Chapter II: Part 2

"It certainly afforded a holy satisfaction to think that since
the 6th of April, 1841, when the first stone was laid, amidst
the most straightened circumstances, the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints has witnessed their bread cast upon waters;
or more properly their obedience to the commandments of the Lord
appear in the tangible form of a Temple, entirely enclosed, windows
in, with temporary floors, pulpits, and seats to accommodate so
many persons preparatory to a general conference."

And on page 1018:

"The font and the other parts of the Temple will be in readiness
in a few days to commence the administration of holy ordinances of
endowment, for which the faithful have long diligently labored and
fervently prayed, desiring above all things to see the beauty of
the Lord and inquire in His holy Temple."

Now, this was given in October, 1845, and we learn that the font--that is the permanent font, which replaced the former and temporary one--also the other parts of the Temple would be in readiness in a few days to commence the administration of holy ordinances. I wish now to refer to another reference from the writings of the president of the "Reorganization." I have already read where he declares that the font and the first floor above the basement and one stairway, also the basement, were completed. He reaffirms that in the following from an editorial in the Saints' Herald of February 17, 1904:

"Work continued to be done on the Temple until the fall of 1845,
possibly until the summer of 1846"--you see he is not quite sure
about it--"but the building was never finished; and whatever
ordinances were performed in it took place in rooms not wholly
finished."

Now note this particularly:

"The north stairway, the second or upper auditorium, and the attic
were entirely incompleted."

We will now examine the Times and Seasons of January 20, 1846, and see what his testimony is worth. Here on page 1096 occurs the following:

"January thus far has been mild, which, in the midst of our
preparations for an exodus next spring, has given an excellent time
to finish the Temple. Nothing has appeared so much like a finish of
that holy edifice as the present."

Now, I want to call your attention to this which immediately follows:

"The ATTIC story was finished in December."

That is in December 1845. You will remember that the president of the Reorganization declares that the attic was "entirely incompleted." But to continue the quotation:

"And if the Lord continues to favor us, the first story above the
basement will be completed ready for meeting, in the month of
February. The font, standing upon 12 stone oxen, is about ready,
and the floor of the story is laid, so that all speculation about
the Temple of God at Nauvoo, must cease."

Now the temporary floors were laid in October, 1845, so these floors must have been the permanent ones, and while the temporary finishing in October was for the purpose of fitting the building for the ordinances, this finishing was permanent.

Here is an interesting feature about the testimony of this man. The parts of the Temple which the president of the "Reorganized" Church says were completed--finished, the Times and Seasons here states would not be finished for a few days, or till February, but the part of the building which he says was "entirely incompleted," is here declared to have been finished in the past December, 1845. I shall not dispute with him the fact that the parts which he says were finished, were completed, for they were; but what does his testimony amount to as evidence when confronted with the statement of the Times and Seasons? Simply nothing; more than to prove that he knew nothing about it at all. Now which shall we believe? The Times and Seasons, published at the time, or the president of the "Reorganization," who made his statement some 40 years later? Remember if he admits that the Temple was finished his whole structure crumbles to the ground--it's bound to crumble anyway sooner or later, for it is built upon the sand.

Elder John Taylor, in an address to the Saints in England, published in the Millennial Star of November, 1846, (vol. 8:97) has this to say:

"Time alone can unfold this to many, but to us it has been
manifested long ago, years before the Temple WAS COMPLETED, and
long before the martyrdom of our Prophet and Patriarch."

Here he declares that the Temple was completed. Now our friends quote from the remarks of President Brigham Young delivered at the dedication of the St. George Temple to the effect that up to that time the Saints had never had the privilege of completing and enjoying a Temple. I call your attention to the fact that President Brigham Young left Nauvoo before the Temple was finished. He left in February, 1846, and a great portion of the Latter-day Saints were expelled from that city before they had the privilege of receiving the ordinances of the house of God, therefore President Young was correct when he said we had not up to that time had the privilege of completing and enjoying one. But I will now call your attention to the statement of President Young's made in October, 1863, (News, 13:96). Said he,

"We have already built two Temples, one at Kirtland, Ohio, and one
at Nauvoo, Illinois. * * * God commanded us to build the Nauvoo
Temple, and we built it, and performed our duty pretty well. There
are elders present here today who labored on that house with not a
shoe to their foot, or pantaloons that would cover their limbs, or a
shirt to cover their arms.

"We performed the work, and performed it WITHIN THE TIME WHICH
THE LORD GAVE US TO DO IT IN. Apostates said that we never could
perform that work, but through the blessing of God it was completed
and accepted of Him. Apostates never build Temples unto God, but
the Saints are called to do this work."

The Nauvoo Temple was publicly dedicated May 1, 1846, by Elder Orson Hyde, and the following day about 3,000 Saints met in the building in a public service. It is most likely that the greater number of these Saints were also at the dedication. It is not reasonable to suppose that this building was dedicated until it was finished, for each part had been dedicated as it was finished, and the dedication on the 1st of May, 1846, was of the entire structure.[12]

THE REVELATION ON TEMPLE WORK.

I have now shown that the Temple was completed; that the Saints were diligent in their labors, and they were also hindered by their enemies. I now reaffirm what has previously been said; that it made no difference, so far as the Church and its authority is concerned, even if the Temple had not been completed, or finished, in the technical sense of that word. Some of the embellishments, the ornamentations and fixtures, may not have been placed in the building according to the original intention, and in that technical sense the building may not have been "finished completely." But if so, what difference would it make? The Lord, thank heaven, is not as technical and peevish as men are, or woe be unto all of us. The revelation does not say that the Church would be rejected with its dead if every identical board and plank or fixture was not in the building according to the original design. The thing the revelation does require is that a place be prepared, or built, where the Lord could reveal the Priesthood and its ordinances which had been taken away or that had not been restored. And, too, if the temporary floors had not been replaced by the permanent floors, the Lord could and would have revealed Himself to the Saints and would have accepted of their offering. Now let's see just what the revelation does say about this matter. Beginning at verse 25.

"25. And again, verily I say unto you, let all my Saints come from
afar;

26. And send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers, and say
unto them; come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and your
precious stones, and with all your antiquities; and with all who
have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come, and bring
the box tree, and the fir tree, and the pine tree, together with
all the precious trees of the earth;

27. And with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and
with all your precious things of the earth, and build a house to my
name, for the most High to dwell therein;

28. For there is not a place found on earth that he may come and
restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken
away, even the fulnesss of the Priesthood;

29. For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my
Saints, may be baptized for those who are dead;

30. For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be
acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are
not able to build a house unto me.

31. But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me;
and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me,
and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

32. But behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for
your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these
things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a
church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

33. For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient
time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing
for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from
before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead
cannot be acceptable unto me.

34. For therein (that is in Temples) are the keys of the Holy
Priesthood ordained that you may receive honor and glory.

35. And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who
are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.

36. For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her stakes, and in
Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be
the places for your baptisms for your dead.

37. And again, verily I say unto you, How shall your washings be
acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which you
have built to my name?

38. For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a
tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness,
and to build a house in the land of promise that those ordinances
might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was;

39. Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings and
your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn
assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of
Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you
receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the
beginning of the revelation and foundation of Zion, and for the
glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained
by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always
commanded to build unto my holy name."

I have read quite extensively from this revelation, now let us examine and see just what is meant. At the time this revelation was given the Saints were baptizing in the Mississippi river for their dead, this was a special privilege that the Lord granted them in their poverty and while they could prepare a place in the Temple for that ordinance. He declares that while that place was being built He would accept of their baptisms in the river, but just as soon as a place could be prepared in the Temple baptisms for the dead in the river should cease. Now you will notice that verse 31 reads:

"But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and
I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me."

Now I wish you to note what follows:

"And during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me."

I take it that this means that the Lord would accept of their baptisms in the river until they could prepare a place where the ordinance could be attended to properly, and that He would not discontinue river baptisms until they had had sufficient time to build such a place. I want to read what the president of the "Reorganized" Church has to say on this point. Said he:

"Baptisms for the dead was a permissive rite."

Of course I do not agree with him that it was a permissive rite, but to continue the quotation:

"Baptism for the dead was a permissive rite; or to write more
plainly, the Church was permitted by the Lord to baptize for the
dead under certain rules."

Here is the rule:

"By terms stated in the revelation this permissive rite could be
performed and would be acceptable if performed in the river while
the time given the Church in which the Temple should be built was
passing. After the completion of the Temple, baptisms for the dead
were to be performed in it." (Saints' Herald, February 17, 1904).

We are certainly safe in saying that the Lord would not break His promise, therefore if we can discover a time when baptisms were discontinued in the river it will be a sign that the sufficient time had expired, so far as baptisms in the river for the dead were concerned. I turn to the minutes of the October conference, 1841, and read from the remarks on baptism for the dead delivered by the Prophet on the third day as follows:

"There shall be no more baptisms for the dead until the ordinance
can be attended to in the font of the Lord's house; and the Church
shall not hold another general conference, until they can meet in
said house. _For thus saith the Lord!_" (Times and Seasons, Vol.
II., page 578).

Remember this was in October, 1841--six months after the first stone of the Temple was laid. Was the Temple finished? No. Was the Church then rejected with its dead? Verily no! for this was 1841, and I have already referred you to the editorial of the Prophet's of May, 1842, wherein he says that never since the formation, or foundation, of the Church was laid, have the Saints been so willing to comply with the requisitions of Jehovah, and manifested a more ardent desire to do the will of God, than in the building of that Temple. Therefore they could not have been rejected. Yet the sufficient time was up.[13] What must we then conclude? That the Temple had progressed so far that baptisms could be performed in it for the dead in accordance with the revelation, and it did not depend altogether, you will see, on the complete finishing of the building; and as the rooms were finished one by one and dedicated, they too, could be used for the ordinances of the Temple until the whole Temple was built.

Are we right in our conclusion that a font had been built? Yes, a temporary font had been built in the basement of the Temple--a temporary one--but obviously one that answered the requirements of the revelation. Moreover, in this temporary font, which was used by the command of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith, baptisms for the dead were performed from November, 1841, until it was replaced by the permanent font, and then these baptisms continued in that until the Saints were driven from Nauvoo.

BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD OBLIGATORY.

We will now examine the thirty-second verse; it is:

"But behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your
dead shall not be acceptable unto me."

That means, of course, the baptisms in the river shall not be acceptable after the font is built. But listen to this:

"And if you do not these things at the END OF THE APPOINTMENT ye
shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your
God."

If you do not do what things? Does it mean if you do not build the Temple at the END of the appointment? That would be absurd. It means, if you do not perform your baptisms for your dead and the ordinances for the dead at the end--not the beginning, but the end--of the appointment, then will you be rejected with your dead. So you see it was not the failure to finish the attic, or to carve figures in the woodwork, or embellish the building by placing pictures on the walls, or painting them; it was not for this that the Church was to be rejected; but it was to be rejected with its dead if it failed to perform the work in the Temple for the dead when the opportunity was afforded. Now let us see if this view is not in harmony with other Scriptures. I turn to the second section of the Doctrine and Covenants. Here the angel says:

"Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of
Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day
of the Lord.

"And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made
to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their
fathers.

"If it were not so, the whole earth would be UTTERLY WASTED AT ITS
COMING."

Why would the earth be wasted? Simply because if there is not a welding link between the fathers and the children--which is the work for the dead--then we will all stand rejected; the whole work of God will fail and be utterly wasted. Such a condition of course, shall not be. When Elijah restored this Priesthood, he said that the time spoken of had fully come, and that the dreadful day of the Lord was near, even at the doors.

Let us now see what Joseph Smith had to say in relation to this. Speaking of the baptism and salvation for the dead, he said:

"The GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY in this world that God has laid upon
us, is to seek after our dead. The apostle says they without us
cannot be made perfect. Now I will speak of them: I say to you,
Paul, you cannot be perfect without us; it is necessary that those
who have gone before, and those who come after us should have
salvation in common with us, and thus hath God made it OBLIGATORY
to man. Hence God said He would send Elijah." (Times and Seasons,
6:616).

Moreover, at the conference held October, 1841, to which I have already referred, the prophet said this:

"Baptism for the dead is the only way that men can appear as
saviors on Mount Zion. The proclamation of the first principles of
the gospel was a means of salvation to men individually, and it was
the truth, not men, that saved them; but men by actively engaging
in rites of salvation _substitutionally_, become instrumental in
bringing multitudes of their kin into the Kingdom of God."

"This doctrine"--that is, baptism for the dead--"he said, presents
in a clear light the wisdom and mercy of God, in preparing an
ordinance for the salvation of the dead, being baptized by proxy,
their names recorded in heaven, and they judged according to the
deeds done in the body."

Now here comes the most important statement.

--"This doctrine was the BURDEN OF THE SCRIPTURES. Those Saints
who NEGLECT it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the
PERIL OF THEIR OWN SALVATION."

There we have the key to the whole situation. If we neglect the salvation of our dead when we have the opportunity to save them, then we ourselves will be rejected, and that is just what the revelation of January 19, 1841, says. In the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 128, verse 5, we are told that baptism for the dead was prepared from before the foundation of the world, "for the salvation of the dead," mark this, "WHO SHOULD DIE WITHOUT A KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOSPEL!" And in verse 15:

"And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you
that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living
that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation,
as Paul says concerning the fathers, 'that they without us cannot
be made perfect, neither can we without our dead be made perfect.'"

Here we have it in this revelation that if we do not save our dead we cannot ourselves be saved, therefore if we neglect their salvation, we ourselves will be rejected. Now verse 18:

"It is sufficient to know * * * that the earth will be smitten
with a curse, UNLESS there is a welding link of some kind or
other, between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or
other, and behold what is that subject? IT IS THE BAPTISM FOR THE
DEAD. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they
without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect
without those who have died in the Gospel also; for it is necessary
in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulnesss of times,
which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and
complete and perfect union and welding together of dispensations,
and keys, and powers, and glories, should take place, and be
revealed, from the days of Adam even to the present time; and not
only this, but those things which never have been revealed from
the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise
and prudent shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this the
dispensation of the fulness of times."

SALVATION FOR THE DEAD IMPORTANT.

Now, is it not plain to see how important this doctrine is, and why the Saints were to be rejected? But they were not rejected for they performed the baptisms for their dead, and are today performing the baptisms and the ordinances for and in behalf of their dead. Therefore they are not rejected. Again, the Prophet says that the Saints have not too much time to save and redeem their dead, and gather their living relatives together that they may be saved also, before the earth will be smitten, as revealed by Malachi. Therefore it is quite evident why the Lord permitted them to baptize in the river, and not wait until those ordinances could be performed in the Temple, and why He was so anxious that they should hurry and prepare a place in the Temple, where they could be performed in accordance with the plan from before the foundation of the world.

Here is another statement that I wish to refer to. In an editorial in the Times and Seasons written by the Prophet, in volume 3, pages 759-761, where he is speaking of the remarks made by the Savior to the Jews, that upon them should come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, who was slain between the Temple and the altar, Joseph the Prophet declares in most emphatic terms that the reason why this blood was to come upon these Jews was, that:

"They possessed greater privileges than any other generation, not
only as pertaining to themselves but to their dead, their sin was
greater as they not only neglected their own salvation but that
of their progenitors, and hence their blood was required at their
hands."

Now, if these Jews were to answer for the blood of their progenitors because they neglected the salvation of their dead, then, may we not ask; will not we have to answer for the blood of our dead if we neglect these ordinances in their behalf? It matters not even if we have been baptized and have had hands laid on our heads for the reception of the Holy Ghost; if we wilfully neglect the salvation of our dead, then also we shall stand rejected of the Lord because we have rejected our dead; and just so sure their blood will be required at our hands.

Now, what is the attitude of the "Reorganized" Church in relation to the salvation of the dead, the neglect of which the Church--yes, and also the individual--was to stand rejected of the Lord? I have here a copy of a resolution that was passed by the general conference of that sect in 1886, at the time that Mr. Briggs withdrew. This resolution is in reply to his charge that he could not accept the principle of "baptism for the dead." Here it is:

"That as to the alleged Temple building and ceremonial endowments
therein, that we know of no Temple building, except as edifices
wherein to worship God, and no endowment except the endowment of
the Holy Spirit of the kind experienced by the early Saints on
Pentecost day."

"'Baptism for the dead' referred to belongs to those local
questions of which the body has said by resolution:

"'That the commandments of a local character, given to the first
organization of the Church are binding on the Reorganization only
so far as they are either reiterated or referred to as binding by
commandment to this church. And _that_ principle has neither been
reiterated nor referred to as a commandment."

Just think of that! They declare that we were rejected because we failed to build a house where these ordinances were to be performed, and yet they actually have the audacity to say that the work of salvation for the dead is not binding on them because it has not been reiterated or referred to as a commandment binding on them. Now is that consistent? They call it a local commandment, yet we have seen that this commandment was the burden of the Scriptures and the greatest responsibility that God has placed upon us, and we are obliged to save our dead if we would ourselves be saved. And yet, this commandment without which the whole earth was to be utterly wasted and destroyed--this eternal commandment that had been prepared before the foundation of the world--is not binding on them! "A local commandment!" "A permissive rite!" My friends, from the teachings of Joseph Smith the Prophet, which I have presented, you may well judge which is the Church "rejected with its dead."[14]

Footnotes

1. This statement that the Latter-day Saints were endeavoring to get beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, which is repeated so often by anti-"Mormon" writers and speakers, including many devotees of the "Reorganization," who vainly attempt to prove the disloyalty of the Saints, is rather astonishing in the face of the facts of history. The exodus to the Rocky Mountains was undertaken _of necessity_, as it was from Missouri to Illinois, because the Saints had been ruthlessly driven from their homes by armed mobocrats. Notwithstanding this, the Church came to the Rocky Mountains because the Lord willed it so, for He permitted the expulsion from Nauvoo that His purposes might be fulfilled. The Prophet Joseph Smith, as early as 1842, received a revelation declaring that the Saints would be driven to these valleys. That revelation is found in the history of the Church for Saturday, August 6, 1842. Our friends the Reorganites, have themselves testified in their more sober moments to the truth of this grand prediction. In a history published by them in 1880, and which they said was "the aim of the publishers to place within the reach of those who cared to know, a more correct standard from which to determine the character and work of Joseph Smith, the founder, under divine direction, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," "And is the cheapest book published by the (Reorganized) Church." They record the following:

"Just at this time (1842) also occurred Joseph's first marked prophecy, on record, concerning the removal of the Saints to the Rocky Mountains. Says the Record:

"Saturday 6th, (August, 1842). Passed over the river to Montrose, Iowa, in company with General Adams, Colonel Brewer, and others, and witnessed the installation of the officers of the Rising Sun Lodge of Ancient York Masons, at Montrose, by General James Adams, Deputy Grand Master of Illinois. While the Deputy Grand Master was engaged in giving the requisite instructions to the Master Elect, I had a conversation with a number of brethren, in the shade of the building, on the subject of our persecutions in Missouri, and the constant annoyance which has followed us since we were driven from the State. I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction, and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors, or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some would live to go and assist in making settlements and building cities, and see the Saints become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains."

"The exodus is a great historic fact. It would do violence to history to expunge this record. The Twelve, however, may have shaped the record thus to fit their own events. It is not even affirmed that Joseph gave such a revelation to the Church; but the historical landmark, pointing to the Rocky Mountains, is this prophecy to his Masonic brethren, on the 6th of August, 1842, just about five years before the feet of the pioneers emerged from the last mountain gorge into the beautiful valley of the Great Salt Lake." (Tullidge's Life of Joseph Smith, Lamoni edition, page 398-9).

In February 1844 a company was selected to go and explore Oregon and California (Utah then being a portion of what was called "Upper California,") for the purpose of selecting a site where the Saints could build a city. The minutes of this meeting say: "At a meeting of the Twelve, at the Mayor's office, Nauvoo, February 21, 1844, seven o'clock, p. m., Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, George A. Smith, Willard Richards and four others being present, called by previous notice, by instruction of President Joseph Smith on the 20th instant, for the purpose of selecting a company to explore Oregon and California, and select a site for a new city for the Saints."

Jonathan Dunham, Phineas H. Young, David D. Yearsley and David Fullmer, volunteered to go; and Alphonzo Young, James Emmett, George D. Watt, and Daniel Spencer were requested to go. These brethren were requested to meet with the council on the following Friday evening at the Assembly Room, and the history of the Prophet continues: "Met with the Twelve in the Assembly Room (Friday 23rd) concerning the Oregon and California Exploring Expedition; Hyrum and Sidney present. I told them I wanted an exploration of all that mountain country. Perhaps it would be best to go direct to Santa Fe. Send twenty-five men: let them preach the Gospel wherever they go. Let that man go that can raise $500, a good horse and mule, a double-barrel gun, one barrel rifle, and the other smooth bore, a saddle and bridle, a pair of revolving pistols, bowie-knife, and a good saber. Appoint a leader, and let him beat up for volunteers. I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountains he may want to talk with his God; when with the savage nations have power to govern, etc. If we don't get volunteers wait until after the election."

On this and other occasions shortly following, these volunteered to go: George D. Watt, Samuel Bent, Joseph A. Kelting, David Fullmer, James Emmett, Daniel Spencer, Samuel Rolfe, Daniel Avery, Samuel W. Richards, Almon L. Fuller, Hosea Stout, Thomas S. Edwards, Moses Smith and Rufus Beach. There were also others. It is also a fact that on the evening of June 22, 1844, because of persecution, the Prophet Joseph Smith, his brother Hyrum and a few others crossed the Mississippi river with the intention of going to the Rocky Mountains, beyond the persecutions of their enemies. The following day they were accused of cowardice by false friends who declared that they were fleeing from the flock in time of danger. This falsehood so wounded the Prophet who had stood in the breach from the beginning to protect the Saints, that he returned to Nauvoo, and gave himself up declaring that if his life was of no value to his friends, it was of none to himself. Four days later he suffered martyrdom, sealing his testimony with his blood.

Mr. George Derry, himself a Reorganite, in the Saints' Herald for January 31, 1906, in reply to the editor who doubted that any such intention as a settlement in the West was contemplated by Joseph Smith, wrote the following:

"In reading the article in Saints' Herald, No. 46, 'The Editor at Home,' I got the impression that the writer was in doubt as to the correct statement of S. W. Richards that he was one of twenty-five men that were selected by Joseph Smith, Jr., to go out west to try to find a location for the Saints beyond the reach of mobs--a condition no doubt desirable in those trying times. S. W. Richards was president of the Church in the British Isles while I lived in London. I was president of a branch there and I was often brought in contact with other presiding officers as they met in council every month. The London conference was composed of forty-two branches, was often visited by the president of the mission and his counselors. I well remember S. W. Richards and others making the same statement at one of our monthly meetings, for they frequently dwelt at considerable length on the persecutions and trials of the Saints in that day. I believed the statements then--fifty-three years ago. I have no reason to reject it now. I have never heard it disproved. The testimony of S. W. Richards is as true in 1905 [See Era, Vol. 7, 927] as it was in 1853, that the company was organized. Recording the facts would not add to their _truthfulness_. I never heard that the company went west, but the company was _organized_, although conditions were changed.

"In reading of the wonderful manifestations given in Kirtland, I find the following vision seen by Joseph Smith: 'I saw Brigham Young standing in a strange land in the far South and West in a desert place on a rock in the midst of about a dozen men of color. He was preaching to them in their own tongue. I saw the twelve apostles of the Lamb that _now are_ upon the earth standing together in a circle, much fatigued. I finally saw them in the celestial Kingdom of God.'

"The conditions here stated very much resemble the conditions existing in Utah extending four hundred miles south of Salt Lake City. Here is certainly strong indication, if visions are reliable, that Brigham Young with the rest of the apostles would go to a strange land beyond the bounds of civilization. And in view of the mobbings and drivings they had to endure, is it any wonder that they should seek a quiet resting-place? Who shall say there was anything dishonorable in organizing a company by Joseph Smith, Jr., to seek out a quiet resting-place where they could be free to worship God in peace, none to make them afraid? The writer seems to have serious doubts as to the truth of the statements of the two men he met in Salt Lake City, because we have no record of the preparations made. I never heard it stated that the company did go west, because conditions changed, but the fact still remains--the company was formed, firearms and provisions were agreed upon, but as to what happened to change the program we have no record. But that the company was formed under the direction and choice of Joseph Smith is beyond doubt." As early as 1831, the Lord in a revelation (Doc. & Cov. 49:25) declared that "Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed." When Brigham Young therefore, and the apostles, lead the Church to the valleys of the mountains, it was in fulfillment of the word of the Lord to Joseph Smith, uttered first, in March, 1831, second in August 1842, and moreover, it was but carrying out the design of the Prophet Joseph Smith. When men accuse the Saints of fleeing to the west desiring to get beyond the borders of the United States, and of being disloyal to the American government, they not only place themselves at variance with the facts of history, but utter a miserable falsehood that merits only the severest contempt. In B. H. Roberts' "Succession," pages 109 to 126, a complete array of evidence regarding the exodus as outlined by Joseph Smith may be found.

2. In several of the revelations given to the Church in the beginning, the doctrine of common consent is made mandatory. In the revelation of April 6, 1830, the date of the organization of the Church--the Lord says: "The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the Church (branch) to which they belong, or from the conferences." * * * * * 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." In section 26, verse 2: "All things shall be done by common consent in the Church, by much prayer and faith, for all things ye shall receive by faith." See also Sec. 124:144.

The Saints by vote accepted the Twelve Apostles as the presiding quorum of the Church at this special conference August 8, and again at the regular conference in October. This fact settled the matter of succession according to the revelations. These authorities and their successors, have been sustained at each conference of the Church, twice a year, and at the quarterly conferences of the various stakes four times a year from that day to this. The question of succession was, therefore, settled at Nauvoo when the assembled Saints voted to sustain the Apostles as the presiding quorum of the Church. The attempt of any party or parties, before any other body, to set up the Church and to ordain officers in conflict with the action of the Church on the dates previously mentioned, would be illegally done; just as much so as if in the municipality, state or nation, after the majority of the citizens had elected officers (and that almost unanimously) to serve them, a few disgruntled, defeated, candidates and their sympathizers should appoint another election, hold it by themselves and then declare that the regularly and properly elected officers were rejected and unauthorized to serve. Such a thing in the nation could be no more foolish or absurd than were the attempts of apostates to set up a _new organization_ of the Church from a handful of disgruntled office-seekers and their sympathizers. In one case there would be as much authority as in the other and no more.

But the contention of Reorganites has been, that the apostles assumed authority and powers that did not belong to them. That their duty was in the world and it was the prerogative of the high council of Nauvoo with William Marks and counselors, at their head, to direct the affairs of the Church. They say:

"That the Twelve usurped authority, and assumed privileges and duties after the death of Joseph and Hyrum which did not belong to them, is seen in the fact that their mission and calling was to travel abroad among the branches, and throughout the world, preaching, organizing branches, thus building up the Church outside of Zion and the organized stakes. That such was their mission and calling may be seen in the law of the Church which is further confirmed in the teachings of the martyr as follows:

"'The Twelve _will have no right_ to go into Zion, or any of its stakes, and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof, where there is a standing high council. But it is _their duty to go abroad_ and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the Church.' Joseph Smith's History, Mill. Star, Vol. 15, p. 261.

"After the death of Joseph, the Twelve superseded, by their arrogant, despotic acts, the standing high council at the stake of Nauvoo, of both which the late President Wm. Marks was president. And this usurpation thus begun, has been perpetuated till now; entailing darkness, discord, and misrule upon that faction of the Church." (The Successor pp. 14, 15).

Alexander H. Smith, presiding patriarch of the "Reorganized" church, and then one of their "apostles," made the following statement, March 29, 1885, in Salt Lake City:

"At the evening meeting his remarks were directed to the subject of the reorganization of the church, in which he showed why this measure became necessary, and how Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles usurped the leadership. He quoted from declarations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and the revelations to show what the organization and order of the priesthood were, and how, in case of death of the prophet, the word of the Lord, was to be given to the Saints. It was to be through the high council of the chief or center stake of Zion, in which jurisdiction the Twelve Apostles had no business whatever. Their work and powers extended only to matters beyond the borders of Zion. When the prophet was killed, therefore, the right and duty to rule fell upon the high council at Nauvoo, of which Elder Marks was the president. But Brigham Young and eight others of the Twelve, brushed this order of the priesthood to one side, and seized the reins of government themselves." (Saints' Herald, Vol. 32:342).

This argument set forth in the "Successor" and by Alexander H. Smith, which has been quite universal in the "Reorganized" Church, would not be quite so bad if it was not for a number of insurmountable difficulties and objections that stand in the way. In the first place the objectors fail to state that the powers of the high council and stake presidency at Nauvoo, were limited to the affairs of the stake, and outside of that they held no jurisdiction. Following the martyrdom, the Church was considering matters that affected the whole Church and not merely the stake at Nauvoo. The Twelve Apostles, therefore, assumed by legal right their proper place as the presiding quorum of the Church, and were so sustained. The revelation on Priesthood (sec. 107) says the Twelve Apostles, form a quorum equal in authority with the First Presidency (verse 24) and it was the duty of the Apostles, not only to ordain evangelical ministers (Patriarchs) but also to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the Church, (verse 58). We read that "God hath set some in the Church, _first_ apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers," etc. (I. Cor. 12:28) not _first_ high councils and presidents of Stakes. Neither are the duties of the Apostles confined to their labors out side of the Stakes of Zion.

3. If Jason W. Briggs joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints June 6, 1841, and resided in Wisconsin from that time till 1854, he cannot be considered a faithful member of the Church, "who desired to do the will of heaven;" for in remaining at Beloit during all these years he was going contrary to the word of the Lord given to the Prophet in 1841. On January 15th of that year, the Lord said through the Presidency, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, and on divers other occasions, that the Saints scattered abroad should come to Nauvoo and Hancock county. Here is the command: "Let all those who _appreciate the blessings of the Gospel_, and realize the importance of _obeying the commandments of heaven_ * * * first prepare for the general gathering. _Let them dispose of their effects as fast as circumstances will possibly admit_, without making too great sacrifice, and _remove to our city and county_. * * * _This cannot be too forcibly impressed_ on the _minds of all_, and the elders are hereby instructed to proclaim this word in all places where the Saints reside in their public ministrations, _for this is according to the instructions we have received from the Lord_. (My italics.)

Again, on May 24, 1841, the Prophet said this gathering to Hancock and Lee counties was "important and should be attended to _by all who feel an interest in the prosperity of this corner stone of Zion_," and the Twelve Apostles a short time later, under the direction of the First Presidency, in an epistle to the Saints, said: "We say to _all Saints who desire to do the will of heaven_, arise, and tarry not, but come up hither to the place of gathering _as speedily as possible_." (My italics.)

Mr. Briggs visited Nauvoo once in 1843, but again returned to Wisconsin (Reorg. Hist. 3:737) where he lived until 1854, either defying this commandment or else ignoring it, thus proving he was not in harmony with the Presidency of the Church, and was one who did not "desire to do the will of heaven." If he had been faithful he would have gone to Nauvoo and remained there and assisted in the building of the Temple, but he did not do so, _was not diligent_ and went contrary to the "instructions" the Presidency had "received from the Lord." That the Lord would not choose such an unfaithful servant to build up His Church, give him revelations and cause him to stand as president pro tem., in the place of the Seed of Joseph Smith, which Reorganites claim Jason W. Briggs did, is obvious and requires no further comment.

4. I have been taken to task for saying that about this time Jason W. Briggs organized the Beloit branch for the Strang organization. Reorganites claim that the Beloit branch was raised up in 1842 or 1843--they don't know just when. For the sake of the argument we will grant that a branch was organized at Beloit in 1842 or 1843. If so, the faithful members of that branch removed to Nauvoo, agreeable to the commandment of the Lord previously quoted. Those who remained at Beloit, like Jason W. Briggs, were not faithful in that they did not "desire to do the will of heaven." And what has been said of Mr. Briggs, will also apply to them. Nevertheless, between 1846 and 1848, Jason W. Briggs organized the Beloit branch for Strang's organization, or else the Reorganite history is at fault. They say that in 1849 the Beloit branch was a Strangite branch, and remained with Mr. Strang until 1850 (Reorg. Hist., 3:737). Most of these members--and they were few--after they left the Strangites joined the organization of William B. Smith's organizations were without authority, so whatever power those unfaithful members had before 1844, they lost when they joined these apostate organizations of Strang, et al. For they could not take power or authority with them. This truth is expressed by an officer of the Reorganized Church who said, at Galland's Grove, Iowa, October 25, 1863: "Whenever individuals claiming authority under the church as organized by the first Joseph, become members of any faction, they immediately become divested of all authority except that received from that faction." (True Saints' Herald, Vol. 4, page 158).

5. In a vain effort to blind the readers of the Saints' Herald the "defender" tries to make it appear that I state here that Zenas H. Gurley left the "Reorganized" church; but from the way he writes it, it is evident that he doesn't himself believe that any such attempt was made. Zenas H. Gurley, Sen., died August 28, 1871, and in speaking of his _family_ in 1886--fifteen years later--it is obvious that the reference does not include him. That Mr. Gurley left them when he got on the other side, I have my reasons to believe, but at no time in the entire publication has he been confounded with his son of the same name. The son is mentioned _but once_ and then only incidentally and unavoidably in connection with the withdrawal of Jason W. Briggs from the "Reorganization." The _family_ of Zenas H. Gurley mentioned here consisted of his wife Margaret, sons Zenas H. (who was one of their "Apostles") Edwin H., and their wives. The attempt of the writer of the "defense" to throw dust in the eyes of the readers of the _Saints' Herald_ as he has done here and at many other points, is contemptible.

6. In the "defense" that appeared in the Saints' Herald, June 30, 1909, in answer to this, the statement is made that, "Those were received whose original baptisms had been performed either previously to 1844 or by men who held authority previous to 1844." This declaration helps their cause not at all, for whatever authority any of those men who were active in these various "factions" may have held, when in the Church, they could not take it with them, when they withdrew. Moreover, action was taken against them and they were divested of all authority by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from which their authority came. And what authentic proof have they to offer that these men had authority in the Prophet's day? Zenas H. Gurley, and Jason W. Briggs were confessedly, the two most active and most noted in this work of the "Reorganization." Mr. Gurley, it is true, was senior president of the 21st quorum of Seventy at Nauvoo before he left the Church, having been ordained under the direction of President Joseph Young. He claimed it was by virtue of this office in the Priesthood that he officiated originally in the bringing forth of the "New Organization," in 1852. (True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, page 56). Yet the president of the "Reorganization" himself repudiates that authority. (See section on Succession, subject _Properly Ordained?_)

It is claimed by the "Reorganization" that Mr. Briggs was an Elder in 1842, but that also is mere sayso, there is no authentic record for it. In proof of this I submit the following correspondence.

Salt Lake City., Feb. 21, 1905.

_Mr. Heman C. Smith, Church Historian, Reorganized Church_.

Dear Sir: The 3rd volume of the "History of the Reorganized Church,"
page 737, states that Jason W. Briggs was ordained an Elder in 1842.
Will you kindly inform me who ordained him and the date of the
ordination; also the authority on which the statement of the
ordination is made, and oblige?

Very respectfully,
JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR.

The reply dated Lamoni, Iowa, Feb. 26, 1905, is as follows:

_Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr._ _Salt Lake City, U._

Dear Sir: Yours of February 21, is at hand and contents noted.

Replying we will say we are not able to inform you as to who
officiated in the ordination of Elder Jason W. Briggs to the office
of Elder; nor can we give you the date any nearer than the year 1842.

The authority upon which the statement was made is the sworn statement
of Elder Briggs in the Temple Lot Case. See Plaintiff's Abstract, page
393.

Very respectfully,
HEMAN C. SMITH.

In the formation of the "New Organization" (now the "Reorganization") Mr. Briggs acted by virtue of the office of High Priest. Mr. Gurley says they had "two High Priests (Mr. Briggs being one of them) and one senior President of the Seventies." (The Seventy being himself). See True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, page 56. And in the "revelation" given by Mr. Deam it was stated that "It is my will that you respect authority in my Church, therefore let the greatest among you preside at your conference." (True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, p. 55). Mr. Jason W. Briggs was chosen to preside (p. 57). Where did he get his authority as a High Priest by which he had the right to preside? From James J. Strang. The Voree record of conferences, April 8, 1846, contains the following: "Resolved unanimously that Jason W. Briggs be ordained a High Priest. Ordination under the hands of President James J. Strang and William Marks."

7. In reply to this the Reorganite "defender" declares that I have not been fair to Mr. Briggs, that if he believed "even one section out of what was in excess of one hundred, both as to its genuineness and authenticity, it would necessarily follow that he believed to an extent in the mission of Joseph Smith through whom it was given, in that case Joseph F. Smith, Jr., could not truthfully use the language he did in describing Briggs' attitude toward the Standard works of the Church." * * * * Mr. Briggs denied the _plenary_ inspiration of the sacred books; but that is neither a denial of the authenticity, or of the partiality of their inspiration."