[Footnote A: See _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, p. 337; and also
_The Successor_, a Josephite pamphlet, pp. 8, 9, 10, 11.]
It is my purpose to consider these claims in their order, one by one,
and show the untrustworthiness of the evidence upon which they are
based, the weakness of the argument by which they are sustained, and
finally how these claims contradict both the facts of history and the
order that exists in the holy priesthood. I take up the first
assumption in its several parts:
He was called to that position [_i. e._, to be President of the
church], through his father, by prophecy and blessing in Liberty jail.
This claim is based solely upon the testimony of Lyman Wight. They
quote him as follows:
In the private journal of Lyman Wight, . . . . this is found:
"Sunday, December 8th, 1850, bore testimony that Joseph Smith
appointed those of his own posterity to be his successor."
And in a letter he wrote in July, 1855, from Medina river, Texas,
to the _Northern Islander_, a Strangite paper, Brother Wight said:
Now Mr. Editor, if you had been present _when Joseph called on me
shortly after we came out of jail_,[A] [Liberty jail, Missouri.
--Ed.] to lay hands with him on the head of a youth, and heard him
cry aloud, "you are my successor when I depart." and heard the
blessings poured on his head,--I say had you heard all this, and
seen the tears streaming from his eyes--you would not have been
led [into following Strang] by blind fanaticism, or a zeal without
knowledge.[B]
[Footnote A: The _italics_ are mine, note them. R.]
[Footnote B: _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 338-9.]
Of this testimony it is to be said, first on the entry in Mr. Wight's
journal, that it is too general in its character to be of much service
in supporting the claims of "young Joseph." We are not certain that he
refers to him at all. Then if Lyman Wight knew in 1850 that Joseph the
prophet had blessed his son Joseph to be his successor, as prophet and
president of the church, Mr. Wight knew it in 1844; and is it not
strange that he did not speak of it and advocate it when the question
of a successor was warmly discussed in Nauvoo, during the autumn of
1844? Why is it that we have nothing from him on the subject earlier
than 1850? And this silence on the part of Mr. Wight is the more
significant when it is remembered that he was a bold, fearless man. It
cannot be said in truth, that Brigham Young's influence was so
masterly as to awe him into silence. As a matter of fact he violently
opposed Brigham Young in some of his measures, and at last rebelled
against him; but nothing is said by him until 1850, about the
appointment of any of the prophet's posterity to succeed to the
presidency of the church.
The letter quoted from the _Northern Islander_, might be of some force
if its statements were not contradicted as to time and place and
circumstance by another statement, also made in a Josephite
publication. Let it be observed that according to the testimony of Mr
Wight, in the _Northern Islander_, the "blessing and prophecy" under
consideration was given at a time that the prophet called on Mr.
Wight, _shortly after they came out of Liberty jail_. With that in
mind read the following in _The Successor:_--[A]
[Footnote A: A Josephite tract sustaining the claims of "young
Joseph," p. 3.]
Lyman Wight, one of the Twelve, always taught the saints whom he
led into Texas, that none but "little Joseph" could lead the
church, as successor to the martyr. He said he knew it, _for in
1839, when Hyrum, Joseph, and himself were in prison, in Liberty
jail, Missouri_, "little Joseph" was brought by his mother _and
left with his father in the jail_, while she was attending to
business affairs in the town--_and that then and there_[A] Joseph,
with Hyrum and himself, laid their hands upon the lad's head, and
Joseph proceeded to bless him, and prophesied that he would yet
lead the church of the living God; and he blessed him to that end.
Such was the testimony of Lyman Wight up to 1858, the year in
which he died.
[Footnote A: The _italics_ are mine. R.]
This statement makes the "blessing and prophecy" to have been
pronounced upon the head of "young Joseph," in Liberty jail; whereas
the statement made by Mr. Wight in the _Northern Islander_, places it
shortly after they came out of Liberty jail. And be it further
remarked, that if it took place after they came out of prison, then it
must have taken place in Illinois and not in Missouri at all. For the
family of the prophet started from Far West on the 7th of February,
1839, in charge of Stephen Markham, and after many hardships arrived
on the banks of the Mississippi, opposite the town of Quincy,
Illinois, on the 15th of the same month.[A] Joseph Smith and his
fellow prisoners were taken from Liberty jail to Gallatin, for trial,
in April. They applied for and obtained a change of venue from Daviess
to Boone county, and while en route escaped from their guards. After
making their escape the prophet says:
[Footnote A: History of Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XVI., p.
742.]
We continued our journey, both by night and by day; and after
suffering much fatigue and hunger, I arrived in Quincy, Illinois
(Monday, April 22nd) amidst the congratulations of my friends and
the embraces of my family, whom I found as well as could be
expected, considering what they had been called on to endure.[A]
[Footnote A: Hist. Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_ Vol. XVII, p.148.]
Hence if the "prophecy and blessing" on the head of "young Joseph"
took place after Mr. Wight and the prophet Joseph got out of prison,
it must have taken place in Illinois and not in Liberty jail,
Missouri, as related in the second statement with such detail of
circumstance. This contradiction in the testimony of Mr. Wight, taken
in connection with the fact that at the time of making it, viz, in
1855, he had lost his honor, was an apostate, neither being true to
the church of Christ led by his fellow apostles nor true to the son of
the prophet whom he claimed to know had been set apart to succeed to
the Presidency of the church--these considerations, I say, render the
testimony of Lyman Wight worthless.
Furthermore, Caleb Baldwin and Alexander McRae were fellow-prisoners
of Joseph and Hyrum Smith as well as Lyman Wight. They all occupied
the same prison-cell--how is it, if the ordination of "young Joseph"
to succeed his father took place in Liberty Jail, that these men knew
nothing of it; for that they knew nothing of it is evident from their
silence. Surely such a thing could not occur in Liberty jail without
their knowing it. And had it occurred it is a matter that would have
been well remembered and frequently spoken of as one of the notable
incidents of their Liberty-prison life. But not one word have either
Caleb Baldwin or Alexander McRae left on record that such a notable
thing ever took place; neither has Lyman Wight in any way that carries
even so much as a poor shadow of conviction with it.
_(2) Mr. Smith further claims that he was called to be President of
the church through his father by revelation in 1841_.
The revelation referred to was given the 19th of January, 1841. The
passage in it supposed to sustain the claim of appointment of "young
Joseph" to be the President of the church is the following:
And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I
have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it
be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let
my servant Joseph, and his house have place therein, from
generation to generation; for this anointing have I put upon his
head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his
posterity after him, and as I said unto Abraham concerning the
kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph, in
thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.
Therefore let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place
in that house, from generation to generation, for ever and for
ever, saith the Lord.[A]
[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov., sec. xxiv, 56-59.]
This is not difficult to comprehend as it stands thus in the Doctrine
and Covenants unmarred. It is simply this: a commandment was given to
build the Nauvoo House, a tavern, for the boarding and lodging of
strangers. Joseph Smith and his family were also to have a home
therein; for he was commanded to put stock in the house, and as a
matter of fact did put considerable stock into it; and his family
after him, from generation to generation, was to have that inheritance
in the house. It was to be theirs because the prophet Joseph had
purchased the stock which secured to him, and his posterity after him,
the right of a home within it. The passage does not in any manner
refer to succession in the Presidency of the church. What it does
refer to is clearly seen in the commencement of the paragraph--"And
now I say unto you, _as pertaining to my boarding house, which I have
commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, etc._" That is
the subject of the passage, not the priesthood, nor the succession of
the prophet Joseph's son to his father's position as President of the
church. How absurd the argument that because a man's posterity are to
inherit his stock in a hotel, or succeed to the right of living in it
as a return for having paid a large sum towards the construction of
it, that therefore we must conclude that it means, too, that a man's
posterity or at least the "head" of it--the eldest son--must also
inherit the father's priesthood and calling as President of the
church! Yet this is the construction Josephites put upon this passage.
To do it, however, they are under the necessity of reading into the
revelation something which the Lord never put there. In evidence of
which, and also as an illustration of Josephite methods, I reproduce
the passage as they print it in their controversial writings, with
this exception that I write the lines which they insert in brackets in
_italics_ also, that they may the more readily be observed:
And now I say unto you as pertaining to my boarding house which I
have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it
be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let
my servant Joseph Smith and his house have place therein from
generation to generation; for this anointing [_appointment and
consecration to be prophet and president of the church_] have I
put upon his head, that his blessings [_to these offices and
callings_] shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after
him, and as I said unto Abraham, concerning the kindreds of the
earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph, in thee and in thy
seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed. Therefore [_for
that reason_] let my servant Joseph and his seed after him, have
place in that house from generation to generation, forever and
forever saith the Lord.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 338.]
Of this it is only necessary to say that a cause which requires such a
wresting of the word of God to wring a promise out of it that the
eldest son of the prophet would succeed to the office of the President
of the church after the death of his father--a cause which requires
such a reading as is here thrust into the revelation in brackets, is
desperate indeed!
_(3) Mr. Smith claims that he was called through his father to be
President of the church by a formal anointing in a council at Nauvoo,
in 1844_.
In support of this claim Josephites quote only the testimony of Mr.
James Whitehead, who resides at Lamoni, Iowa, and who is said to have
been one of the secretaries of Joseph the prophet. It is said of him
rather than by him, that for the past twenty and more years he has
Testified publicly that he personally knew that Joseph the seer,
in the presence of a number of the ministry, in Nauvoo, anointed
and set apart his son Joseph to be his successor in the prophetic
office and Presidency of the church, and that soon after the seer
announced publicly from the stand, on a Sunday, that his son
Joseph would be his successor.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
In _The Successor_, already several times quoted, it is said that Mr.
Whitehead testifies that Bishop Newel K. Whitney was present and held
the horn of oil on the occasion of this anointing. He asserts that
George J. Adams was also present; and Emma, wife of the prophet, is
represented as having said:--
She well remembers the time, and, though not present, she heard
her husband say that young Joseph was set apart to be his
successor. She also says that after young Joseph was anointed and
set apart, George J. Adams came down to her room greatly elated
with what had transpired, saying that they now knew who would be
the successor of Joseph; that it was young Joseph, for his father
had just set him apart to that office and calling.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 8.]
I would have more respect for this evidence if, instead of being the
alleged statements of these several parties, it had been the very
statements themselves--the statements of Mr. Whitehead and of Emma
Smith, instead of a report of what they said by some Josephite writer.
So far as Mr. George J. Adams is concerned he must very soon have
forgotten his elation at finding out who the true successor of the
prophet was; for he afterwards became a follower of Mr. Strang, and
the very man who crowned him "king" at Beaver Island.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXV, p. 718.]
Of this alleged anointing in 1844, when Mr. Smith was a lad twelve
years of age, he himself can only say:
Before the death of my father and uncle Hyrum, I was blessed by
the first, in the presence of quite a number of then prominent
Elders in the Church, this blessing being confirmed just prior to
the tragedy at Carthage.
This is the only personal statement of his that I have ever seen in
all the writings of the Josephites in regard to his ordination and
blessing by his father, and it appears that he has no recollection of
the nature of this "blessing;" if he was anointed and blessed to be
the future prophet and President of the church, he evidently has no
recollection of it, though he was of an age when such a circumstance
would make a deep impression on the mind and would never have left him
in the doubt he confesses to, respecting his connection with the work
of his father to which for many years, in his youth, he exhibited
almost complete indifference.[A]
[Footnote A: See his autobiography published in Josephite edition of
the Life of Joseph the Prophet, from p. 743-801.]
Of the alleged statement of Emma Smith, that she well remembers,
though not present, the circumstance of the anointing in 1844--the
elation of George J. Adams on learning who the successor of Joseph the
prophet was to be, he coming immediately to her room after the
ceremony of anointing to tell her the glad news; and also about well
remembering her husband say that "young Joseph" was anointed and set
apart to be his successor--of all this, I say, it is somewhat strange
that Mrs. Emma Smith did not "well remember" it during the years of
doubt through which "her son" passed, respecting his connection with
the work of his father. How is it that she did not then come to his
assistance by reminding him--since he had forgotten it, if he ever
knew it--that he had been anointed and set apart to be the successor
of his father,--both her husband and George J. Adams having told her
so! Especially is her silence astonishing on the occasion of the visit
of Messrs. Briggs and Gurley in 1856 to "young Joseph," when those
gentlemen almost, as we have seen, commanded him to become the
President of their organization. One of the interviews between these
gentlemen and Mr. Smith was conducted in the home of Mrs. Emma Smith,
they being introduced at that time both to her and her husband, Mr.
Bidamon. It was on that very occasion, too, that Mr. Smith gave these
gentlemen the answer that he would not go with them to be their
leader, and he plodded on four years longer, in doubt as to what his
future connection would be with the church. Instinctively one exclaims
why did not his mother at that crisis come to the rescue, and say:
Why, my son, you are yet to become the prophet and President of the
church, founded under God, by your father. I well remember, though not
present, the occasion on which you were anointed and set apart to that
position by your father. Both your father and George J. Adams told me
of it--the day you were blessed, don't you remember it? Instead of
this we see her absolutely silent!
It is claimed, however, that at the Amboy conference in 1860, she
endorsed her son as President of the church.
She publicly bore a faithful testimony to the work begun through
her martyred husband, and said the present occasion was one she
had looked for for the last sixteen years. Said she knew such a
time must come, but had not known until a short time before that
it was so near at hand.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 14.]
And this is the best she could do! Much stress is laid upon Mrs. Emma
Smith being spoken of in one of the revelations in the Doctrine and
Covenants as an "elect lady,"[A] and since the "elect"[B] cannot be
deceived, her endorsement of her son, and her rejection of all others,
is taken as
[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. sec. xxv.]
[Footnote B: Matt. xxiv, 24.]
Conclusive testimony that young Joseph is his father's
successor![A]
[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 15.]
But would not the "testimony" have been more "conclusive," if on that
occasion she had given a personal statement that her son had been
anointed and set apart in 1844, by his father; and though not present,
she knew it upon the statement of both her husband and George J.
Adams? Was not the occasion worthy of such a statement? Would it not
have been opportune? Would it not have been at least more conclusive
than the argument based on Mrs. Emma Smith being an "elect lady," and
her endorsement of "young Joseph?"
I now proceed to examine the testimony given in a general way, that
is, without reference to special occasions on which Mr. Smith was
called or anointed to be his father's successor, as prophet and
President of the church; but which represents the general idea that he
was to succeed to these positions.
Charles Derry, whose word will not be questioned by those who know
him, says that William Clayton, of Salt Lake City, told him at the
time they were laboring together in England, that he knew it was
for "little Joseph" to lead the church.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
Yet William Clayton, a man of unyielding determination and probity of
character, continued a member of the church of Christ, led to Utah by
President Brigham Young and his fellow apostles, giving to it and its
leaders his unqualified support! To accept the statement of Charles
Derry is to make the best part of William Clayton's life a lie--those
who knew him, at least, will refuse to do that. I put the character of
William Clayton and the fact of his allegiance to the church of Christ
under the Presidency of Brigham Young, against the statement of
Charles Derry.
W. W. Phelps wrote to Alpheus Cutler in 1847, that church affairs
were in a bad condition, and that he did not look for a change for
the better until the Lord should send "young Joseph" to lead the
church.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
This is a case similar to the one which precedes it--Mr. Phelps gave
his allegiance to the church of Christ in Utah up to the time of his
death, and the fact of his allegiance is put against the statement he
is said to have made in a letter to Alpheus Cutler--mark you, we have
not the letter, nor even a quotation from it. It is the life and
character of W. W. Phelps against the alleged statement of Mr. Cutler.
P. P. Pratt said to D. S. Mills, now of Santa Ana, California, and
to others when they were going from Utah to California, that the
church would never be fully and properly organized till young
Joseph was called to lead it.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
This testimony is on a par with the two quotations which precede it.
The statement attributed to Elder Pratt is contradicted by the facts
of his life and allegiance to the church of Christ led to Utah by
President Brigham Young.
Sister Lucy Smith, the mother of Joseph the seer, used to tell the
saints who called on her that young Joseph would yet lead the
church, for he had been appointed by his father.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
To controvert this testimony it is only necessary to refer to the
"visions?" of Lucy Smith published in this work, where she attempts to
sustain the claims of her son William to be the President of the
church; and wherein she says:
The Presidency of the Church belongs to William, _he being the
last of the heads of the Church, according to the lineage_, he
having inherited it from the family from before the foundation of
the world.[A]
[Footnote A: See pp. 19-21.]
Bishop Geo. Miller in a letter to the _Northern Islander_, in 1855, is
represented as saying:
From hints and inuendoes that I heard frequently, I was induced to
believe that Joseph had designated his son to succeed him in the
prophetic office, and on this belief I rested. . . . . I had
frequent attempts at conversation with Brigham Young and H. C.
Kimball, in regard to Joseph's leaving one to succeed him in the
prophetic office, and in all my attempts to ascertain the desired
truth as to that personage, I was invariably met with the inuendo,
"stop" or "hush Brother Miller, let there be nothing said in
regard to that matter, or we will have little Joseph killed as his
father was;" inferring indirectly that Joseph Smith had appointed
his son Joseph to succeed him in the prophetic office.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
If Bishop Miller had any testimony of any weight that Mr. Smith, the
son of the prophet, had been appointed to succeed to the position of
prophet and President of the church, will those who rely on his
statements explain how it is that with such testimony in his
possession he ran off after other leaders? First following Mr. Lyman
Wight to Texas, and after quarrelling with him joining Mr. Strang in
Michigan. Bishop Miller, like Lyman Wight, lost his honor, he was
neither true to the church of Christ led by the Twelve after the
martyrdom of the prophet Joseph, nor true to Mr. Wight, nor "young
Joseph." He became a restless man after his apostasy, unstable as
water. There is nothing either in the nature of his testimony or the
character of the man after his apostasy which gives any influence to
his statement.
This is to certify to all concerned, that we, the undersigned,
heard Brigham Young, in Salt Lake City, in 1854, and in Brigham
City, Utah, about 1859, when he was speaking in public meeting
concerning young Joseph Smith, son of Joseph the seer, say that
there was no man in the church more willing and ready than he to
give the Presidency of the church to young Joseph, when the latter
would come and claim it.
LOUIS GAULTER,
HARRIET E. GAULTER.[A]
LAMONI, Iowa, May 26, 1892.
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
In line with this is the following:
Brigham Young, at the April conference in 1854, said that young
Joseph was the man to lead the church, and that were it not for
his mother's influence, he would have been in Utah long before;
but he would come, and he would to God he was then in Utah to take
the burden off his shoulders; he would receive him with open
arms.[A]
[Footnote A: Ibid, p. 339.]
I have carefully examined the minutes of the April conference of 1854,
and also all the discourses published that President Brigham Young
delivered at that conference; and neither in the minutes or in the
discourses can I find anything which justifies the above statement in
regard to what President Young said at that conference. I take it
therefore that the assertion is based upon the statement of Louis and
Harriet Gaulter which precede it. If there is anything in the
discourses of President Brigham Young, or the minutes of any of the
conferences of the church which would bear out the case of the
"Reorganized church," the writers thereof would be at great pains to
publish it. The fact that they do not publish the words of President
Young, but the words of others who claim to have heard him say that
"young Joseph" was the man to lead the church, is pretty fair evidence
that they can find nothing directly upon the point at issue in
President Young's own words.
The late Arthur Millikin, who resided at Colchester, Illinois,
brother-in-law to the martyr, said in a letter to young Joseph in
1868, Brigham Young said in a council, at our house in Nauvoo,
shortly after your father's death, that neither Rigdon, himself,
nor any other man but "young Joseph" could lead this people, when
he comes of age, and no person can take it from him, and that to
talk about it in public would endanger the boy's life.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
Amos B. Moore, of Lamoni, Iowa, is represented as saying:
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.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]
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 (himself at the time a trusted leader,)
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.
Second, the silence of William Smith in respect to "young Joseph" in
his controversy with the Twelve in respect to leadership. Had any idea
prevailed at Nauvoo that "young Joseph" was to succeed to the
Presidency of the church, this man, his uncle, would have known it;
and would have strengthened his own claims at that time to the right
of leadership, by proclaiming himself, as he did afterwards, in 1850,
the natural guardian of the one who had been anointed and ordained to
succeed to the office of President. But this he did not do. On the
contrary, he claimed the place for himself by virtue of being the
_brother_ of the prophet. When he failed to secure the position of
leadership for himself, he followed the leadership of James J. Strang
instead of supporting the claims of "young Joseph." Not until 1850 did
he begin to proclaim the right of "young Joseph" to be the President
of the church; and then not by any virtue of appointment from his
father, but by right of lineage; and with this movement on his part
originates the claims of Mr. Smith to the Presidency.
Third, Mr. Edward Tullidge, in his life of Joseph the prophet--the
Josephite edition--quotes the prophet Joseph as saying:
"I told Stephen Markham," says Joseph, "that if I and Hyrum were
ever taken again, we should [would?] be massacred, or I was not a
Prophet of God. _I want Hyrum to live to lead the Church, but he
is determined not to leave me_."[A]
[Footnote A: Page 491.--Let it be remembered that the Josephites in
this work quoted accepted Mr. Tullidge as their historian. Italics are
mine. R.]
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.[A]
[Footnote A: Hist. Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XXIV, p. 332.]
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.[A]
[Footnote A: _Times and Seasons_, Vol. V, p. 683.]
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:
_The position is his by lineage--his birth-right_.
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[A] 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.[B]
[Footnote A: "An evangelist is a patriarch, even the oldest man of the
blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham."--_Joseph Smith_ (Hist. of
Joseph, under date of June 27, 1839).]
[Footnote B: Doc. and Cov, cvii, 39, 40.]
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.[A]
[Footnote A: _The Successor_, pp. 4, 5.]
And then follows part of the foregoing quotation--beginning with "The
order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father
to son, etc."--being careful to omit the clause of the passage which
shows it to refer to evangelists or patriarchs only.[A] This is the
way the passage is used by the writer of the Josephite tract called
_The Successor_. Another writer, or perhaps the same one in another
place, thus quotes it in support of "young Joseph's" claims:
[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 4.]
The order [_including offices_] 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 [_not the Priesthood, but the offices therein_]
was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in
the following manner: From Adam to Seth [_Abel having been
slain_].[A]
[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX. p. 337.]
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,[A] 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.
[Footnote A: Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham.]
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.[A]
[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. sec. lxviii.]
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:
Therefore thus saith the Lord unto you [Joseph the martyr][A] with
whom the Priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your
fathers, for ye are _lawful heirs according to the flesh_, and
have been hid from the world with Christ in God; therefore your
life and the Priesthood hath remained, and must needs _remain_[B]
through you and your lineage, until the restoration of all things
spoken of by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world
began.[C]
[Footnote A: Words in brackets are the Josephite writer's.]
[Footnote B: Italics in the above are Josephite's.]
[Footnote C: Doc. and Cov. sec. lxviii.]
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,[A]
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.
[Footnote A: See _Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX., pp. 358-9-0.]
Moreover, in the matter of the records descending from father to son
the chain of succession is frequently broken, and in some instances
those breaks make a divergence from the direct line. Out of sixteen
transfers of the records and other sacred things from one person to
another, from the time Lehi left Jerusalem to the coming of Messiah to
the Nephites--in seven instances the transfer is _not_ made from
father to son! In three instances the transfer is made to brothers
instead of from father to son; in two cases the transfer is made to
nephews; and in two instances the transfer is made to those who are no
kin at all, making seven exceptions to the rule out of sixteen cases;
lacking only one of being half! Out of six transfers of the sacred
things, from the coming of Messiah among the Nephites to Joseph Smith,
three of them are not from father to son. One transfer is made to a
brother; and two are made to persons of no kin whatever to their
predecessors. Josephites say the "exceptions" in this matter "prove
the rule," but a "rule" that is violated in half the cases where it is
supposed to operate, has rather too many exceptions to prove it--they
destroy it.
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.
As a conclusion to my argument against the claim of Mr. Smith, that
the position of President of the church is his by right of lineage, I
quote the words of his illustrious father. In a discourse delivered on
the 27th of August, 1843, having for his text the seventh chapter of
Hebrews, and explaining the phrase in the third verse--"without
father, without mother, _without descent_," etc., he said:
The Melchisedek priesthood holds the right from the eternal God,
_and not by descent from father and mother;_[A] and that
priesthood is eternal as God himself, having neither beginning of
days nor end of life.[B]
[Footnote A: _Italics_ mine.--R.]
[Footnote B: Hist, of Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XXII, p. 55.]
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:
_He was called to the position of President of the church by
"revelation" to himself_.
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.[A]
[Footnote A: Aut. of Joseph Smith, in Josephite edition, Life of
Joseph, p. 753.]
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."[A]
[Footnote A: Aut. of Mr. Smith, in Josephite edition of Life of
Joseph, p. 763.]
Third, a manifestation was given to him that he must oppose polygamy;
but in what way the manifestation was given is not stated.[A]
[Footnote A: Ibid.]
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.[A]
[Footnote A: Aut. of Mr. Smith, Life of Joseph, Josephite edition, p.
772.]
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.
It should be observed here, perhaps, that "revelations" to a man
personally, that he is called to be President of the church, even when
clear and definite, do not constitute him the President. Something
else is necessary. As observed elsewhere, not only must a man be
called of God, but he must be accepted by the church--"chosen by the
body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the
confidence, faith, and prayer of the church."[A] Besides having no
definite call by "revelation," even to himself (judging by the visions
and manifestations related by Mr. Smith) to preside over the church,
Mr. Smith has never complied with the conditions of the law of the
church stated above. That is, he has never been "chosen by the body
. . . . upheld by the confidence, faith and prayers of the
church"--unless, indeed, the few people, scarce a corporal's guard,
who gathered at the Josephite conference at Amboy, in 1860,
constituted out of all the tens of thousands of saints in this country
at the time, the church! What of the scores of thousands of saints in
Utah at that time who never so much as received notice of or an
invitation to be present at that "general conference of the church" at
Amboy? Surely _Messrs._ Gurley and Newkirk were somewhat at fault in
neglecting to notify the majority of the saints to attend that
conference at which the only true President of the church was to be
chosen! To call that gathering at Amboy the general conference of the
church, is as ridiculous as absurdity can make it. It is on a par,
however, with the "revelations" to Mr. Smith, calling him to be
President of the church--the one is a fitting concomitant of the
other.
[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov., Sec. cvii, 22.]
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;[A] that is, the only saints who were
"faithfully honoring and obeying the law of the Lord, and the order of
his church"[B]--so easy is it to say:
[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 9.]
[Footnote B: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, p. 375.]
Orthodoxy, my lord, is _my_ doxy; and heterodoxy is some other
man's doxy![A]
[Footnote A: Bishop Warburton's answer to Lord Sandwich when he said
he did not know the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy.]
I come next to the fourth and last claim made in behalf of Mr. Smith,
viz:--
_He was ordained to be President of the church by those holding legal
authority_.
Mr. Smith was ordained by Messrs. William Marks, Z. H. Gurley, Samuel
Powers and W. W. Blair; William Marks, I think, being mouth. This is
that William Marks, who in 1839, was chosen president of the stake of
Zion at Commerce, afterwards Nauvoo;--who a year or two before the
prophet Joseph's death was associated with traitors and distrusted by
the prophet;[A]--who sustained the claims of Sidney Rigdon to be
"Guardian of the church";--who at the general conference of the church
in Nauvoo, October, 1844, was rejected by the saints as president of
the Nauvoo stake of Zion, two persons only voting in his favor, the
rest against him;[B]--who as we shall see further on, in December,
1844, over his own signature said: "_The Twelve are the proper persons
to lead the church;_"--who, in 1846, as per statement of Mr. Smith
himself,[C] was associated with Mr. Strang, the apostate, in preaching
in Fulton city and vicinity, calling upon Mr. Smith and his mother at
the time;--and who in 1860 is the chief man in ordaining Mr. Smith
"President of the church"--one possessing "legal" authority to do so!
To say the least, in the light of William Marks' record, his "legal
authority" to ordain the President of the church is very questionable.
[Footnote A: In the winter of 1843, at a time of great danger to the
prophet, and when Nauvoo was in danger of being invaded from Missouri
to capture him, forty men were sworn into service as special police.
In addressing them on the occasion of their being sworn in, the
prophet, then mayor of the city, spoke of the danger he was in from
traitors living in Nauvoo, saying, "We have a Judas in our midst."
This appears to have had an unpleasant effect upon the minds of some
leading men in the church, especially upon the minds of Wm. Law and
Wm. Marks, who complained before the mayor's court about the actions
of these special police. After the investigation of their complaints
Joseph, in his journal, says: "Whatever can be the matter with these
men?" [Law and Marks] Is it that the wicked flee when no man pursueth,
that hit pigeons always flutter, that drowning men catch at straws, or
that presidents Law and Marks are absolutely traitors to the church,
that my remarks should produce such excitement in their minds? . . .
The people in the town are astonished, almost every man saying to his
neighbor, "Is it possible that brother Law or brother Marks is a
traitor, and would deliver brother Joseph into the hands of his
enemies in Missouri? If not, what can be the meaning of all this? The
righteous are as bold as a lion."--(Hist. Jos. S., _Mill. S_., Vol.
XXII, p. 631.) Yet this man of whom the prophet could write these
words, is the chief man in ordaining his son "President of the
church!"]
[Footnote B: He had previously been dropped by the high council
because he persisted in sustaining the claims of Sidney Rigdon as
against those of the Twelve.--_Times and Seasons_, Vol. V, p. 692.]
[Footnote C: See his Aut. in Josephite Ed., Life of Joseph, p. 754.]
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[A] 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."[B]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph Smith (Tullidge) Josephite Ed. p. 774.]
[Footnote B: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, p. 375.]
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.
The methods of argument by which the claims of the "Reorganization"
are sustained must be noticed, for they are as erroneous as they are
misleading. After the April conference of the "Reorganization" in
1853, a pamphlet was issued entitled "_A word of consolation to the
scattered Saints_," in which a justification of the proceedings of
said conference is attempted. In that pamphlet it is said:
In justification of the course then taken, and the principles
involved on the question of _authority_, we have ever courted, and
still court, investigation in the rigid character of the facts in
the first organization.[A] Here they are: Joseph Smith and Oliver
Cowdery were ordained to the lesser priesthood by an angel; then
by their authority, and a commandment, they on the 6th day of
April, ordained each other Elders, and the eldership ordained high
priests and apostles, and this high priesthood, ordained, by
_commandment_, the president of the high priesthood, the highest
office in the Church; so that the alleged lesser, ordaining the
greater is common to both the first organization and the
Reorganization alike. The same class of facts justify both, or
condemn both.[B]
[Footnote A: Meaning the organization on the 6th of April, 1830.]
[Footnote B: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 601.]
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.[A] Here
then is a promise made to them of the Melchisedek priesthood.
[Footnote A: Hist. Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XIV, p. 15,
supplement.]
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.[A]
[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. sec. xxvii.]