
Journal of Discourses 7:220 (August 14, 1859).
Joseph Smith Jr.'s First Vision
Journal of Discourses 8:354. (March 3, 1861)
Young comments on Joseph Smith, Jr.’s First Vision
1860s
Journal of Discourses 7:220 (August 14, 1859).
Joseph Smith Jr.'s First Vision
Journal of Discourses 18:239 (June 23, 1874)
1870s
“His nobility led him to take a few steps in the direction of fortune, and then to despise her.”
Il avait, par grandeur d'âme, fait quelques pas vers la fortune, et par grandeur d'âme il la méprisa.
Maxims and Considerations, #548
Journal of Discourses 2:170-171 (February 18, 1855)
Young comments on Joseph Smith’s visions. This quote is often presented in a heavily edited form which reads: "The Lord did not come…But he did send his angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun.,…"
1850s
Journal of Discourses 21:308 (September 19, 1880).
Joseph Smith Jr.'s First Vision
Source: No Treason (1867–1870), No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority, p. 24; the first sentence here is widely paraphrased as: A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Context: A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.
The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, Congress have that absolute and irresponsible lawmaking power, which the Constitution — according to their interpretation of it — gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us.
But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?
The Last Good Campaign, 2008-10-12, Thurston Clarke, 2008, June, Vanity Fair Online http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/06/rfk_excerpt200806?currentPage=4,
Said when asked if he thought Robert F. Kennedy could win the Democratic nomination for President in 1968, comparing Kennedy to Judas Iscariot.