Read Ebook: Succession in the Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by Roberts B H Brigham Henry

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 222 lines and 27770 words, and 5 pages

I heard Brigham Young say from the public stand, in Nauvoo, soon after the death of Joseph the Seer, that he and the Saints knew "Little Joseph" would stand in his father's place and lead the Church, but it would not do to teach it then, for their enemies would kill him as they did his father.

Is it worth while to stop to point out the inconsistencies of this testimony? What Bishop Miller represents as having been conveyed to him in private conversation only in the most vague manner--by "hints and inuendoes;" and to Mr. Millikin in the privacy of a confidential council of the priesthood, with the caution that nothing must be said about it least the boy's life be put in jeopardy thereby--what was conveyed to these parties in secret, Mr. Moore represents Brigham Young as teaching from the public stand! Yet so far recognizing the danger of having it taught as to say it must not be mentioned least their enemies kill the boy as they had his father--yet Brigham Young teaching it the while in the most public manner! I will not here write an apostrophe to consistency. I will merely put Brigham Young's reputation for common sense and discretion against the testimony of Mr. Moore.

This is the Josephite case on the matter of Mr. Smith being appointed by his father to the position of prophet and President of the church. I have given all the testimony they have been able to rake together, and have quoted it as they give it in their own works, not a word changed, not a witness of theirs overlooked, so far as they have published their statements. And now that this testimony is before the reader, I ask him: What is its value? Look it over, there is not a direct statement at first hand in it, except, perhaps, in the case of Mr. Wight, and in his testimony, as presented by the Josephites themselves, there is such conflict as to time and place as to render it worthless. Not even Mr. Smith, the claimant himself, makes a direct averment that he was ordained by his father to succeed him as prophet and President of the church. The best he can do is to say that he was blessed by his father in the year 1844, in the presence of quite a number of then prominent elders in the church; but as to the nature of that blessing he is silent. The testimony the Reorganized church depends on is hear-say testimony only, and that of a very questionable character--of the nature of old wives' fables, and the assertions of apostates!

Following the several testimonies relied upon by Josephites to sustain their claims that "young Joseph" was appointed by his father to succeed to the Presidency, I have made such remarks as point out the worthlessness of each statement, I now wish to call attention to considerations which destroy the whole theory:

First, the silence of Sidney Rigdon in respect to "young Joseph," when he was putting forth his claims to be the "Guardian of the church," to build it up to Joseph the martyr. Had the idea prevailed at Nauvoo, as Josephites claim, that the son of the martyred prophet was to succeed his father as President of the church, what an opportunity for Sidney Rigdon, when putting forth his claims to be the "Guardian of the church!" How greatly would it have strengthened his position, if he could in truth have said: I claim the right to be the Guardian of the church until "young Joseph," whom our late prophet anointed and ordained to succeed him, shall have arrived at a suitable age to take his place. There would have been some significance to the phrase, "Guardian of the church," if Sidney Rigdon could have assumed this position. But he did not assume it, and the fair inference is that the reason why he did not assume it is because there was no idea prevalent at Nauvoo that "young Joseph" would succeed to his father's place.

Third, Mr. Edward Tullidge, in his life of Joseph the prophet--the Josephite edition--quotes the prophet Joseph as saying:

Mr. Tullidge quotes this passage differently from what it is written in the history of Joseph Smith; what authority he has for doing it he does not say. In Joseph's own history it is written:

I want Hyrum to live to avenge my blood, but he is determined not to leave me.

But though Mr. Tullidge misquotes this passage, there is evidence in addition to his word, that Joseph did desire and even ordained Hyrum Smith to succeed him. At the October conference following the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, and the 8th of August meeting at which the Twelve were recognized as the presiding quorum in the church, President Young in a discourse said:

If Hyrum had lived he would not have stood between Joseph and the Twelve, but he would have stood for Joseph. Did Joseph ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum. But Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph did.

If the prophet Joseph wanted Hyrum to lead the church, as asserted by Mr. Tullidge, and had "ordained" him to that position--according to the statement of President Young--what becomes of the claims made in behalf of "young Joseph" to an appointment and ordination to lead the church? In desiring and ordaining Hyrum to fill his place had the prophet forgotten the "anointing" and "ordination" of his son? This clearly disposes of the claims of "young Joseph" through any appointment by his father; for if the prophet Joseph appointed and ordained his brother Hyrum to succeed him, he did not appoint or ordain his son Joseph to do the same thing. If ever there was a case of a claim not proven, Mr. Smith's claim of appointment to the Presidency of the church through his father is that case.

Having disposed of Mr. Smith's claim to the right of the Presidency of the church so far as it is based upon an appointment through his father, let us now take up his second claim, viz:

There are two offices and only two, in the church which descend by lineage from father to son: the office of patriarch and that of bishop. Of patriarchs it is said:

It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the Church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation. The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed to whom the promises were made. This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner.

The revelation then traces the lineage from Adam to Noah. This passage applies solely to patriarchs in the church, and yet Josephites attempt in their arguments to make it apply to the Presidency of the church. They say:

The law of lineage points unmistakably to young Joseph as the legal successor of his father. The law in the Doctrine and Covenants informs us that.

The order of this Priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made. This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner: From Adam to Seth .

I have written the words inserted by the Josephite writer in brackets in italics, that they may all the more readily be noticed. The Josephites are not only guilty of making a clear misapplication of this passage, but they read into the revelation by their inserted words in brackets what is not there, and what was never intended to be conveyed even by inference. The statement of the revelation is that the patriarchal order of priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, etc.; and not the offices in the priesthood as the Josephite writer quoted above affirms by his bracketed inserted words in the revelation.

I cannot think this is merely a mistake on the part of Josephite writers, the matter is so plainly a perversion of scripture, that it amounts to downright dishonesty.

In like manner Josephites misapply a passage in the writings of Abraham, where Abraham is represented as seeking after the patriarchal order of priesthood which was his by virtue of his lineage. Abraham sought for his rights as a patriarch--which right comes down from father to son, but Josephite writers make his words apply to the office of high priests in general, instead of confining it to patriarchs.

Of the second office in the church which descends from father to son--the office of bishop--the revelations of God provide that the literal descendants of Aaron--among the first born of his sons--have a right by virtue of their lineage to that position, if at any time they can prove their lineage, or do ascertain it by revelation from the Lord. But even in that case they must be designated by the Presidency of the Melchisedek priesthood, found worthy, and ordained by that Presidency, or by its direction, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in that calling.

These are the only offices in the priesthood which descend by lineage; yet Josephite writers quote the following in support of "young Joseph's" claims to the Presidency by lineage:

It is only by inserting the words, "Joseph the martyr," into the revelation--as the Josephite writer has done--that the passage can be made to apply at all to the prophet Joseph personally. The revelation quoted is one that was given, explaining the parable of the wheat and tares, and begins thus:

Verily thus saith the Lord unto you my servants, concerning the parable of the wheat and of the tares, etc.

Throughout the Lord addresses his "servants" and not Joseph Smith personally. Hence the statement in the passage that the priesthood had continued through the lineage of their fathers; that they were lawful heirs according to the flesh; that it must remain through them and their lineage until the restoration of all things--was a statement concerning, and a promise made as much to the other elders addressed on that occasion and their posterity, as to Joseph Smith and his posterity; and the insertion in the passage of "Joseph the martyr" in order to make the passage apply to him personally and to his posterity alone, is another instance of a Josephite writer's trickery.

Moreover, the statement and promise made to all the servants of God to whom the revelation is addressed, is in relation to the priesthood--not the Presidency of the priesthood, or the Presidency of the church, or any other office in the priesthood or church of Christ. Priesthood, and office in the priesthood are two things quite distinct; and even if a man inherited the priesthood of his fathers, it does not follow that he would inherit their office, which must come to him by appointment as the law of the Lord directs, and hereafter to be considered.

Josephites are at great pains to trace in the Book of Mormon the handing down of records and other sacred things from father to son, and this to prove--what? That the office of President of the church or leader of the people, descends by right of lineage from father to son! That is, because the records of a people are handed down from father to son, therefore the Presidency of the church descends by lineage also! What can be more absurd than this? Nor does it help our opponents out of the absurdity because some of those who held the records among the Nephites were presiding high priests over the church. Its only significance is that in those particular cases the office of presiding high priest and that of recorder were united.

Let it not be lost sight of, however, that the argument based upon the transfer of records among the Nephites from father to son has nothing to do with the office of President of the church descending by lineage.

In the face of this how can Mr. Smith claim any right, by virtue of lineage, to the Melchisedek priesthood, much less to the highest office in that priesthood? His claim is denied by that very father from whom he claims to have received it by inheritance. It occurs to me here to ask a question: If the office of President of the church does descend by lineage from the fathers, through the line of the eldest sons, how is it that the "law" did not operate on the other side of the prophet Joseph as well as on this side of him? If that "law" had operated so--and there is no good reason why it should not so operate, if indeed it be the "law" of the priesthood--it would have left out not only the present Mr. Smith but even the prophet Joseph himself. For in that event it would have come first to Joseph Smith, the father of the prophet, who was a noble, righteous man; and then after his death to his eldest living son, Hyrum Smith, than whom there has been no more righteous man among all the sons of God who have lived in this generation; and from him it would have passed on to his eldest son, thus leaving out the prophet Joseph altogether, as well as Mr. Smith. But let us leave a claim already disproved, and an argument which proves too much for those who employ it.

The third claim made in behalf of Mr. Smith is:

Of this it is not necessary to say very much. It could only be important if sustained by the other two claims, viz: that he was appointed by his father to succeed to the office of President of the church; and secondly, that the office is his by lineage. Since these two claims have been disproven, it renders his third claim of no effect. The "revelations" to himself by which he was called, however, are as shadowy as the arguments by which it is attempted to sustain his two preceding claims are weak.

Those "revelations" calling him to the Presidency of the church, as I gather them from Mr. Smith's Autobiography, are as follows: First, a vision just after recovering from an illness, in 1853, in which was shown to him, on the one hand, the busy marts of the world where men struggle for place, power and distinction; and on the other hand, an extended plain covered with the peaceful homes of a thrifty, happy people. A personage who appeared by his side said:

Which would you prefer, life, success and renown among the busy scenes that you first saw; or a place among these people without honors or renown? Think of it well, for the choice will be offered to you sooner or later, and you must be prepared to decide. Your decision once made you cannot recall it, and must abide the result.

Second, one day out in an open field, while considering the question, "why not go to Utah?" he was overshadowed by a bright cloud and he heard the words: "Because the light in which you stand is greater than theirs."

Third, a manifestation was given to him that he must oppose polygamy; but in what way the manifestation was given is not stated.

Fourth, in 1859, when revolving the question in his mind: "where and with whom shall my life-labor lie," he received a manifestation--how he does not say--to the following effect:

The Saints reorganizing at Zarahemla and other places, is the only organized portion of the Church accepted by me. I have given them my spirit, and will continue to do so while they remain humble and faithful.

These are all the "revelations" spoken of by Mr. Smith in his autobiography, or quoted by his supporters, hence these must be the "revelations" to himself by which he was called to be President of the church! Just where the "call" can be found in them is the thing which the writer of these pages cannot see: and he challenges anybody else to point it out.

Of course Josephites see the absurdity of this gathering at Amboy being called a general conference of the church, and try to escape it by explaining that all the rest of the saints were in transgression, and could not call a conference--those represented at the Amboy conference were the only saints; that is, the only saints who were "faithfully honoring and obeying the law of the Lord, and the order of his church"--so easy is it to say:

I come next to the fourth and last claim made in behalf of Mr. Smith, viz:--

Zenas H. Gurley for years followed fames J. Strang's leadership, and advocated his claims. Subsequently apostatizing from him and uniting with Mr. Jason W. Briggs, in forming the "Reorganized church." Any authority held by Mr. Gurley previous to the death of Joseph the prophet, was destroyed by his leaving the church of Christ to follow the apostate James J. Strang; hence any ordination received under his hands was worthless.

I have not been able to learn what position, if any, Messrs. Powers and Blair held in the church previous to the martyrdom of the prophet; but it is enough to know that about the time "young Joseph" decided to take the Presidency of the "Reorganized church," they were associated with William Marks in the work of "reorganizing" the church. It is claimed for them, however, as also for Mr. Gurley, that "they were apostles called by prophecy in the Reorganized church."

It has already been stated how seven Josephite apostles were called and ordained in our sketch of the rise of the Josephite church. Seven men were "called" to form a majority of the quorum of the twelve, by a "revelation" through H. H. Deam; but Messrs. Rogers and Blair were not in that number, hence they must have been "called" subsequently. But no matter when they were "called," if they held any apostolic authority, they held it by virtue of some ordination received at the hands of some one or more of the seven apostles, chosen through Mr. Deam's "revelation." Now, I affirm that among all those seven men who were "called" to form the majority of the quorum of the twelve, in the "Reorganization" not one of them held the apostleship; that they could not give what they did not possess; that therefore neither the seven men called to be apostles, in April, 1853, received the apostleship, nor any whom they subsequently ordained.

Further on I shall show that the church of Christ was not disorganized at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, nor at any other time since it was organized by the commandment of God, to Joseph the prophet, in 1830; and therefore, this "Reorganization" which began its existence in 1852-3 must have been a spurious institution, and, therefore, incapable of bestowing legitimate authority upon anyone.

There is one important fact in the history of the organization of the church in 1830, which the authors of the above quoted pamphlet have overlooked. It is a fact, too, which destroys all likeness between the organization of the church and its alleged reorganization, and all the fine-spun theories about the lesser ordaining the greater. That overlooked fact is that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery held the apostleship on the 6th of April, 1830, and by its power, and not by the power of the Aaronic priesthood--as alleged by the Josephite writers--organized the church of Christ. In proof of this I submit the following:

When Joseph and Oliver were ordained to the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist, May 15th, 1829, they were informed by John that he operated under the direction of the apostles Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Melchisedek priesthood, which, in due time, the heavenly messenger said, would be conferred upon them. Here then is a promise made to them of the Melchisedek priesthood.

In an address written to the saints by the prophet Joseph, under date of September 6th, 1842, he says:

Again what do we hear? . . . . The voice of Peter, James and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna River, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom and of the dispensation of the fullness of times.

This doubtless fixes the place where the apostleship was conferred upon the prophet. Now as to the time. In a revelation given in September, 1830, referring to Joseph and Oliver, and speaking of partaking of the sacrament again on earth, the Lord said:--

The hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni . . . . . and also with John the son of Zacharias . . . . and also with Peter, James and John whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you apostles, and especial witnesses of my name.

In another revelation dated June, 1829, the Lord says:--

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet