the consideration of the Court, I asked Judge Edmunds what he thought would be the probable outcome. With a shrug of his shoulders and a characteristic motion of his head, familiar to me through past years of association, he said,
'It is impossible for a mere human to know, but according to my understanding of the case and as it has been presented in Court, no existing tribunal could fail to find a judgement in your favour.'
Decision and Appeal
Since Judge Phillips required some time to look over testimonies and depositions we had to wait for his decision, with what patience we could. Passing over the interim, I will say that early in March Brother Kelley went down to Kansas City in order to be present on the day set by the Judge for the rendition of his findings. On the morning of that day, as I was going to my daily tasks in the Herald office and was passing the front of the residence of Brother Frank Criley, just south of my destination, I heard a voice plainly say,
'The decision of the Court will be in favour of the Reorganised Church on every point!'
Looking about I saw there was no one near who could have spoken. There was no one on the street passing either way, in fact, no human being in sight anywhere. Nevertheless once more I heard the voice, repeating clearly and emphatically the same words.
Entering the office I told my companions there what I had heard. And in the course of the day a telegram came from Bishop Kelley containing the information that the decision handed down by Judge Phillips was in our favour on every point in controversy!
Thus was verified the prescient assurance I had so long felt in regard to the claims of opposing factions of the church being heard before the courts of the land. Those held adversely to us and thereby became opponents both of our faith and doctrinal beliefs and in the specific petition involved in the suit had been duly notified of the proposed action in the Courts. The contest had left these opponents and factions no possible excuse by which to justify on their part any avoidance of the issue raised by just such an inquiry of investigation. Needless to say, we rejoiced exceedingly in the decision which had resulted, and felt anew a vindication of the claims and positions we held.
However, we felt sure our adversaries would not content with the findings and would appeal their cause to a higher court. That is exactly what did happen, and the case was again presented, being placed before the Circuit Court of Appeals in the city of Saint Louis. The final decision rendered by this Court confirmed the victory we had gained so far as doctrinal matters and points of organization and succession were concerned, but denied our petition for possession upon the grounds that the suit had not been begun within the proper time after adverse possession had been entered upon.
Certain conditions barred our making appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and thus we had to be content with this decision which lost us our contention on the ground of laches - undue delay in asserting our rights. The possession of the lot remains in the hands of the Church of Christ.
A Notable Victory
Because the Reorganized Church scored a notable victory on every moral and spiritual point involved in the controversy (even though it lost the material advantage sought) I am impressed to briefly review here some matters which were touched upon and established in these competent courts of jurisprudence, even though twenty years have elapsed since the suit was heard and the issue decided. Briefly, some of the important facts thus established were the following:
That the church was organized upon American soil under the constitutional rule of the United States, upon the claim that it was so founded by Divine direction and through the interposition of Divine Povedence in the form of direct revelation from Jesus Christ, the acknowledged great Head of the church;
That after a number of years of successful propaganda by a called and ordained ministry sent to preach the Gospel in harmony with the rules stated in King James' Version of the Bible, recognized as the Word of God by the voice of inspiration in revelation, a following was secured who subscribed to the principles of faith and doctrine thus declared;
That this increase of growth required a removal from the place where the church was instituted, and a settlement was made at Kirtland, Ohio, where a large gathering ensued and a house of worship, called a Temple, was erected;
That while this was going on a book was published, translated from the records of a people who had existed upon this land many years before its discovery by Columbus, which book, called the Book of Mormon, contained the Gospel of Christ as it had been stated and given to the world in the book called the Bible, said Book of Mormon having come in the form of revelation to this generation and to this people in America;
That in pursuance with later commandments, similarly received, the colony of believers in this message and church organization removed from Kirtland and made a settlement at Independence, Missouri, where they flourished for a short time;
That by reason of the principles of belief and practice espoused by this colony, as well as by reason of their innate characters and influence, these people were opposed to the custom of holding human beings in involuntary servitude, commonly called slavery, which sentiment was obnoxious to the pro-slavery feeling dominant in Missouri at that time;
That because of the enmity thus created a system of proscription and persecution was set in operation against them, which resulted in their being driven from Jackson and adjacent Counties in Missouri, after several conflicts between them and the older settlers of the locality, in which conflicts numbers were killed on both sides;
That being thus expelled from their homes in Jackson and adjacent Counties they yielded to what they could not avoid and scattered to different Counties north and east, continuing in their attempts to make settlements;
That in 1838, after the adverse public sentiment had crystallized into a quasi-legislative enactment, the militia organised under the command of the Governor of the State, and these believers, called Mormons, were ordered to leave Missouri entirely, under penalty and threat of extermination should they attempt to remain;
That the leading men of the church - Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and a few others - were arrested by the military authorities under Generals Lucas and Clark, and by an act of court martial under the jurisdiction of those Generals a verdict was rendered which directed that these prisoners should be publicaly shot to death;
That the carrying out of this extreme order, in itself the result of unlawful procedure, was frustrated through the courageous and outspoken condemnation of Colonel Alexander W. Doniphan, commanding the troops gathered under Lucas and Clark, who declared it was cold-blooded murder, that he would not execute the order and, further, that he could hold those Generals personally and publicly responsible for the execution of those men should they attempt to carry it out;
That the leading Generals, evidently fearing that Doniphan would carry out his threat, turned the prisoners over to the civil authorities instead, who lodged them in a jail at Liberty, Missouri, where they were held in close confinement for months;
That the sentence of extermination from the State culminated in the fall of 1838, and the colonists, without justifable warrant, were driven into the States adjoining Missouri, most of them drifting northeast into the then free State of Illinois;
That persecution followed them there, and upon the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844 a division occurred, the people being deprived of their leaders, scattered here and there in small bands;
That at this dispersion a comparatively large portion followed Brigham Young into the western wilderness where they hoped to be permitted to live in peace and equity, enjoying the privileges of their religion;
That many years later, after the termination of the Civil War by which Missouri became a 'free' State, numbers of the people of the church began to return to Independence, a few at a time, hoping to be permitted to occupy as had been contemplated when they began the settlement in 1831 to 1833;
That the Temple Lot upon which had been planned to erect a Temple similar to that built at Kirtland was then unoccupied and used as a commons over which every one had free passage;
That by virtue of various acts of legislation by the General Assembly of Missouri the original tract of sixty-three acres which had once constituted a trust held by qualified trustees for the original church and for the purpose of the proposed Temple had been reduced to a small square of four or five acres or less, or, technically speaking, eight platted lots, numbered from 15 to 22 in a certain addition;
That this portion fell, by a series of lost title operations, into the possession of, or was held by, a man named James Pool, but that no building or other evidence of occupation was then established;
That partially under the supervision of John E. Page - a member of the Quorum of Twelve at the death of Joseph Smith and one who like William B, Smith and Lyman Wight of that Quorum had refused to acknowledge the supremacy of Brigham Young - an organization of a certain group was effected which later, in Illinois, under the leadership of Granville Hedrick and some members of the original church, was formed into what was called the Church of Christ, commonly called Hedrickites;
That a small group of this body came to Independence, organized a Branch under the direction of one Halderman, and laid claim to the Temple Lot;
That up to 1890 this religious body had erected neither building nor fence upon the premises which was still being used as open common;
That the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has sustained its contention that it is the true and lawful successor of the original church organised in 1830 and identical with it in faith, doctrine, and practice;
That notwithstanding such established claim, the Reorganised Church must recognize that in instituting proceedings to obtain possession of this Temple Lot it did so after sleeping long upon its rights and, under the statute of limitations found in the law of the State, loses its rights through having so long refrained from claiming possession;
That this same law would also apply to the Hedrickite Church and others, and thus no group need be made loser or gainer by a strict construction and application of the statutes; but so far as the suit planted by the Reorganized Church to obtain possession is concerned it is denied upon the ground of laches.
Reviewing the Outcome
It remained for us to consider that as a church we had prosecuted with fairness this suit begun in the Federal Courts and had placed every fact within our knowledge at the disposal of the Court, and that those directly engaged were justified in believing we had received a fair and impartial hearing. The presentation had involved evidence concerning the structure and beliefs of the Reorganization, both as a general religious body and as a Branch or local group at Independence, and after all the details had been submitted we felt that the findings, while short of what we had hoped and desired, did in reality constitute a decisive moral victory.
This then, is the story of that suit. Though we had shown that as an ecclesiastical body the church had been banished from the State by the exercise of authority - an act of expulsion which has never been repealed or modified in any form and still remains upon the records of the General Assembly of Missouri to its everlasting shame and disgrace - it was evident the Court did not feel that the statue of limitation in regard to the possession of the property need to be construed in our favour, no matter how unlawful had been the enactments of that former Assembly and how cruel and outrageous the conduct of its officers in enforcing them.
Hence, as loyal citizens, we as a church body and members have been obliged to conduct ourselves with the verdict rendered by the Court of Appeals, even the while we had indubitably established the fact that we were the church lawfully in succession to the one organized in 1830, and by the terms of the trust created as I have described were legally entitled to possession of the Lot for the purpose designated. The decision gave our defeat in large measure the colour and texture of victory, since its adverse nature was determined simply upon a technicality which, from the conditions surrounding it, prevented us from carrying our case further in litigation. Hence, we could but feel gratified over certain phases of the result in spite of our disappointment.
Whatever unwillingness I may have felt, and still do feel, in having thus to submit to the decision of the Court of Appeals has had of course to be held in abeyance and kept under suppression. Still I confess that even yet a sense of injustice often arises in my mind as I recall the matter or bring the details of the case into review in conversing with others.
The Church of Christ has continued to hold the land and has erected a small frame building upon it which is occupied as a meeting house. The Lot has been enclosed by a good fence, and the premise is carefully guarded against intrusion. So far, they are absolutely too few in numbers and too entirely in confusion through division of sentiment among themselves to do anything toward either a settlement of the trust or an attempt to build a Temple upon the spot. I have wondered if their attitude does not come within the scope of the old, old adage of the 'dog in the manger' who could not eat the hay upon which he was lying or permit those for whom it was provided to have it. They will not, cannot themselves build the Temple, and they will not permit others to do so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My personal thoughts here:- Two christian churches go to court about a holy piece of land ... one is found the rightful owner, but because the unrightful one squatted on it long enough, they got to keep it. ..... In my mind that does not constitute Christ-like action! For example just because I stole something ten years ago does not make it mine, it still belongs to the rightful owner .... my opinion! :-/
It is for me to state that the strong effort made by C.A. Hall and others to present credible testimony to prove my father guilty of introducing into the tenets of the church organized by him in 1830, by direct command, supposed revelation, or personal teaching, example or practice thereof, the doctrine of polygamy or plural marriage failed most signally. The examination of many men who were with the church in my father's day failed to bring to light a single thing which would so inculpate him, and the testimony of the witnesses deposing to the contrary in Utah went to pieces utterly.
It was early in 1894 that the final hearing was held in Kansas City. Though I took no active part as counselor I attended throughout the sessions, keeping fully cognizant of the proceedings, step by step. On the first day of the trial, Bishop Kelley and his brother Parley P., Judge Edmunds, Brother Luff and I were invited to dine at Judge Traber's, chief counsel for our side. It proved to be a most pleasant and enjoyable occasion. That gentleman had become very deeply interested in the suit and was favourably impressed by the wealth of evidence we had presented in support of our contention. He was a very genial man, just passing middle age, pleasantly situated in his home, and seemingly kindly disposed towards us and our cause, which he considered a just one under the circumstances.
After the suit had been urged on both sides and left to the consideration of the Court, I asked Judge Edmunds what he thought would be the probable outcome. With a shrug of his shoulders and a characteristic motion of his head, familiar to me through past years of association, he said,
'It is impossible for a mere human to know, but according to my understanding of the case and as it has been presented in Court, no existing tribunal could fail to find a judgement in your favour.'
Decision and Appeal
Since Judge Phillips required some time to look over testimonies and depositions we had to wait for his decision, with what patience we could. Passing over the interim, I will say that early in March Brother Kelley went down to Kansas City in order to be present on the day set by the Judge for the rendition of his findings. On the morning of that day, as I was going to my daily tasks in the Herald office and was passing the front of the residence of Brother Frank Criley, just south of my destination, I heard a voice plainly say,
'The decision of the Court will be in favour of the Reorganised Church on every point!'
Looking about I saw there was no one near who could have spoken. There was no one on the street passing either way, in fact, no human being in sight anywhere. Nevertheless once more I heard the voice, repeating clearly and emphatically the same words.
Entering the office I told my companions there what I had heard. And in the course of the day a telegram came from Bishop Kelley containing the information that the decision handed down by Judge Phillips was in our favour on every point in controversy!
Thus was verified the prescient assurance I had so long felt in regard to the claims of opposing factions of the church being heard before the courts of the land. Those held adversely to us and thereby became opponents both of our faith and doctrinal beliefs and in the specific petition involved in the suit had been duly notified of the proposed action in the Courts. The contest had left these opponents and factions no possible excuse by which to justify on their part any avoidance of the issue raised by just such an inquiry of investigation. Needless to say, we rejoiced exceedingly in the decision which had resulted, and felt anew a vindication of the claims and positions we held.
However, we felt sure our adversaries would not content with the findings and would appeal their cause to a higher court. That is exactly what did happen, and the case was again presented, being placed before the Circuit Court of Appeals in the city of Saint Louis. The final decision rendered by this Court confirmed the victory we had gained so far as doctrinal matters and points of organization and succession were concerned, but denied our petition for possession upon the grounds that the suit had not been begun within the proper time after adverse possession had been entered upon.
Certain conditions barred our making appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and thus we had to be content with this decision which lost us our contention on the ground of laches - undue delay in asserting our rights. The possession of the lot remains in the hands of the Church of Christ.
A Notable Victory
Because the Reorganized Church scored a notable victory on every moral and spiritual point involved in the controversy (even though it lost the material advantage sought) I am impressed to briefly review here some matters which were touched upon and established in these competent courts of jurisprudence, even though twenty years have elapsed since the suit was heard and the issue decided. Briefly, some of the important facts thus established were the following:
That the church was organized upon American soil under the constitutional rule of the United States, upon the claim that it was so founded by Divine direction and through the interposition of Divine Povedence in the form of direct revelation from Jesus Christ, the acknowledged great Head of the church;
That after a number of years of successful propaganda by a called and ordained ministry sent to preach the Gospel in harmony with the rules stated in King James' Version of the Bible, recognized as the Word of God by the voice of inspiration in revelation, a following was secured who subscribed to the principles of faith and doctrine thus declared;
That this increase of growth required a removal from the place where the church was instituted, and a settlement was made at Kirtland, Ohio, where a large gathering ensued and a house of worship, called a Temple, was erected;
That while this was going on a book was published, translated from the records of a people who had existed upon this land many years before its discovery by Columbus, which book, called the Book of Mormon, contained the Gospel of Christ as it had been stated and given to the world in the book called the Bible, said Book of Mormon having come in the form of revelation to this generation and to this people in America;
That in pursuance with later commandments, similarly received, the colony of believers in this message and church organization removed from Kirtland and made a settlement at Independence, Missouri, where they flourished for a short time;
That by reason of the principles of belief and practice espoused by this colony, as well as by reason of their innate characters and influence, these people were opposed to the custom of holding human beings in involuntary servitude, commonly called slavery, which sentiment was obnoxious to the pro-slavery feeling dominant in Missouri at that time;
That because of the enmity thus created a system of proscription and persecution was set in operation against them, which resulted in their being driven from Jackson and adjacent Counties in Missouri, after several conflicts between them and the older settlers of the locality, in which conflicts numbers were killed on both sides;
That being thus expelled from their homes in Jackson and adjacent Counties they yielded to what they could not avoid and scattered to different Counties north and east, continuing in their attempts to make settlements;
That in 1838, after the adverse public sentiment had crystallized into a quasi-legislative enactment, the militia organised under the command of the Governor of the State, and these believers, called Mormons, were ordered to leave Missouri entirely, under penalty and threat of extermination should they attempt to remain;
That the leading men of the church - Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and a few others - were arrested by the military authorities under Generals Lucas and Clark, and by an act of court martial under the jurisdiction of those Generals a verdict was rendered which directed that these prisoners should be publicaly shot to death;
That the carrying out of this extreme order, in itself the result of unlawful procedure, was frustrated through the courageous and outspoken condemnation of Colonel Alexander W. Doniphan, commanding the troops gathered under Lucas and Clark, who declared it was cold-blooded murder, that he would not execute the order and, further, that he could hold those Generals personally and publicly responsible for the execution of those men should they attempt to carry it out;
That the leading Generals, evidently fearing that Doniphan would carry out his threat, turned the prisoners over to the civil authorities instead, who lodged them in a jail at Liberty, Missouri, where they were held in close confinement for months;
That the sentence of extermination from the State culminated in the fall of 1838, and the colonists, without justifable warrant, were driven into the States adjoining Missouri, most of them drifting northeast into the then free State of Illinois;
That persecution followed them there, and upon the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844 a division occurred, the people being deprived of their leaders, scattered here and there in small bands;
That at this dispersion a comparatively large portion followed Brigham Young into the western wilderness where they hoped to be permitted to live in peace and equity, enjoying the privileges of their religion;
That many years later, after the termination of the Civil War by which Missouri became a 'free' State, numbers of the people of the church began to return to Independence, a few at a time, hoping to be permitted to occupy as had been contemplated when they began the settlement in 1831 to 1833;
That the Temple Lot upon which had been planned to erect a Temple similar to that built at Kirtland was then unoccupied and used as a commons over which every one had free passage;
That by virtue of various acts of legislation by the General Assembly of Missouri the original tract of sixty-three acres which had once constituted a trust held by qualified trustees for the original church and for the purpose of the proposed Temple had been reduced to a small square of four or five acres or less, or, technically speaking, eight platted lots, numbered from 15 to 22 in a certain addition;
That this portion fell, by a series of lost title operations, into the possession of, or was held by, a man named James Pool, but that no building or other evidence of occupation was then established;
That partially under the supervision of John E. Page - a member of the Quorum of Twelve at the death of Joseph Smith and one who like William B, Smith and Lyman Wight of that Quorum had refused to acknowledge the supremacy of Brigham Young - an organization of a certain group was effected which later, in Illinois, under the leadership of Granville Hedrick and some members of the original church, was formed into what was called the Church of Christ, commonly called Hedrickites;
That a small group of this body came to Independence, organized a Branch under the direction of one Halderman, and laid claim to the Temple Lot;
That up to 1890 this religious body had erected neither building nor fence upon the premises which was still being used as open common;
That the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has sustained its contention that it is the true and lawful successor of the original church organised in 1830 and identical with it in faith, doctrine, and practice;
That notwithstanding such established claim, the Reorganised Church must recognize that in instituting proceedings to obtain possession of this Temple Lot it did so after sleeping long upon its rights and, under the statute of limitations found in the law of the State, loses its rights through having so long refrained from claiming possession;
That this same law would also apply to the Hedrickite Church and others, and thus no group need be made loser or gainer by a strict construction and application of the statutes; but so far as the suit planted by the Reorganized Church to obtain possession is concerned it is denied upon the ground of laches.
Reviewing the Outcome
It remained for us to consider that as a church we had prosecuted with fairness this suit begun in the Federal Courts and had placed every fact within our knowledge at the disposal of the Court, and that those directly engaged were justified in believing we had received a fair and impartial hearing. The presentation had involved evidence concerning the structure and beliefs of the Reorganization, both as a general religious body and as a Branch or local group at Independence, and after all the details had been submitted we felt that the findings, while short of what we had hoped and desired, did in reality constitute a decisive moral victory.
This then, is the story of that suit. Though we had shown that as an ecclesiastical body the church had been banished from the State by the exercise of authority - an act of expulsion which has never been repealed or modified in any form and still remains upon the records of the General Assembly of Missouri to its everlasting shame and disgrace - it was evident the Court did not feel that the statue of limitation in regard to the possession of the property need to be construed in our favour, no matter how unlawful had been the enactments of that former Assembly and how cruel and outrageous the conduct of its officers in enforcing them.
Hence, as loyal citizens, we as a church body and members have been obliged to conduct ourselves with the verdict rendered by the Court of Appeals, even the while we had indubitably established the fact that we were the church lawfully in succession to the one organized in 1830, and by the terms of the trust created as I have described were legally entitled to possession of the Lot for the purpose designated. The decision gave our defeat in large measure the colour and texture of victory, since its adverse nature was determined simply upon a technicality which, from the conditions surrounding it, prevented us from carrying our case further in litigation. Hence, we could but feel gratified over certain phases of the result in spite of our disappointment.
Whatever unwillingness I may have felt, and still do feel, in having thus to submit to the decision of the Court of Appeals has had of course to be held in abeyance and kept under suppression. Still I confess that even yet a sense of injustice often arises in my mind as I recall the matter or bring the details of the case into review in conversing with others.
The Church of Christ has continued to hold the land and has erected a small frame building upon it which is occupied as a meeting house. The Lot has been enclosed by a good fence, and the premise is carefully guarded against intrusion. So far, they are absolutely too few in numbers and too entirely in confusion through division of sentiment among themselves to do anything toward either a settlement of the trust or an attempt to build a Temple upon the spot. I have wondered if their attitude does not come within the scope of the old, old adage of the 'dog in the manger' who could not eat the hay upon which he was lying or permit those for whom it was provided to have it. They will not, cannot themselves build the Temple, and they will not permit others to do so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My personal thoughts here:- Two christian churches go to court about a holy piece of land ... one is found the rightful owner, but because the unrightful one squatted on it long enough, they got to keep it. ..... In my mind that does not constitute Christ-like action! For example just because I stole something ten years ago does not make it mine, it still belongs to the rightful owner .... my opinion! :-/
No comments:
Post a Comment