We will now consider the claim that Joseph Smith of the
"Reorganization" was properly ordained. We must first know what
constitutes a proper ordination.
First. It must be done by those holding authority in the Priesthood who
have been properly appointed; otherwise the ordination is not valid.
Second. The ordination must be approved by the body of the Church and
sanctioned by the Church, or it is not valid. For there is in the
Gospel the law of common consent. Doc. & Cov. Sec. 20:63, 65; 26:2.
Third, If a man exercises his Priesthood contrary to the rules of the
Church, or in unrighteousness, Amen to his authority.--Doc. & Cov.
121:27.
Fourth, "Again, I say unto you, it shall not be given to any one to
go forth to preach my Gospel, or to build up my Church except he be
ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the Church
that he has authority, and has been regularly ordained by the heads of
the Church."--(Sec. 42:11).
The question is, will the ordination of Joseph Smith of the
"Reorganization" stand this test? He was "ordained" under the hands of
William Marks (mouth), Zenas H. Gurley, William W. Blair and Samuel
Powers. Messrs. Blair and Powers never did belong to the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so we will pass them by without
consideration, and will take up the cases of William Marks and Zenas H.
Gurley separately.
William Marks was president of the Nauvoo stake at the time of the
martyrdom, but it is of a more recent period that we are considering
him. Did he in 1860 hold the priesthood? William Marks was dropped from
his position as president of the Nauvoo stake at a conference of the
Church held October 7, 1844. (T. & S., 5: 692).
The whole Church voting not to sustain him, excepting two votes. This
action was taken because he supported the claims of Sidney Rigdon and
opposed the Twelve and action of the Church. In the December following
he acknowledged his error in the following: