Chapter 6 No.6

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: 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.]

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

And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine Apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. Sec. xviii.]

This revelation is the one which informed these men that Twelve Apostles would be called and foretold that Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer would be appointed to select them. From the above quotation it is evident that Oliver and David had received the apostleship at that time, and, of course, Joseph had received it also.[A] This revelation, let it be remembered, was given in June, 1829, ten months before the organization of the church in April, 1830. And it was by virtue and power of that apostleship which holds the keys of the Melchisedek priesthood, that the church of Christ was organized; elders, high priests, seventies, and apostles ordained; high councils and stakes of Zion organized; and the whole church of Christ set in order. It was not the lesser ordaining the higher-as claimed by Josephite writers-that is not the order in the church, nor the manner in which the church was organized on the 6th of April, 1830. It is true that Joseph and Oliver ordained each other elders "of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," on the day the church was organized; but they did not do that by virtue of the Aaronic priesthood which had been conferred upon them, but by virtue of the apostleship they had received. Joseph and Oliver had just been accepted by their brethren to be the presiding elders in the church, and proceeded to ordain each other to that office.[B] Whereupon Josephite writers rush to the conclusion that by virtue of their ordination to the lesser priesthood, they proceeded to ordain each other elders in the higher or Melchisedek priesthood, and that that "eldership ordained high priests, and apostles," and that the "high priesthood," thus brought into existence, "by commandment ordained the President of the high priesthood-the highest office in the church." That is the order of things by which the Josephite reorganization was brought into existence; that is, the lesser ordaining the greater! This argument in support of their proceeding commits them forever to that position, they cannot escape it, and it damns their organization beyond all hope of redemption; for nothing can be clearer than the self-evident proposition that a man cannot give that which he does not possess. Besides the contention is straight against the statement of the prophet Joseph himself as to how we in this generation came by the priesthood, even as published in Josephite works:-

[Footnote A: While in this revelation which refers to Oliver and David as apostles, Joseph is not called an apostle, yet we know he was such for in the revelation which commanded that the church be organized on the 6th of April, 1830, it is said: "Which commandments were given to Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; and to Oliver Cowdery, who was called of God an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of the church, and ordained under his hand."-Doc. and Cov., sec. xx, 2, 3.]

[Footnote B: His. Joseph Smith, Mill. Star, Vol. XIV (Supplement), p. 26.]

"The Savior, Moses, and Elias gave the keys of the priesthood to Peter, James and John on the mount, when they were transfigured before him. . . . How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down in regular succession. Peter, James and John had it given to them, and they gave it to others"-presumably referring to himself and Oliver Cowdery.[A]

[Footnote A: Life of Joseph the Prophet, Josephite edition, p. 493.]

There is no similarity between the organization of the church of Christ on the 6th of April, 1830, and the alleged reorganization in 1853. The first was organized by men holding the keys of the holy Melchisedek priesthood-the apostleship-which possesses the power to organize the church, ordain all the officers therein and set all things pertaining to it in order. But the "reorganization" is accomplished by men of very questionable standing and authority as to their priesthood; and apparently conscious of the inadequacy of even the priesthood they claim to have possessed to perform the task before them-virtually the organization of the church of Christ-they fly to the untenable position, as false in philosophy as it is in fact, that the lesser can ordain the greater, until that greater thus created can ordain a still greater, even the greatest of all! Investigated, then, "in the rigid character of the facts in the first organization," the "reorganization" is found strewn along the sharp-edged rocks of absurdity; and the conviction is forced upon the mind of the investigator that Mr. Smith was not ordained to be "President of the church" by those holding legal authority.

Josephites lay much stress upon the following passage in one of the revelations:

I say unto you that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. And this ye shall know assuredly, that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken from him, he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead; and this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations and commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know that they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me, shall come in at the gate and be ordained, as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received, and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov. sec. xliii.]

Josephites insist that this revelation provides that the successor of the prophet Joseph must be appointed by him. Following is their reasoning upon the passage:

We find in a former commandment, given February, 1831, . . . these very pertinent and instructive words in respect to how and by whom the successor of Joseph the Seer would be selected and appointed. It says: "But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift [of revelator, seer, prophet, etc., for the church, to receive 'commandments and revelations' for a 'law' unto the church-Ed] except it be through him [Joseph the Seer];" and it then adds that even if the Lord should take that "gift" from Joseph, he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead; so that in any event the successor in the office of chief presiding seer, prophet and revelator to the church (which always carries with it the presidency of the church and its priesthood), must be selected and appointed through and by the predecessor-Joseph the Seer.[A]

[Footnote A: The Saints' Herald, Vol. XXXIX, p. 358, the words in italics are all the Josephite writer's.]

The circumstances under which the revelation above quoted was given are these: There came to the church at Kirtland in 1831 a woman making great pretentions to the power of revealing laws and commandments to the church; and some of the saints were much perplexed to know in what light to regard her and her alleged revelations. Joseph, to set their minds at rest, inquired of the Lord and received the revelation from which the passage under consideration is taken.[A] The revelation read in the light of these facts means simply this: First the Lord gives the saints to understand that He has appointed Joseph Smith, the prophet, to receive revelations as laws and commandments for His church and no one else but him, until he should be taken from the earth, provided he remained faithful to the Lord; second, in the event of the prophet Joseph not being faithful, even then he shall still have power to ordain some one else to take his place; third, the one who succeeds to the position of the prophet Joseph, must come in at the gate, and be ordained as the Lord had before instructed the church-that is, he must be accepted by the church, and be ordained by the direction of a general conference.[B]

[Footnote A: Hist. of Joseph, Mill. Star, Vol. XIV, p. 60, supplement.]

[Footnote B: The revelation teaching that none but Joseph should be the law-giver to the church until he be taken from the earth if he remained faithful, etc., was given February, 1831, but before this the Lord had made it the law of the church that "no person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church. . . . Every president of the high priesthood (or presiding elder) . . . is to be ordained by the direction of a high council or general conference."-(Rev. given April, 1830, Doc. and Cov. sec. xx.) The "president of the high priesthood" is also the President of the church, hence the foregoing law applies to the President as well as other officers of the church-he must be sustained by the church and if he is not, he cannot act in that position.]

The information thus given officially to the church was calculated to preserve the saints from following unauthorized "law-givers." Through it they learned that Joseph, if he remained faithful, would be the law-giver to Israel; if he transgressed he should retain sufficient of the power of revelation to designate whom the Lord would have to succeed him; and in that or any other event the man who becomes President must come in at the gate and be ordained as described in one of the laws of the church previously given. There was surely no need after this that any should be deceived. But to argue from what is set down in this revelation that the only possible way for a successor "in any event," to be appointed to the church was through Joseph Smith the prophet, is clearly an error; for the only provision made in this revelation for him to appoint his successor is in the event of his own transgression; and I affirm that Joseph Smith was faithful to God and the church up to the day of his death. Never in his life was he more faithful, more favored by God, or more powerful, or fruitful in revelation or intelligence than in the closing year of his life. He was God's mouthpiece to the church of Christ on earth to the very moment that he sealed his testimony with his blood at Carthage, Illinois.

Having received premonitions of his approaching fate, he desired that his brother Hyrum who had shared his toils, dangers and responsibilities, and who under all circumstances however trying had been true and just and merciful-he desired that this brother should succeed him in leading the church. It so happened, however, in the providences of God that Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph; and therefore the man whom the prophet desired to succeed him, as well as himself, were taken from the earth. So that notwithstanding the fact that Joseph desired Hyrum to succeed to the Presidency, and had appointed him to that place, both himself and the one he appointed being taken away by the hand of death-the question confronts us just as it would have done had Joseph never intimated that he wanted Hyrum to succeed him. And I now ask, in the absence of both Joseph and Hyrum, where was the authority lodged to lead the church and carry on the work of God? Was the church disorganized? Had God been so shortsighted, so unlike himself, as to establish his church in such a manner that at the death of two of his servants it crumbled to pieces? Can it be that God, with whom all things are as present, had not foreseen this fate which overtook his servants Joseph and Hyrum, and failed to provide for such an emergency? O, charge not the Lord with such lack of wisdom, or his church with such imperfection in its organization!