We now come to the last organization that was brought into existence through the agency of men once associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the so-called "Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," commonly called the "Josephite Church." This organization is still in existence, and has for its President, Joseph Smith, the eldest son of the prophet Joseph. It is my purpose first to give an account of how this organization came into existence, and then consider the claims of Mr. Joseph Smith to be of right the President of the church founded, under God, by his father.
Jason W. Briggs, one of the founders and leaders in the Josephite movement, informs us that in the spring of 1850, William Smith, whose acquaintance the reader has already formed, called a conference at Covington, Kentucky:
"From which time he visited many of the branches and scattered saints, teaching "lineal Priesthood" as applying to the Presidency of the Church. . . . This principle, though pretty clearly shown in the books, had been almost entirely overlooked or forgotten by the saints; but when their attention wasthus[A] called to it, many at once received it as the solution of the question of Presidency."[B]
[Footnote A: That is, by the preaching of William Smith.]
[Footnote B: Tullidge's supplement to Josephite edition of Life ofJoseph the Prophet, p. 576.]
William Smith as the reader is already informed, claimed the right as natural guardian of the "seed" of Joseph the prophet, to stand as Presidentpro temof the church until the "seed" should come forward to take his place; and proceeded to organize a church with that understanding. This organization as already stated held a conference, in October, 1851, at which was proclaimed a belief in and practice of polygamy. Among those who attended this conference of William Smith's church was Jason W. Briggs, who, after returning to his home in Wisconsin, was much perplexed over the condition of the church. While pondering in his heart the situation, on the 18th of November, 1851, on the prairie some three miles from the town of Beloit, Wisconsin, he claims to have received a revelation from God. In that "revelation" the Lord is represented as declaring it to be the duty of those elders who had been ordained by the prophet Joseph, or by the hand of those ordained by him, to preach the gospel—
As revealed in the record of the Jews, and the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; and cry repentance and remission of sins through obedience to the gospel, and I will sustain them and give them my spirit; and in my own due time will I call upon the seed of Joseph Smith, and I will bring one forth, and he shall be mighty and strong, and he shall preside over the High Priesthood of my Church; and then shall the quorums assemble, and the pure in heart shall gather, and Zion shall be re-inhabited, as I said unto my servant Joseph Smith; after many days shall all these things be accomplished, saith the spirit.[A]
[Footnote A: Josephite edition of Life of Joseph the Prophet, p. 578.]
This "revelation" Mr. Briggs was commanded to send to the churches atPalestine, Voree, Waukesha and other places.[A]
[Footnote A: Ibid.]
While the messengers of Mr. Briggs are carrying his "revelation" to the scattered churches in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan, it is necessary to relate some incidents said to have occurred in another part of Wisconsin, in what is called the "Yellow Stone Branch."[A] This "branch" belonged to that organization founded by James J. Strang, and was presided over by Zenas H. Gurley, frequently called "Father Gurley." During the year 1850, according to Mr. Gurley's own statement, several strange things came to his knowledge which satisfied him that
[Footnote A: The "Yellow Stone Branch" where "Father Gurley" was located was in La Fayette Co., South Western Wisconsin. Beloit where Jason W. Briggs operated was in extreme south of the same state.]
"Neither J. J. Strang, Brigham Young, William Smith, nor any that had claimed to be prophets, since Joseph's death, were the servants of God."[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 580.]
The doubts born in 1850, grew stronger in Mr. Gurley's mind in 1851; and one Sunday evening, in the fall of that year, while reflecting upon the prophecies of Isaiah, respecting the great latter-day work—especially of that prophecy which speaks of the house of the Lord in the last days being established in the top of the mountains, and all nations flowing unto it[A]—he thought then of Strang's Beaver Island operation, and felt ashamed that he had ever thought that this would bring to pass the work predicted by the Hebrew prophet. He claims then to have heard the voice of the spirit say to him:
[Footnote A: Isaiah ii. 2-4.]
Rise up, cast off all that claim to be prophets, and go forth and preach the gospel and say that God will raise up a prophet to complete his work.
A few weeks afterwards this commandment and prophecy was repeated, and he began looking about for a starting point. Meantime one David Powell arrived at Yellow Stone with Mr. Briggs's "revelation," which predicted the coming forth of one from the seed of Joseph the prophet, to lead the church. Mr. Gurley, however, could not wholly accept the "revelation" of Mr. Briggs. It had been "revealed" to him that God would raise up a prophet, but who it would be had not been made known to him. About ten or fifteen days after the arrival of Mr. Briggs's messenger, word was brought to Mr. Gurley that his little daughter was "singing and speaking in tongues" at a neighbor's house. Mr. Gurley hurried to the house and after listening to the child a short time, he requested all present to join with him in asking the Lord to tell them who the successor of Joseph was. They spent a few moments in prayer when the Holy Spirit declared:[A]
[Footnote A: Through whom is not stated.]
The successor of Joseph Smith is Joseph Smith, the son of JosephSmith the prophet. It is his right by lineage, saith the Lord yourGod.
Shortly after this manifestation of the gift of tongues and the proclamation of the above reputed revelation, the "Yellow Stone branch" was convened and James J. Strang formally renounced as a prophet, seer and revelator to the church, and the allegiance of the branch pledged to the "seed" of Joseph Smith the prophet. The above "revelation" made it possible for Mr. Gurley to unite with Mr. Briggs, and word was accordingly sent to the latter, that evidence of the truth of his "revelation" had been received, and proposed the holding of a conference in June, 1852. After some correspondence it was finally settled that the conference be held in the town of Beloit, Wisconsin.
This conference by resolution first disclaimed all connection and fellowship with those men who had presumed to lead the church, charging them with having assumed powers contrary to the law of God. Secondly the conference
Resolved, That the successor of Joseph Smith, junior, as the presiding High Priest in the Melchisedek Priesthood, must of necessity be of the seed of Joseph Smith, junior, in fulfillment of the law and promises of God.
The other resolutions of importance adopted by the conference declared that the office of President of the church grew out of the authority of the presiding high priest in the high priesthood; that they recognize the validity of all legal ordinations in the church; that the whole law of the church is contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants; that there was no stake of Zion to which the saints are commanded at present to gather; and that it was the duty of the elders to cry repentance and remission of sins to this generation. A committee was appointed to write a pamphlet based on these resolutions entitled "A Word of Consolation to the Scattered Saints."
It was about this time, viz, during the summer of 1852, that the "stake of Zion" in Lee county, Illinois, founded by William Smith's church, went to pieces and a number of the members thereof joined this Josephite movement set on foot by Messrs. Briggs and Gurley.
The next conference of the Josephite church was held in October, 1852, at the Yellow Stone branch, and then more especially was considered the question of authority to preside in the church that was forming, pending the coming forth of "young Joseph" to be its president. The pamphlet which the June conference had ordered written, announced that the "highest authority presides always," and the deliberations of the conference resulted in the following:
Resolved, That in the opinion of this conference, the one holding the highest priesthood in the church is to preside, and represent the rightfull heir to the presidency of the high priesthood in a presiding capacity.
These men, however, found great difficulty in determining who held the highest authority as many unwarrantable ordinations had taken place in the various factions.
After earnest discussion it was determined that all ordinations not within the limits of the law should be ignored, and all within the limit recognized. This excluded all above an high priest, who being the highest recognized, was sustained as the presiding authority.[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 592.]
I have been unable to learn, however, that any one of the high priests was selected to preside over the Josephite church at this juncture, and one is left to infer that the whole body of so-called high priests were to preside. During the winter of 1853, the "spirit" intimated to Mr. Gurley, that they must "organize;" but this they knew not how to do, further than they had done.[A] They were even unable to decide on the validity of the ordinations of the men who had attended the October conference.[B]
[Footnote A: Ibid, p. 594.]
[Footnote B: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 594.]
In the month of March, 1853, the subject of organization being still agitated, the question was put to the Lord: "Were those ordained apostles by William Smith recognized by God?" The answer was that those ordinations were not acceptable—were not of God.[A] Near the close of this revelation the men engaged in this movement were commanded to organize themselves:
[Footnote A: Ibid, 595.]
"'For ere long,' saith the Lord, 'I will require the prophet at your hand.'"
But how to organize they did not know. They claim to have had two high priests and one senior president of the seventies among them. "But how could these men organize the church?" asks Mr. Gurley:
It was impossible, utterly impossible. We counseled upon it, and concluded that possibly, under the present circumstances, it might be right for high priests, and for the senior President of seventies to ordain seventies; but when done what would it accomplish? Nothing, just nothing. We were in trouble—deep trouble! To refuse to organize was disobedience; to go forward in the attempt was darkness. There was but one alternative, and that was to seek wisdom from above.[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 595.]
The result of inquiring of the Lord, according to the statement of Mr. Gurley, was that a commandment was given appointing a day of fasting and prayer, and the Lord promised to show them how to organize. When the meeting assembled the following question was put to the Lord:
Will the Lord please to tell us how to organize. . . . . And who among us will he acknowledge as the representative of the legal heir to the Presidency of the Church.
To this inquiry it is claimed that an answer was obtained through a "revelation" to one H. H. Deam, a high priest, which reads as follows:
Verily thus saith the Lord, as I said unto my servant Moses,—see thou do all things according to the pattern,—so I say unto you. Behold the pattern is before you. It is my will that you respect authority in my Church; therefore let the greatest among you preside at your conference. Let three men be appointed by the conference to select seven men from among you, who shall compose the majority of the Twelve, for it is my will that that quorum should not be filled up at present. Let the President of the conference, assisted by two others, ordain them. The senior of them shall stand as the representative. Let them select twelve men from among you, and ordain them to compose the high council. Behold ye understand the order of the bishopric, the seventies, the elders, the priests, the teachers, and deacons. Therefore organize according to the pattern; behold I will be with you unto the end.[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph, the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 596-7.]
This alleged revelation was given on the 20th of March, 1853, and at the April conference following an organization was effected on the above indicated plan. After a long discussion, about whose priesthood was the highest—in the course of which a great deal of ill-feeling was manifested—finally the controversy ended in favor of Mr. Briggs, and he was called to preside at the conference. Ethan Griffith, William Cline and Cyrus Newkirk were appointed the committee to select the seven "apostles" to form the majority of the quorum of the Twelve. The men selected were Zenas H. [Father] Gurley, Henry H. Deam, Jason W. Briggs, Daniel B. Razy, John Cunningham, George White and Reuben Newkirk. It was voted that a "stake of Zion" be organized in the town of Argyle, Lafayette Co., Wisconsin, of which William Cline, Cyrus Newkirk and Isaac Butterfield were chosen and ordained the presidency. A number of "seventies" were also ordained. At the close of the conference a "revelation" was received informing the conference that what had been done was recorded in heaven, and to the seven "apostles" it was said:
I give unto you the care of my flock on earth; take the oversight of them, as you shall give an account unto me in the day of judgment.[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 601.]
The period between the time of this organization effected in April, 1853, and the time when Joseph Smith, son of the prophet became its president, April, 1860, is called by the Josephite historian Tullidge, "an apostolic interval." During that interval the Josephite church seemed not to make much progress. Joseph Smith was several times solicited to take the Presidency of it, but he seemed not at all anxious for the place.
In 1856, the "reorganized church" sent to the predicted head of it, the word of the Lord, urging him to come and take his place. The document was signed by J. W. Briggs, "representative president of the church and the priesthood in Zarahemla." Messrs. Briggs and Gurley were appointed a committee to present this message to Mr. Smith, which they did at his home near Nauvoo. According to Mr. Smith's own amount of this visit, these messengers did not meet with a very cordial reception; and when Mr. Briggs vehemently urged the matter upon him, and "announced the culmination of the message in tones of thunder, and almost dictatorially" urged him to accept the message and do as directed therein, or reject it at his peril, he says he met this "vehemence indignantly, and almost turned these messengers out of doors."[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 767.]
The effort on the part of Messrs. Briggs and Gurley to induce Mr. Smith to become their president ended on this occasion in disappointment, though before leaving Nauvoo the whole situation was talked over in the presence of Mrs. Emma Smith, mother of Joseph.
It is to be remarked as passing strange that neither on this occasion, nor on any other that Josephite history speaks of, was it urged upon Joseph Smith that he had already been formally anointed by his father to be the President of the church.
Early in February, 1860, a call was issued, signed by Z. H. Gurley and Reuben Newkirk, calling for a general conference to assemble at Amboy, Illinois, the following April. All the branches of the church in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan were urged to send representatives, as it was desirable to choose a high council and organize and set in order all the quorums under the First Presidency; and an intimation was made that much more than was anticipated might be realized—was it an intimation that Joseph Smith would come and accept the Presidency of their church?
Meantime Joseph Smith who, according to his own autobiography, had failed as storekeeper, railroad contractor, in the study of law, in farming, and while keeping soul and body together by labor and from his fees as justice of the peace, was confronted with the question of his connection with his "father's work;" and in the winter of 1859, resolved to put himself in communication with the "reorganized church."[A]
[Footnote A: For the above acts see his autobiography in the Life ofJoseph, Josephite ed., pp. 743-773.]
He accordingly wrote to Mr. William Marks, informing him that he was "soon going to take his father's place at the head of the Mormon church," and requested him and others that he considered nearest him, to come to Nauvoo and confer with him.[A] Mr. Smith states as his reason for sending for Mr. Marks that he was president of the stake of Zion at Nauvoo at the death of Joseph, the prophet; that he had retained his faith in Mormonism as taught by Joseph and Hyrum; and hence his council would be valuable. Mr. Smith also announced his intention to his mother and step-father; the former approved his course, the latter took a speculative view of it and built fond schemes for obtaining wealth through the position to be taken by his step-son.
[Footnote A: William Marks, according to the statement of Joseph Smith in his autobiography, came in company with James J. Strang to Fulton City, where Emma Smith and her son Joseph lived during the winter of 1845-6, and had a brief interview with Joseph and his mother, promising to meet them again. Messrs. Marks and Strang held meetings in the neighborhood, but Mr. Smith says he did not see them again. It was claimed by Mr. Strang that he on this occasion ordained "young Joseph" to the same priesthood that his uncle Hyrum held, and it seems that he afterwards so reported to some of his followers. As late as June, 1891, Mr L. D. Hickey, a Strangite, wrote a tract entitled, "Who was the Successor of Joseph Smith?" in which the following occurs: "Nov. 6 1846, James J. Strang was commanded to go and anoint and ordain Joseph Smith, the son of the martyr, to the same priesthood his uncle Hyrum held. We have all the proof we want that James did obey God; and that left the son of Joseph as one of the Presidents of the church, and the Book of Rules says in case of the death of either of the First Presidents, the other shall preside until the vacancy is filled. This was the situation of the church at the dead of James [J. Strang]. So that by virtue of the ordination Joseph obtained under the hands of James and no other ordination, we [the Strangites] hold him the legal President of the Church from the death of James to this day."—(page 5.) Joseph Smith denies any such ordination having taken place unless it was done when he was unconscious and unknown to William Marks.—SeeLife of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 754.]
Soon after this, Mr. Marks, one Israel L. Rogers and William W. Blair, all interested in the "Reorganized church" movement, visited Mr. Smith at his mother's home in Nauvoo, and held an interview with them. It was finally decided that Mr. Smith and his mother should attend the ensuing April conference, called to assemble at Amboy, Lee county, Illinois, and the matter was to be laid before the church and a decision arrived at:
"For, said Elder Marks; we have had enough of man-made prophets, and we don't want any more of that sort. If God has called you, we want to know it. If he has, the Church is ready to sustain you; if not, we want nothing to do with you."[A]
[Footnote A: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition p. 767.]
Messrs. Marks, Rogers and Blair, in 1860, seem not to have been so urgent as Messrs. Briggs and Gurley had been in 1856; the latter had commanded him to take the Presidency of the church, or refuse to do so at his peril; the former merely agreed to see about it, by presenting the matter to the church. Indeed for men who professed to have evidence that Mr. Smith had been called, blessed and anointed by Joseph the prophet to be the President of the church, and to possess the right to that position by virtue of lineage, the reply of Mr. Marks to Mr. Smith's proposition to take the Presidency of the Reorganized church seems unaccountably cold, and too much burdened with doubt and independence when addressing the only man who, on the theory of the "Reorganized church," could possibly succeed to the Presidency. Mr. Smith affects to have been made indignant at the urgency of Messrs. Briggs and Gurley, in 1856; the coldness and independence of Messrs. Marks, Rogers and Blair must have been a still greater source of annoyance.
Mr. Smith went to the conference at Amboy, and in the afternoon of the 6th of April, 1860, made a speech, at the conclusion of which it was moved that he be received as a prophet,—the successor of his father. The motion was carried by a unanimous vote, after which Mr. Gurley who, assisted by Mr. William Marks, presided at the conference, arose and said:
Brother Joseph, I present this Church to you in the name of JesusChrist!
And of course Mr. Smith accepted it.
The speech made by Mr. Smith at the above mentioned conference is remarkable only for its tameness; but I quote a few sentences that may be of special interest; first as showing that he claimed to be called to his position by a power not his own:—
I came not here of myself, but by the influence of the spirit. For some time past I have received manifestations pointing to the position I am about to assume. I wish to say that I have come here not to be dictated by any men or set of men. I have come in obedience to a power not my own, and shall be dictated by the power which sent me.
. . . Some, who ought to know the proprieties of the church, have told me that no certain form was necessary in order for me to assume the leadership, that the position came by right of lineage, yet I know that if I attempted to lead as a prophet by these considerations, andnot by a call from heaven, men would not be lead to believe who do not believe now. And so I have come not of my own dictation to this sacred office.
As to revelations he said:
I have my peculiar notions in regard to revelations, but am happy to say that they accord with those I am to associate with, at least with those of them with whom I have conversed. I am not very conversant with those books (pointing to a volume before him), not so conversant as I should be and will be.
That his "notions in regard to revelations" were indeed "peculiar," one only has to read the following to be convinced:
I pledge myself to promulgate no doctrine that shall not be approved by you, or the code of good morals.
How different this from the reply of one of the ancient prophets, when some sought to have him give out no prophecy or revelation but what should be approved by them:
And Micaiah said, as the Lord liveth what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak![A]
[Footnote A: I Kings xxii, 7-14]
How different, too, from the spirit of Brigham Young who shortly after being chosen President of the church wrote:
As the Lord's will is my will all the time—as He dictates so willI perform. If He don't guide the ship, we'll go down in thewhirlpool.[A]
[Footnote A: Letter to Orson Spencer, Jan. 23rd. 1848,Mill. Star,Vol. X, p. 115.]
What a contrast also between his "I-pledge-myself-to-promulgate-no- doctrine-that-shall-not-be-approved-by-you" position of the son of the great prophet, and the position in which the Almighty God of heaven placed his father. The prophet Joseph's position may be learned from the following revelation given the very day the church was organized:
Behold there shall be a record kept among you, and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, through the will of God the Father and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto youas he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me.For his words ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith; for by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good and his name's glory.[A]
[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov., sec. xxi.]
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so is this position given to the prophet Joseph by the Lord higher than that assumed by his son, who claims to be his successor, and yet stands pledged to promulgate no doctrine that shall not be approved by his associates! What manner of prophet is this?
Following Mr. Smith's acceptance of the church at the hands of Mr. Gurley, he was ordained to the office of President of the high priesthood and President of the church by William Marks, Zenas H. Gurley, Samuel Powers and W. W. Blair. Mr. Marks was president of the Nauvoo stake of Zion at the death of the prophet, and the other three gentlemen were "apostles" in the Reorganized church.[A]
[Footnote A:The Successor, (Josephite pamphlet,) pp. 10, II, alsoThe Saint's Herald, Vol XXXIX, No. 24. p. 375.]
We have now followed the history of the "Reorganized church" as far as it is necessary. It only remains to remark that it is a stream formed by the confluence of two other streams; one of which, represented by Mr. Gurley and his following, flows from Strangism; and the other, represented by Mr. Briggs and his following, flows from the church organized by William Smith. We leave it for Josephites to inform us on what principle of philosophy two corrupt, apostate streams by uniting, make a pure one!
Let us now consider the claims of Mr. Joseph Smith to be of right the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His claims, or those made in his behalf by his friends and followers, are based upon the following assumptions:—
First, that he was called to that position when a boy, through his father, (1) by prophecy and blessing in Liberty jail, Missouri, where his father was confined in the winter of 1838-9 (2) by revelation in 1841; and (3) by a formal anointing in a council of the priesthood at Nauvoo, in 1844:—
Second, that the position in his by lineage—it is his birthright:—
Third, that he was called to the position by "revelation" to himself; and,
Fourth, he was ordained to it by those holding legal authority.[A]
[Footnote A: SeeThe Saint's Herald, Vol. XXXIX, p. 337; and alsoThe 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 theNorthern Islander, a Strangite paper, Brother Wight said: Now Mr. Editor, if you had been presentwhen 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: Theitalicsare 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 theNorthern 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 theNorthern 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 inThe Successor:—[A]
[Footnote A: A Josephite tract sustaining the claims of "youngJoseph," 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 motherand 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: Theitalicsare 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 theNorthern 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. StarVol. 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 initalicsalso, 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.]
InThe 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 factsof his life and allegiance to the church of Christ led to Utah byPresident 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 theNorthern 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 BrighamCity, Utah, about 1859, when he was speaking in public meetingconcerning young Joseph Smith, son of Joseph the seer, say thatthere was no man in the church more willing and ready than he togive the Presidency of the church to young Joseph, when the latterwould 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 thebrotherof 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—theJosephite 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 calledThe 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 arelawful 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 needsremain[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.