10. The Reorganite "defender" says, "Also, we wish Mr. Smith to note,
that the Lord in the same connection says, 'If my people will hearken
to my voice,' they shall not be moved out of their place. Were they
moved? Yes, they were cannonaded from Nauvoo, their enemies scattered
them, some of them went to Utah. Was it because they "hearkened," or
because they had not hearkened?"
He misinterprets the Scriptures. Thus do they read:
"And if my people will hearken unto my voice, _and unto the voice of
my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people_, behold, verily I
say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place" (verse 45).
Who these _servants_ were that the Saints should _"hearken"_ to, the
Lord informs us in verses 124 to 129 of this same section. "First, I
give unto you Hyrum Smith, to be a Patriarch unto you, * * * I give
unto you Joseph Smith, to be a presiding elder over all my Church. *
* * I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon, and my
servant William Law. * * * * I give unto you my servant Brigham Young,
to be a President over the Twelve traveling council, which Twelve hold
the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners
of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature; They
are--Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde,
William Smith, John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, Willard
Richards, George A. Smith." These were the general authorities who
were to be _"hearkened"_ to. And the people hearkened to the Prophets
Joseph and Hyrum Smith until their death, then the right of presidency
fell on the shoulders of the Twelve. The faithful Saints "hearkened" to
them and helped them to build the Temple. But the unfaithful rejected
these servants whom the Lord in this revelation gave to the Church
for the Saints to hearken to, departed from Nauvoo, refused to comply
with the command of the Lord to build His house, and were consequently
_moved out of their place_ in the Church into the "Reorganization." The
moving "out of their place" did not refer to the location (Nauvoo) but
to their place in the Kingdom of God; or, the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. And all who refused to obey this commandment
and hearken to these _servants_ were removed from the Church. "But if
they will not hearken to my voice, _nor unto the voice of these men
whom I have appointed_, they shall not be blest, because they pollute
mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy
words which I give unto them. And it shall come to pass, That if you
build a house unto my name, and _do not do the things that I say_, (i.
e., hearken to "the voice of these men whom I have appointed") I will
not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promise
which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord." (verses 46-7).
11. The Reorganite response to this is as follows: "Not by any means,
no such an indication. We have seen that they were diligent _in_ May
1842--not _up to_. The corner-stone of the edifice had been laid April
6, 1841, over a year from the date of the quotation. Room for a great
deal of lagging between those two periods of time."
"The next quotation is from Hyrum Smith (no reference) at the April
Conference, 1844, who speaks of, as Joseph F. Smith [Jr.], puts it, the
'willingness of the Saints to do the work as late as 1844.' Yes, but he
does not say they had been willing afforded time _up to_ 1844. From May
1842, to April, 1844, (nearly two years), afforded time to be guilty of
lethargy and to falter enough to incur the penalty the fiat of the Lord
had fixed."
Such miserable, puerile, balderdash set forth as argument, is
disgusting. Nevertheless it is characteristic of the "defense"
writer who, throughout, argues in this fashion, failing to present
the quotations he attacks for fear his readers will discover his
dishonorable methods. He was afraid to present to his readers the
quotation from the remarks of Patriarch Hyrum Smith and the quotation
from the Prophet wherein he said:
"Never since the formation of this Church was laid have we seen
manifest a greater willingness to comply with the requisitions of
Jehovah, a more ardent desire to do the will of God; more strenuous
exertions used or greater sacrifices made, than have been SINCE _the
Lord said_, LET THE TEMPLE BE BUILT BY THE TITHING OF MY PEOPLE!"
The reasons he did not give these quotations is, that he knew his
readers would see his trickery and deception. Then he goes on to argue
that the Saints were not _diligent_ in September 1841, because the Lord
said at that time: "Let the work of my Temple, and _all the works which
I have appointed unto you_, be continued on and not cease, let _your
diligence_ and _your perseverance_, and _patience_, and _your works be
redoubled_, and you shall in no wise lose your reward." (My italics).
Therefore, he argues, "they were not sufficiently diligent at that
time," because they were commanded to _redouble_ their works. "That at
least makes one positive break in Mr. Smith's chain of diligence."
Let us see: their works that were to be redoubled were not confined to
the building of the Temple, and the context of this revelation (see
sec. 127) proves that they were in favor with the Lord and had been
_diligent_ and _patient_ and _persevering_ in their works. We have seen
too, from the Prophet's own words, that "laboring with their might"
meant _one-tenth_ of their _time_ or _means--a tithing_ of the people,
which is all the Lord had asked of them, and this could be redoubled
without any thought of lethargy or lack of diligence. There is no
sense in the Reorganite "defender," being unreasonable, technical and
peevish in this matter to win a point for a dilapidated cause. There is
sufficient evidence given in this book; and it is not all that could
be given by any means, to show that the Saints labored faithfully,
diligently, and did all that the Lord required of them until they had
completed the Temple; and that, too, while they were being harassed,
persecuted, and in every way opposed by their enemies. All these facts
the "defender" very carefully avoids.
Another thing. Who was it that failed to be diligent and to labor
with their mights in building the Temple? Those scattered members who
refused to go to Nauvoo when commanded, and afterwards,--if we may
accept Reorganite testimony--became the nucleus of their Church! Those
who fled from Nauvoo with James J. Strang, Sidney Rigdon and William
Smith; forsaking the Church; refusing to assist in the completion of
the Temple; opposing the building of that edifice; even prophesying
that it would not be built, and blocking the progress of its erection!
Notwithstanding the Lord declared to Parley P. Pratt in a revelation
just following the martyrdom--which is accepted by the Reorganites as
genuine--"Go and say unto _my people_ (not rejected) in Nauvoo, that
they shall continue to pursue their daily duties and take care of
themselves, and make no movement in _Church government_ to reorganize
or alter anything until the return of the remainder of the quorum of
the Twelve (not rejected). _But exhort them that they continue to build
the House of the Lord which I have commanded them to build in Nauvoo_."
(My comments and italics). Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, page 371).
Notwithstanding this commandment, some forsook Nauvoo and refused to
assist in building the Temple, and these were the ones who afterwards
became active members of the "Reorganization." It will take more
evidence than a lot of innuendos, accusations, and downright sophistry
to prove that the Lord rejected those who labored diligently on the
Temple, according to His command, and accepted those who rejected the
Temple, and refused to assist in its erection.
12. Commenting on this the Reorganite "defender" says: "On page 23 he
quotes from Sidney Rigdon, 'In the _Messenger_ and _Advocate_ for June,
1846;' and on next page (24) he says: 'At that time (June, 1846) the
temple was not quite finished.' On page 24, not finished in June, and
on page 23, finished on May 1st. On which page is he correct?"
If the foregoing criticism was written through ignorance, of course the
writer may be excused, for one cannot be expected to furnish reasoning
powers to men who lack the capacity to understand a simple fact. But it
appears very forcibly that it is a deliberate prevarication, prepared
purposely to deceive, and thus shall I look upon it, rather than lay it
to his stupidity.
There is no contradiction whatever here, for I did not say, as he gives
it: "At this time (June, 1846) the Temple was not quite finished."
The reference taken from the letter of Sidney Rigdon, appeared in
the _Messenger_ and _Advocate_ of June, 1846, along with a number of
other articles _written_ in March, April and May, 1846. Any greenhorn,
much less a man of wisdom and intelligence, knows that an article
appearing in a monthly magazine is _always written before_ the date
of publication of the magazine, and more was this the case in 1846,
when the modern improvements and facilities were not to be had by a
small country publication. Now, what I did say--which would have been
apparent to his readers had he dared to publish the statement of Sidney
Rigdon and my comment which proves the diligence of the Saints _up to_
the last--was this: "This article was written just shortly after the
exodus commenced, and at _that time_ (i. e., shortly after the exodus
commenced) the Temple was not quite finished, but it was finished
before all the Saints left Nauvoo." (See context). This harmonizes
perfectly with the date of dedication. Moreover, Sidney Rigdon had
not been at Nauvoo since before the exodus commenced, which was in
February, 1846, not June, and was not prepared to say just what the
Saints did after that time.
13. In answer to the question, "when was the Church rejected with
its dead?" the president of the "Reorganization" in an editorial in
the Saints' Herald, February 17, 1905, said: "We are not aware that
specific date or time, or any one specific act has been fixed upon as
_the_ time and _the_ event when and why the Church was rejected." He
then declares that the seed was sown as early as 1843 that finally grew
and culminated in the "rejection of the Church."
Mr. Heman C. Smith quotes Lyman Wight (True Succession, p. 74) as
follows: "We were to have sufficient time to build that house,
[Nauvoo Temple] during which time our baptisms for our dead should be
acceptable in the river. If we did not build within this time we were
to be rejected as a church, we and our dead together. Both the Temple
and baptizing went very leisurely, till the Temple was somewhere in
building the second story, when Brother Joseph from the stand announced
the alarming declaration that baptism for the dead was no longer
acceptable in the river. As much to say the time for building the
Temple had passed by, and both we and our dead were rejected together.
* * *
"The Church now stands rejected together with their dead. The Church
being rejected now stands alienated from her God in every sense of the
word."
Mr. Heman C. Smith accepts this statement saying: "What but blind
ambition to rule prevented others of the signers [Apostles] from
recognizing the consequence so apparent?"
This was written by Lyman Wight in _1851_ and was an _afterthought_ on
his part, for he continued to work in the ministry until the death of
Joseph and Hyrum Smith, without one intimation by word or deed that
the Church had been rejected in 1841. Moreover, if the Saints could
get the structure of a building that cost a million dollars "somewhere
in building the second story" in that time of distress and trouble,
within _about six months_ they could not possibly have worked _very
leisurely_, and the Prophet in 1842 praised them for their diligence
and zeal. (See page 38).
Another Reorganite writer (A. M. Chase) in the Saints' Herald for June
20, 1906, declares that the Church was rejected in 1841: "When this
appointment was ended by revelation, October 3, 1841, and the temple
not completed, then all Israel should have known they were 'rejected as
a church' with their dead."
It is quite evident that the sufficient time was up on this date, for
they were to have the privilege to baptize in the river "while the time
was passing" and this privilege of baptizing in the river terminated,
October 3, 1841, thus proving that the time had come for baptisms in
the Temple. It was not _finished_ and the revelation did not call for
it to be _finished_, and at this time it was _built_ sufficiently for
this ordinance to be attended to in the font in the proper way. For
that reason the Lord transferred the ordinance of baptism for the
dead from the river to the font of the Lord's House. That he had not
rejected the Church is evident from this very commandment, for in it
the Lord tells them to baptize in the font in the Temple, which He
would not have done had they been rejected. If He had rejected them He
would have stated so positively in a revelation to the Prophet, for
he received several revelations _after_ this event and some of them
were concerning baptism for the dead and temple work. (See sections
127 and 128). This commandment given to the Church in 1841 and other
revelations subsequently, prove conclusively that the Lord would and
did accept of the work for the dead in the Temple, without it being
"completely finished," after the privilege to baptize in the river had
expired. The thing for which they were to be rejected was the failure
to perform these ordinances, _after the expiration of river baptisms_,
and the Saints did not fail to perform the ordinances in the Temple.
14. The Reorganite "defender" at this point carefully avoids the
evidence and argument presented here, and argues at great length
attempting to prove that the Church was rejected because the Lord
said He was "_about_ to restore many things to the earth pertaining
to the Priesthood." The Lord said: "I deign to reveal unto _My
Church_, things which have been kept hid from before the foundation
of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulnesss
of times." The "defender" says these things were not revealed, nor
restored to the Church; that no revelations that were kept hid from
before the foundation of the world, pertaining to the Priesthood in the
dispensation of the fulnesss of times, have been revealed from heaven;
therefore the Church was rejected with its dead. He says their Doctrine
and Covenants contains no such revelations; that no such revelations
are to be found in our edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; and,
therefore, he concludes, no such revelations have been given to us, or
the Church; so the Church must have been rejected.
He asks me to answer the following questions: "Now let us ask, Mr.
Smith: Have any such revelations been received? Name them. Where are
they and what are they?"
I have taken this matter up under the head of "Temple Building and
Ceremonial Endowments Therein." All that is necessary to say here is
this: If the Lord kept things hid from the world since before the
foundation thereof was laid and now has revealed them to His people,
they are not intended for the world and necessarily will not be
found in the written word. Such revelations have been revealed unto
the Church in the Temples of the Lord; but I shall _not_ name them.
If the Lord saw fit to keep them from the world, yes, and from the
dispensations past, He does not intend to reveal them to the world
_now_; neither to the scoffer and the unbeliever in His works. Let our
friend read Matthew 7:10-12, as it is given in the Holy Scriptures:
"_And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves_;
for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither
cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their
feet. For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not
able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest
they turn again and rend you."
Succession in the Presidency of the Church.
* * * * *
An Address Delivered in the Weber Stake Tabernacle, Ogden, Sunday,
April 28, 1907, by Elder Joseph F. Smith, Jr.
* * * * *
A short time ago I was invited to address the Saints from this stand
on the subject of "The Origin of the Reorganized Church." It has been
thought by some that it would be wise to continue the subject and
therefore I have been invited to address you this afternoon on the
question of Succession in the Presidency of the Church. In doing so, I
desire it to be understood that I have no feeling of animosity towards
those of a different faith; but so much has been said on the other
side of this question, and so little in our defense, that I feel it
important to deal with this subject.
The testimony on which members of the so-called "Reorganized" Church
base their contention that Joseph, son of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
should have succeeded his father in the Presidency of the Church is as
follows:
1. That it is his right by the law of lineage--that the office of
president of the High Priesthood descends from father to the first born
son.