Chapter III: Part 3

This is a mere quibble. Mr. Briggs denied the gathering of Israel; temple building and the ceremonial endowments therein; the salvation of the dead through the temple ordinances, which the Prophet Joseph said was "the burden of the Scriptures;" the law of tithing and of consecration, the only law by which Zion could be redeemed and built; the right of Joseph Smith or any other man to be a sole mouthpiece of God to the Church; the plenary inspiration and consequent absolute authority of the _Scriptures_; and the revelation on temple building. What else he did not believe is not stated; but _if_ there is any fundamental principle in the mission of the Prophet Joseph, or in the Scriptures that he _did believe_, surely he ought to have full credit for it!

8. The writer of the "defense" also very peevishly objects to the statement that Mr. Briggs was unstable to the last. He says: "If unstable and discontented _to_ the last, he could not have been stable and contented for a generation preceding the 'last'. If stable and contented for upwards of thirty years preceding the last (1886,) then Mr. Smith uttered an untruth, then he reflected a falsehood, when he said Briggs was 'unstable' and discontent 'to the last.' Why not tell the truth about him even though an 'apostate?' I see no excuse for reflecting on his stability any part of his life. If he stepped momentarily aside from his path in the early part of his life it was because his north star was obscured by a cloud he could not avoid; but as soon as the cloud disappeared and his guiding star was again visible, he resumed his pathway. No lack of stability there. * * * * Joseph F. Smith, Jr., should tell the truth, even about the dead."

Another quibble. This is rather a severe arraignment to come from a member of the "Reorganized" Church, which organization has been from its beginning so energetic in maligning the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both living and dead, accusing them of every wickedness under the sun, even going so far as to accuse President Young of being an accomplice in the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (See R. C. Evans, in Toronto Star, of January 28, 1905, and Saints' Herald, Vol. 32:190.)

Well, let us see wherein we have wrongfully accused Mr. Briggs. He joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1841; failed to gather at Nauvoo when commanded; left the Church in 1846 during the exodus, "because he had no root;" joined James J. Strang in 1846 and remained with him until 1850; left Mr. Strang and followed William Smith until 1851; left William Smith and joined with Zenas H. Gurley in the "New Organization of the Church," which finally resulted in the forming of the "Reorganized" Church; remained with this organization until 1886, when he withdrew from it and died at Harris, Colorado, January 11, 1899, rejecting the work he performed in all these organizations. Moreover, he was "ordained" April 8, 1846 to the office of "High Priest" by James J. Strang, and declared that Strang was Joseph Smith's legal successor as this letter will show:

"The following letter was written in answer to one from Mr. Briggs of Wisconsin. His letter is too scurrilous to appear in print, therefore we publish only the reply of Mr. Bacon."

"Beaver Island, July 18th, 1851.

"Mr. Briggs:

"Sir: Some time since I received a letter from you in which you claim to take the liberty to write to me, on the ground that our acquaintance had been such as to forbid personal enmities; and, therefore, you would carry out the precept: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you;' and that I was less orthodox in the pretenses of Strang, etc., than some others. * * * * * I will not notice the argument, powerful as it may be, which you assert you have found upon examination, touching the letter of appointment. But what examination can this be, in which you have found out that you spoke that which was not true? _When you declared in public congregations, at your own fireside, and at the fireside of your neighbors_, that Joseph Smith wrote with his own hand the 'Letter of Appointment' (for you saw him in vision) and your surprise and faith in the 'knocking spirits' of New York, from the fact that they (the spirits) asserted the same?"

He represented the Beloit and Prairie branches of Strang's church at the conference held in October, 1848, (Voree Record) and traveled quite extensively for that cult from 1846 to 1850. When he joined William B. Smith he acknowledged him as Prophet and leader, was ordained by William B. Smith, an "Apostle." After he left William B. Smith and joined Zenas H. Gurley he claimed to have a revelation embodying the very things he repudiated when he withdrew from the "Reorganization."

To Mathias F. Cowley, in the presence of others, Mr. Briggs, a short time before his death in answer to the question whether the "revelation" he received in 1851 was true or not, said: "You know we learn by experience. I would not like to claim it to be a revelation now, but it is just as good as any revelation that was given to Joseph Smith."

Although he remained with the "Reorganized" Church for thirty years, if this record does not show that he was unstable of character at the beginning all the way through and "to the end," pray tell, what does instability mean!

9. The members of the "Reorganized" Church in the beginning laid great stress on the statement that the Prophet Joseph Smith was smitten by the shaft of death (D. & C. 85th sec.) for putting forth his hand to steady the ark of God, and that his successor should be the "one mighty and strong," the Lord should send, "holding the sceptre of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints, whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God."

Mr. Briggs in his "revelation" says the Prophet's successor should be one mighty and strong and one of his seed, and for years the claim was made that Joseph Smith the present head of the "Reorganization," was that personage. This is emphatically declared in the "Successor," (revised edition) and in various numbers of the "Saints' Herald" and other of their publications. This is from page 66, Vol. 17, True L. D. S. Herald: "God foreknew the character of sister Emma--that she would be faithful and true to him who had called her--and he _elected_ her to be the mother of the successor of the Martyr--the "one mighty and strong," who is "to set in order the _house_ of God, (i. e., the church; see I. Tim. iii. 15; I. Pet. iv. 17; Heb. iii. 6), and arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints; the man who shall lead them (the Saints) like as Moses led the children of Israel, (which was by direct revelation from God), and who, when sent of God, would find the Saints in 'bondage,' from which they should be 'led out' by power, (of God) 'and with a stretched out arm.'"

That's the way they formerly gave it; but they have been forced to recede because their president has not come up to this standard of the one spoken of in the Prophet's revelation. Therefore they have, since 1900, resolved:

"Whereas, we have received no divine communication authorizing any particular interpretation of the revelation before us; and as the Reorganized Church has never taken action upon the matter;

"Resolved, that we leave it an open question, to be decided as God may develop His purposes among us, while we acknowledge the leading features in it to be prominently characteristic of Jesus Christ." (From a letter by Joseph Smith of the "Reorganization" in my possession--J. F. S., Jr.)

This is rather a hard jolt to Mr. Briggs' "revelation."

10. The Reorganite "defender" says, "Also, we wish Mr. Smith to note, that the Lord in the same connection says, 'If my people will hearken to my voice,' they shall not be moved out of their place. Were they moved? Yes, they were cannonaded from Nauvoo, their enemies scattered them, some of them went to Utah. Was it because they "hearkened," or because they had not hearkened?"

He misinterprets the Scriptures. Thus do they read:

"And if my people will hearken unto my voice, _and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people_, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place" (verse 45). Who these _servants_ were that the Saints should _"hearken"_ to, the Lord informs us in verses 124 to 129 of this same section. "First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith, to be a Patriarch unto you, * * * I give unto you Joseph Smith, to be a presiding elder over all my Church. * * * I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon, and my servant William Law. * * * * I give unto you my servant Brigham Young, to be a President over the Twelve traveling council, which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature; They are--Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, William Smith, John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, George A. Smith." These were the general authorities who were to be _"hearkened"_ to. And the people hearkened to the Prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith until their death, then the right of presidency fell on the shoulders of the Twelve. The faithful Saints "hearkened" to them and helped them to build the Temple. But the unfaithful rejected these servants whom the Lord in this revelation gave to the Church for the Saints to hearken to, departed from Nauvoo, refused to comply with the command of the Lord to build His house, and were consequently _moved out of their place_ in the Church into the "Reorganization." The moving "out of their place" did not refer to the location (Nauvoo) but to their place in the Kingdom of God; or, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And all who refused to obey this commandment and hearken to these _servants_ were removed from the Church. "But if they will not hearken to my voice, _nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed_, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them. And it shall come to pass, That if you build a house unto my name, and _do not do the things that I say_, (i. e., hearken to "the voice of these men whom I have appointed") I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promise which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord." (verses 46-7).

11. The Reorganite response to this is as follows: "Not by any means, no such an indication. We have seen that they were diligent _in_ May 1842--not _up to_. The corner-stone of the edifice had been laid April 6, 1841, over a year from the date of the quotation. Room for a great deal of lagging between those two periods of time."

"The next quotation is from Hyrum Smith (no reference) at the April Conference, 1844, who speaks of, as Joseph F. Smith [Jr.], puts it, the 'willingness of the Saints to do the work as late as 1844.' Yes, but he does not say they had been willing afforded time _up to_ 1844. From May 1842, to April, 1844, (nearly two years), afforded time to be guilty of lethargy and to falter enough to incur the penalty the fiat of the Lord had fixed."

Such miserable, puerile, balderdash set forth as argument, is disgusting. Nevertheless it is characteristic of the "defense" writer who, throughout, argues in this fashion, failing to present the quotations he attacks for fear his readers will discover his dishonorable methods. He was afraid to present to his readers the quotation from the remarks of Patriarch Hyrum Smith and the quotation from the Prophet wherein he said:

"Never since the formation of this Church was laid have we seen manifest a greater willingness to comply with the requisitions of Jehovah, a more ardent desire to do the will of God; more strenuous exertions used or greater sacrifices made, than have been SINCE _the Lord said_, LET THE TEMPLE BE BUILT BY THE TITHING OF MY PEOPLE!"

The reasons he did not give these quotations is, that he knew his readers would see his trickery and deception. Then he goes on to argue that the Saints were not _diligent_ in September 1841, because the Lord said at that time: "Let the work of my Temple, and _all the works which I have appointed unto you_, be continued on and not cease, let _your diligence_ and _your perseverance_, and _patience_, and _your works be redoubled_, and you shall in no wise lose your reward." (My italics). Therefore, he argues, "they were not sufficiently diligent at that time," because they were commanded to _redouble_ their works. "That at least makes one positive break in Mr. Smith's chain of diligence."

Let us see: their works that were to be redoubled were not confined to the building of the Temple, and the context of this revelation (see sec. 127) proves that they were in favor with the Lord and had been _diligent_ and _patient_ and _persevering_ in their works. We have seen too, from the Prophet's own words, that "laboring with their might" meant _one-tenth_ of their _time_ or _means--a tithing_ of the people, which is all the Lord had asked of them, and this could be redoubled without any thought of lethargy or lack of diligence. There is no sense in the Reorganite "defender," being unreasonable, technical and peevish in this matter to win a point for a dilapidated cause. There is sufficient evidence given in this book; and it is not all that could be given by any means, to show that the Saints labored faithfully, diligently, and did all that the Lord required of them until they had completed the Temple; and that, too, while they were being harassed, persecuted, and in every way opposed by their enemies. All these facts the "defender" very carefully avoids.

Another thing. Who was it that failed to be diligent and to labor with their mights in building the Temple? Those scattered members who refused to go to Nauvoo when commanded, and afterwards,--if we may accept Reorganite testimony--became the nucleus of their Church! Those who fled from Nauvoo with James J. Strang, Sidney Rigdon and William Smith; forsaking the Church; refusing to assist in the completion of the Temple; opposing the building of that edifice; even prophesying that it would not be built, and blocking the progress of its erection! Notwithstanding the Lord declared to Parley P. Pratt in a revelation just following the martyrdom--which is accepted by the Reorganites as genuine--"Go and say unto _my people_ (not rejected) in Nauvoo, that they shall continue to pursue their daily duties and take care of themselves, and make no movement in _Church government_ to reorganize or alter anything until the return of the remainder of the quorum of the Twelve (not rejected). _But exhort them that they continue to build the House of the Lord which I have commanded them to build in Nauvoo_." (My comments and italics). Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, page 371). Notwithstanding this commandment, some forsook Nauvoo and refused to assist in building the Temple, and these were the ones who afterwards became active members of the "Reorganization." It will take more evidence than a lot of innuendos, accusations, and downright sophistry to prove that the Lord rejected those who labored diligently on the Temple, according to His command, and accepted those who rejected the Temple, and refused to assist in its erection.

12. Commenting on this the Reorganite "defender" says: "On page 23 he quotes from Sidney Rigdon, 'In the _Messenger_ and _Advocate_ for June, 1846;' and on next page (24) he says: 'At that time (June, 1846) the temple was not quite finished.' On page 24, not finished in June, and on page 23, finished on May 1st. On which page is he correct?"

If the foregoing criticism was written through ignorance, of course the writer may be excused, for one cannot be expected to furnish reasoning powers to men who lack the capacity to understand a simple fact. But it appears very forcibly that it is a deliberate prevarication, prepared purposely to deceive, and thus shall I look upon it, rather than lay it to his stupidity.

There is no contradiction whatever here, for I did not say, as he gives it: "At this time (June, 1846) the Temple was not quite finished." The reference taken from the letter of Sidney Rigdon, appeared in the _Messenger_ and _Advocate_ of June, 1846, along with a number of other articles _written_ in March, April and May, 1846. Any greenhorn, much less a man of wisdom and intelligence, knows that an article appearing in a monthly magazine is _always written before_ the date of publication of the magazine, and more was this the case in 1846, when the modern improvements and facilities were not to be had by a small country publication. Now, what I did say--which would have been apparent to his readers had he dared to publish the statement of Sidney Rigdon and my comment which proves the diligence of the Saints _up to_ the last--was this: "This article was written just shortly after the exodus commenced, and at _that time_ (i. e., shortly after the exodus commenced) the Temple was not quite finished, but it was finished before all the Saints left Nauvoo." (See context). This harmonizes perfectly with the date of dedication. Moreover, Sidney Rigdon had not been at Nauvoo since before the exodus commenced, which was in February, 1846, not June, and was not prepared to say just what the Saints did after that time.

13. In answer to the question, "when was the Church rejected with its dead?" the president of the "Reorganization" in an editorial in the Saints' Herald, February 17, 1905, said: "We are not aware that specific date or time, or any one specific act has been fixed upon as _the_ time and _the_ event when and why the Church was rejected." He then declares that the seed was sown as early as 1843 that finally grew and culminated in the "rejection of the Church."

Mr. Heman C. Smith quotes Lyman Wight (True Succession, p. 74) as follows: "We were to have sufficient time to build that house, [Nauvoo Temple] during which time our baptisms for our dead should be acceptable in the river. If we did not build within this time we were to be rejected as a church, we and our dead together. Both the Temple and baptizing went very leisurely, till the Temple was somewhere in building the second story, when Brother Joseph from the stand announced the alarming declaration that baptism for the dead was no longer acceptable in the river. As much to say the time for building the Temple had passed by, and both we and our dead were rejected together. * * *

"The Church now stands rejected together with their dead. The Church being rejected now stands alienated from her God in every sense of the word."

Mr. Heman C. Smith accepts this statement saying: "What but blind ambition to rule prevented others of the signers [Apostles] from recognizing the consequence so apparent?"

This was written by Lyman Wight in _1851_ and was an _afterthought_ on his part, for he continued to work in the ministry until the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, without one intimation by word or deed that the Church had been rejected in 1841. Moreover, if the Saints could get the structure of a building that cost a million dollars "somewhere in building the second story" in that time of distress and trouble, within _about six months_ they could not possibly have worked _very leisurely_, and the Prophet in 1842 praised them for their diligence and zeal. (See page 38).

Another Reorganite writer (A. M. Chase) in the Saints' Herald for June 20, 1906, declares that the Church was rejected in 1841: "When this appointment was ended by revelation, October 3, 1841, and the temple not completed, then all Israel should have known they were 'rejected as a church' with their dead."

It is quite evident that the sufficient time was up on this date, for they were to have the privilege to baptize in the river "while the time was passing" and this privilege of baptizing in the river terminated, October 3, 1841, thus proving that the time had come for baptisms in the Temple. It was not _finished_ and the revelation did not call for it to be _finished_, and at this time it was _built_ sufficiently for this ordinance to be attended to in the font in the proper way. For that reason the Lord transferred the ordinance of baptism for the dead from the river to the font of the Lord's House. That he had not rejected the Church is evident from this very commandment, for in it the Lord tells them to baptize in the font in the Temple, which He would not have done had they been rejected. If He had rejected them He would have stated so positively in a revelation to the Prophet, for he received several revelations _after_ this event and some of them were concerning baptism for the dead and temple work. (See sections 127 and 128). This commandment given to the Church in 1841 and other revelations subsequently, prove conclusively that the Lord would and did accept of the work for the dead in the Temple, without it being "completely finished," after the privilege to baptize in the river had expired. The thing for which they were to be rejected was the failure to perform these ordinances, _after the expiration of river baptisms_, and the Saints did not fail to perform the ordinances in the Temple.

14. The Reorganite "defender" at this point carefully avoids the evidence and argument presented here, and argues at great length attempting to prove that the Church was rejected because the Lord said He was "_about_ to restore many things to the earth pertaining to the Priesthood." The Lord said: "I deign to reveal unto _My Church_, things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulnesss of times." The "defender" says these things were not revealed, nor restored to the Church; that no revelations that were kept hid from before the foundation of the world, pertaining to the Priesthood in the dispensation of the fulnesss of times, have been revealed from heaven; therefore the Church was rejected with its dead. He says their Doctrine and Covenants contains no such revelations; that no such revelations are to be found in our edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; and, therefore, he concludes, no such revelations have been given to us, or the Church; so the Church must have been rejected.

He asks me to answer the following questions: "Now let us ask, Mr. Smith: Have any such revelations been received? Name them. Where are they and what are they?"

I have taken this matter up under the head of "Temple Building and Ceremonial Endowments Therein." All that is necessary to say here is this: If the Lord kept things hid from the world since before the foundation thereof was laid and now has revealed them to His people, they are not intended for the world and necessarily will not be found in the written word. Such revelations have been revealed unto the Church in the Temples of the Lord; but I shall _not_ name them. If the Lord saw fit to keep them from the world, yes, and from the dispensations past, He does not intend to reveal them to the world _now_; neither to the scoffer and the unbeliever in His works. Let our friend read Matthew 7:10-12, as it is given in the Holy Scriptures: "_And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves_; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet. For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you."

Succession in the Presidency of the Church.

* * * * *

An Address Delivered in the Weber Stake Tabernacle, Ogden, Sunday, April 28, 1907, by Elder Joseph F. Smith, Jr.

* * * * *

A short time ago I was invited to address the Saints from this stand on the subject of "The Origin of the Reorganized Church." It has been thought by some that it would be wise to continue the subject and therefore I have been invited to address you this afternoon on the question of Succession in the Presidency of the Church. In doing so, I desire it to be understood that I have no feeling of animosity towards those of a different faith; but so much has been said on the other side of this question, and so little in our defense, that I feel it important to deal with this subject.

The testimony on which members of the so-called "Reorganized" Church base their contention that Joseph, son of the Prophet Joseph Smith, should have succeeded his father in the Presidency of the Church is as follows:

1. That it is his right by the law of lineage--that the office of president of the High Priesthood descends from father to the first born son.

2. That it is his right by appointment of his father.

3. That he was properly ordained by those holding the authority to preach and administer in the ordinances of the gospel.

We shall take these questions up and consider them and will refer to the passages in the Doctrine and Covenants that are used by these people, together with other passages that they do not use, and we will see just how much there is in them in support of their position.

We will first consider the statement that the Prophet was to choose his successor. The passages referred to in support of this are in the Doctrine and Covenants as follows: Sections 28:6-7, 35:18, and 43:2-5. These I shall read to you. I cannot stop now to explain the circumstances under which these revelations were given, and take it for granted that you will consider that matter for yourselves. The first of these was given to Oliver Cowdery and I read, beginning with the 4th verse:

"And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter, to speak or
teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the Church,
thou mayest do it. But thou shalt not write by way of commandment,
but by wisdom; and thou shalt not command him who is at thy head,
and at the head of the Church, for I have given him the keys of
the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall
appoint unto them another in his stead."

You see, the Lord was to appoint another.

The passage in section 35 is as follows:

"And I have sent forth the fulnesss of my Gospel by the hand of
my servant Joseph; and in weakness have I blessed him, and I have
given unto him the keys of the mystery of those things which have
been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the
world, and the things which shall come from this time until the
time of my coming, IF HE ABIDE IN ME, AND IF NOT, ANOTHER WILL I
PLANT IN HIS STEAD. Wherefore, watch over him that his faith fail
not, and it shall be given by the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, that
knoweth all things."

The third passage is as follows, beginning with the first verse:

"O hearken, ye Elders of my Church, and give an ear to the word
which I shall speak unto you; for behold verily, verily, 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 or commandments; and this I give unto you
that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me."

These revelations, extracts from which I have read, were all given between September, 1830, and the first of March, 1831. At that time the Church was less than one year old, and was not fully organized with its various officers as we have it today. The quorums of Apostles and Seventies were not called till 1835--over four years subsequent to these revelations. When they were given the Prophet Joseph was young and inexperienced, and this law was laid down for the government of the Church as it existed at that time, as these revelations clearly indicate. You will notice from these passages, that the Lord was to choose another in the Prophet's stead in case of his removal through transgression, or for any other cause, during that incipient stage of the history of the Church. It was necessary at that time that some provision be made for the perpetuity of the prophetic office, in case that Joseph Smith should not prove faithful to the great trust in the days of his preparation and qualification, and before he became thoroughly seasoned and fitted for this important calling. In such an emergency the power of necessity must have been conferred by Joseph Smith on his successor, for he held the keys; therefore, the Lord declared that in case of the prophet's transgression or removal, he would still retain the power in that case to ordain his successor and to confer upon such successor, whom the Lord was to choose, the keys and authority that had been conferred upon him.

It must also be remembered that the Prophet Joseph, like the prophets of old and even the Savior Himself, had to continue from grace to grace and "increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God," and with him, as with the Master, "he received not a fulnesss at first;" but through trials, tribulations, and varied experiences, had to prove his worthiness before God in order that he might hold the keys of the kingdom. It was during this period of preparation that the expression in the revelations quoted were given regarding the appointment of a successor; but later the Lord revealed more of His will, and the Church was established with all the proper officers and quorums for its guidance and perpetuity, when death should remove its President. Moreover, while in these revelations the Lord prepared the means of a successor in case of the transgression or removal of Joseph Smith, later when he had proved himself and evinced before God through his faithfulness that he was worthy of the trust placed in him, the Lord declared that the keys of the kingdom should never be taken from him in the following words:

"Thus saith the Lord, verily, verily, I say unto you my son,
thy sins are forgiven thee according to thy petition, for thy
prayers and the prayers of thy brethren have come up into my ears;
Therefore thou art blessed from henceforth that bear the keys of
the kingdom given unto you; which kingdom is coming forth for the
last time.

"Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall NEVER be
taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world
to come; nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to
another, yea, even unto the CHURCH."

I take it as a natural sequence that this law which was given in March, 1833, superseded the provision made in 1830 and winter of 1831, wherein a law was given as a protection to the Church in case of the taking away of the keys from Joseph the Prophet--a contingency that did not arise.[1] Later in the year 1835, when the Twelve Apostles were chosen and their duties defined, the Lord declared that they were equal with the Presidency as a quorum. That is, in case of the dissolution or destruction of the First Presidency of the Church, the Twelve should succeed to the presidency, and would thus act until such time and place as the Lord revealed that the First Presidency should be again organized. And whenever the First Presidency should be disorganized it would devolve upon the Apostles' quorum to set in order and direct the affairs of the Church. I quote from the one hundred and seventh section.

"And they (that is the Twelve) form a quorum, equal in authority
and power to the three Presidents previously mentioned.

"The Seventy are also called to preach the Gospel and to be
especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world. Thus
differing from other officers in the Church in the duties of their
calling.

"And they form a quorum equal in authority to that of the Twelve
special witnesses or Apostles just named."

That is to say: that when the First Presidency is disorganized, the Twelve Apostles become the presiding quorum of the Church until the presidency is again organized, and during that time they are virtually the Presidency of the Church--the presiding quorum. If through some cause--which is not likely to arise--both these quorums should be destroyed then it would devolve on the Seventies to set in order the Church and they would become the presiding quorum. This is the law that God has revealed, and it is the only law and order of the Priesthood that He has revealed for the guidance of the Church in succession. You may search the Doctrine and Covenants from beginning to end and will find no other law of succession.

I think it must be conceded that the Apostles could not be equal in authority with the Presidency when the First Presidency is fully and properly organized. There could not be two heads--or three heads--of equal authority at the same time, for such a thing would lead to confusion. Hence the Apostles are equal, as has been stated in that they have power to assume control of the affairs of the Church when the Presidency is dissolved by the death of the President. This idea was clearly in the mind of the Prophet when on the 16th day of January, 1836, in a special council of the Presidency and the Twelve, he said--This is in the History of the Church, vol. 2, page 374; also the 'Reorganite' history, vol. 2, pages 11-12:

"I next proceeded to explain the duty of the Twelve, and their
authority, which is next to the present Presidency, and that the
arrangement of the assembly in this place on the 15th instant,
in placing the High Council of Kirtland next the Presidency, was
because the business to be transacted was business relating to
that body in particular, which was to fill the several quorums
in Kirtland, not because they were first in office, and that the
arrangements were the most judicious that could be made on the
occasion; also the Twelve are not subject to any other than the
First Presidency; viz., myself, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G.
Williams, who are now my counselors; and where I am not, there is
no First Presidency over the Twelve."

If in such a case, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve, then the Twelve must be the presiding quorum of the Church when the First Presidency is disorganized. Again, at a special conference of the Church held August 16, 1841, we are informed in the minutes that the Prophet addressed the Saints as follows--(T. S., 2. 521.):

"President Joseph Smith now arriving proceeded to state to the
conference at considerable length, the object of their present
meeting, and in addition to what President Young had stated in the
morning, said that the time had come when the Twelve should be
called upon to stand in their place next to the First Presidency,
and attend to the settling of emigrants and the business of the
Church at the stakes and assist to bear off the kingdom victorious
to the nations; and as they had been faithful and had borne the
burden in the heat of the day that it was right that they should
have an opportunity of providing something for themselves and
families, and at the same time relieve him so that he might attend
to the business of translating.

"Motioned, seconded and carried, that the conference approve of the
instructions of President Smith, in relation to the Twelve, and
that they proceed accordingly, to attend to the duties of their
office."

Therefore it was by right of divine appointment that the Apostles' quorum became the presiding quorum of the Church at the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

LINEAGE.

We will now consider this "law of lineage." From section 86, they quote to us as follows:

"Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you 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 through you and your lineage,
until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the
holy prophets since the world began."

But they fail to quote the eleventh and succeeding verse:

"Therefore, blessed are ye if ye continue in my goodness, a light
unto the gentiles, and through the Priesthood, a savior unto my
people Israel. The Lord hath said it, Amen."

But to whom was this revelation given? Was it to the Prophet Joseph Smith alone? Is this a promise that his seed shall inherit the Priesthood? Certainly not. This revelation was given December 6, 1832, to the Elders of the Church. Therefore, when members of the "Reorganization" declare that Joseph Smith was one of these Elders and must be included with his posterity in the promise, we meet their argument with the counter statement, that the promise was also to Hyrum Smith, to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George A. Smith, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, and a large number of other Elders who never have been identified with the "Reorganization," nor have their children, and to them this promise is as sure as to the seed of any others. We must not lose sight of the fact that no man can lay claim to salvation, nor to the Priesthood of God, simply because he had a faithful father. The inference in this eleventh verse is, that if they are not faithful, then they will not receive the fulfilment of the promise. The posterity of Joseph Smith, like the posterity of any other Elder of Israel, will stand or fall on their own foundation which they have builded. And if the sons of Joseph Smith refuse to keep the commandments, the blessings will pass them by; but God's work will continue until the consummation of all things.

Again they quote from section 112 as follows:

"For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation which ye
have received, have come down from the fathers; and last of all
being sent down from heaven unto you."

This revelation was given to Thomas B. Marsh and the Apostles in July, 1837; and while it is true that the Priesthood which these men held did come down from the fathers, it was not from father to son, from generation to generation, in the flesh. For the Priesthood, as we know, was conferred on the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by Peter, James and John. Joseph Smith's grandfather did not hold the Priesthood nor his fathers before him for generations upon generations. So we must look at this in a broader sense than our friends are willing that we should do. What is meant by the Priesthood coming down from the fathers, and that it must needs remain through the lineage of the Elders of the Church? It means simply this, that the Priesthood has come down from those who held it in ancient days and has been conferred upon men in this day according to promise, because they are of the seed of Joseph of the tribe of Ephraim. For the Lord promised to bless the children of Ephraim in the latter days with His power. And when the Church was established it was with the promise that it was never again to be destroyed; therefore, it must needs be that the Priesthood remain through the lineage of the Elders of the Church. But it will be through those who are faithful, and not the unfaithful sons, and there is not one word in these passages that declares that the Presidency of the High Priesthood descends from father to son, and that it is the right of the son of Joseph Smith to succeed his father. Not one word!

They also quote section 110; to the effect that the generations were to be blessed through the seed of Joseph Smith. That passage is from a vision received by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, April 3, 1836, when they received the keys of various dispensations, and is as follows:

"After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of
the Gospel of Abraham, saying, that in us, and our seed, all
generations after us should be blessed."

Therefore they say that unless the sons of the Prophet Joseph Smith were in the true Church and held the Priesthood, this promise would fail. Not so, however. As I have said, if those sons are not faithful the realization of the promise will pass them by until some of the seed of Joseph Smith will stand up to receive the blessing. Furthermore, this promise was not made solely to Joseph Smith. Oliver Cowdery received the same blessing; but he left the Church and went into forbidden paths, and the promised blessing was taken from him and given to another. So it will be with the sons of Joseph the Prophet; if they repent not they shall not receive the blessing. The Lord has declared:

"Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not
fulfilled? I command and a man obeys not, I revoke and they receive
not the blessing."

I stated that this blessing that was given to Oliver Cowdery was taken from him and given to another. In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 124:94-95, this is found:

"And from this time forth I appoint unto him (that is Hyrum Smith)
that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my
Church, as well as my servant Joseph.

"That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph, and that
he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show
unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned
with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and Priesthood, and
gifts of the Priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my
servant Oliver Cowdery."

Here the blessings of Oliver Cowdery are transferred to the head of Hyrum Smith, and, therefore, we can say with equal emphasis that in the seed of Hyrum Smith, as well as in the seed of Joseph Smith, all generations after him shall be blessed. For the Lord hath spoken it! Now, the seed of Hyrum Smith are not connected with the "Reorganization." However, in the words of another let me say:

"That the descendants of Joseph Smith, and those of Hyrum Smith,
stand before God as do all other men, assured of honor or dishonor,
exaltation or degradation, according to their individual works."

We are also referred to verses 56-58 of section 124, which, perhaps, is a passage on which they lay the greatest stress of all. I shall read beginning with the fifty-sixth verse, and ask you to follow me closely and I will read it as clearly as I possibly can:

"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."

You see it says, "this anointing have I put upon his head." What anointing does this refer to? Notice that it says, "as pertaining to my boarding house * * let my servant Joseph, and his house have place therein, from generation to generation." That is the anointing the term "this" refers to. It is the place in that boarding house, and has nothing to do with the Presidency of the Church. I have already shown to you that in the seed of Hyrum Smith as well as in the seed of Joseph Smith the generations after them were to be blessed; there is nothing in this promise indicating that the posterity of either of them shall have right to the Presidency of the Church.

But they say this blessing does not refer to the boarding house in which the Prophet Joseph paid stock for himself and generations after him; but that it refers to the blessing of his progenitors; that is, to the birthright which was given to Joseph--the right of the primogeniture. And considering this passage Heman C. Smith, in his "True Succession," has the following to say:

"Here then is the blessing given to Joseph to occupy in this
position, and to discharge these duties and responsibilities. But
some one objects that this is not called a 'blessing;' but is it
not a blessing? However, to silence this caviling, we refer the
reader to the blessing of Joseph Smith as pronounced by his father
on the occasion of the ordination of the High Council. February 19,
1834, Joseph in his history says:

"'My father Joseph then laid his hands upon my head and said,
"Joseph, I lay my hands upon thy head and pronounce the blessings
of thy progenitors upon thee, that thou mayest hold the keys of the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, until the coming of the Lord.
Amen.'" (True Succession, p. 44).

Then he goes on to say that this is the blessing referred to in the revelation I have just quoted from, and that it was the blessing of the primogeniture. The birthright of the first born. But Mr. Heman C. Smith is too hasty. Invariably in quoting this blessing given to the Prophet by his father and which is found in the Times and Seasons, volume 6, pages 994-5, they tactfully refrain from quoting what immediately follows. I will quote it from the Times and Seasons:

"He also laid his hands upon the head of his son Samuel and said,
'Samuel, I lay my hands upon thy head, and pronounce the blessing
of thy progenitors upon thee, that thou mayest remain a Priest of
the Most High God, and like Samuel of old, hear His voice, saying,
Samuel, Samuel. Amen.'

"John Johnson also, laid his hands upon the head of his son Luke
and said, 'My Father in heaven, I ask thee to bless this my son,
according to the blessings of his forefathers, that he may be
strengthened in his ministry, according to his holy calling. Amen.'"

This proves to us that the blessing of the progenitors was not necessarily the blessing of the first born; nor was it the right to the Presidency of the Church; for Samuel received a blessing similar to that of his brother Joseph, and neither of them received the birthright in these blessings. I shall now show you that it was Hyrum Smith who received the blessing of the first born--the birthright--and it was not the Presidency of the Church either, for they are not the same. However, before I show this I want to read a paragraph from the history published by the "Reorganized" Church. This is volume 2, and is "written and compiled" by Joseph Smith and his assistant, Heman C. Smith, their historian. On pages 462-3 they give the dying blessings pronounced by Patriarch Joseph Smith on the heads of his children. They introduce this account in the following words:

"In connection with the fact that Joseph's and William's children
are identified with the Reorganization, while Hyrum's and Samuel's
are in Utah, it is interesting to note that the children of the two
former were to be blessed after them, while the children of the two
latter are not mentioned.

"The account of this deathbed scene and the blessings, as given by
Lucy Smith, the mother of the Prophet and widow of the Patriarch,
is as follows:"

Here is the blessing of Hyrum Smith:

"My son Hyrum, I seal upon your head your patriarchal blessing,
which I placed upon your head before, for that shall be verified.
In addition to this, I now give you my dying blessing, You shall
have a season of peace, so that you shall have sufficient rest to
accomplish the work which God has given you to do. You shall be
as firm as the pillars of heaven unto the end of your days. I NOW
SEAL UPON YOUR HEAD THE PATRIARCHAL POWER, and you shall bless the
people. This is my dying blessing upon your head in the name of
Jesus. Amen."

There is the birthright!

And now Joseph's blessing:

"Joseph, my son, you are called to a high and holy calling. You
are even called to do the work of the Lord. Hold out faithful and
you shall be blessed and your children after you. You shall even
live to finish your work. At this Joseph cried out, weeping, 'Oh!
my father, shall I?' 'Yes,' said his father, 'you shall live to
lay out the plan of all the work which God has given you to do.
This is my dying blessing on your head, in the name of Jesus. I
also confirm your former blessing upon your head; for it shall be
fulfilled. Even so. Amen."

On first thought it is a little strange that the children of Joseph the Prophet are to be blessed after him, while that promise is not in the blessing of Hyrum Smith. However, let us examine the blessing given to Hyrum Smith a little more closely. The first sentence reads: "My son Hyrum, I seal upon your head your patriarchal blessing, which I placed upon your head before, _for that shall be verified_. And what followed was in addition to that former blessing so there was no need of repeating what that former blessing contained; but it was to be verified. I have before me that former blessing. This is a patriarchal blessing given by Patriarch Joseph Smith on the head of his son Hyrum, December 9, 1834, in Kirtland, Ohio, and is recorded in Patriarch Joseph Smith's book of blessings on pages 1 and 2, and is in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. Here is a portion of it: