Chapter V: Part 5

Well, he returned, and at the conference August 25, 1849, arose and said: "He ought to make a confession to the Saints for _not_ acting in his calling and also to ask their forgiveness. Gave a brief history of the course he had pursued after the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph, testified that he had ever had the fullest confidence in the work of the last days, and knew it was of God, and was now determined by the help of God to go forth in the discharge of his duty and act in the place in which he was called by revelation of God through His servant James" [J. Strang].--_Voree Record_.

He was received back and sustained.

In the year 1852 he joined Charles B. Thompson's organization and was "_ordained_" "Chief evangelitical teacher of the School of Faith in Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion." Acting in this calling he wrote an epistle to "the School of Faith to all the traveling teacher's quorums and classes of said school, and Jehovah's presbytery of Zion." In that epistle he said:

"Well Brethren: I have lived to see the foundation and the platform laid, the principles revealed and the order given, whereby the great work of the Father can, and will be accomplished. _There is no doubt resting on my mind in reference to this work of Baneemy being the work of God, for I am fully convinced that it is the work it purports to be_, the work of the Father spoken of in the Book of Mormon, to prepare the way for the restoration of His covenants to the house of Israel. Now, all who are convinced of this fact ought to move forward and take a decided stand to labor for Jehovah and the benefit of Mankind. I intend from this time, henceforth, to labor in the cause and give my influence and substance to speed the work." (Harbinger and Organ, Vol. 3:52-3-4).

This is his testimony when with Thompson. He later organized a quorum at Batavia, and appointed James Blakeslee--a man who was excommunicated from the Church May 18, 1844, with Francis M. Higbee, Charles Ivans and Austin Cowles, for apostasy--chief, and Jehial Savage teacher. "After this he joined John E. Page's organization, forgetting how faithful he had promised to be in Thompson's organization, and later (1859) connected himself with the "New Organization." He was not one of the true fold, for:

"When he [the true Shepherd] putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers."--(John 10:4-5).

The Doctrines of Joseph Smith.

One of the charges made by the "Reorganized" Church against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is that when the Apostles assumed their place as the presiding quorum following the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, they departed from the pure Gospel as it was revealed in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and in the stead thereof introduced false doctrines that were never entertained by the Prophet and were foreign to the revelations given to the Church. This proves, they declare, the "apostasy" of the Church and its "rejection" and the few scattered members who refused to follow the leadership of the Apostles into forbidden paths, and to accept these "false doctrines" retained the Spirit of the Lord and were directed by Him to "re-organize" the "faithful" members into what was then called a "New Organization of the Church," the name subsequently having been changed to the "Re-organized" Church. They inform us--though it is most likely with some misgivings and doubts--that these "faithful" few who refused to follow after "false gods," or "bow the knee to Baal," still retained the Priesthood they had received from the "Original" Church and were "not rejected as individuals" although the "Church was rejected with its dead." Therefore, when these "faithful" souls tired of wandering around in the apostate organizations of James J. Strang, Sidney Rigdon, William Smith, Charles B. Thompson, and others, as sheep that knew not the Master's voice, and therefore followed strangers, receiving from these self-appointed leaders "ordinations" and honors, and after having testified that these false teachers were inspired of God and their organizations the work of the Lord--after all this, when they came together and formed the "New Organization" they were still the "faithful" who had not followed after "false gods" or "bowed the knee to Baal," and had retained power to "re-organize" the Church according to the original pattern, although the Prophet had not commissioned them.

In an address to these scattered "faithful" written shortly after the "New Organization of the Church" was formed, the declaration was made "that we believe that the Church of Christ organized on the 6th day of April, A. D. 1830, exists as on that day, wherever six or more Saints are organized to the pattern in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants." And, of course, _they_ are the Saints "organized according to the pattern"--if their word can be taken for the fact.

The president of their church states it this way: "The individuals who kept this covenant (the new and everlasting covenant of the Gospel) were accepted of Him and were not rejected, nor their standing before God put in jeopardy by the departure of others from the faith. Whatever office in the priesthood each held, under the ordinations ordered by the call of God and vote of the Church, would remain valid. They could as elders, priests, teachers, etc., pursue the duties of warning, expounding, and inviting all to come to Christ, and by command of God, could build up the Church from any single branch, which, like themselves, had not bowed the knee to Baal, or departed from the faith of the Church as founded in the standard works of the body at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith."--(Saints' Herald, Feb. 17, 1904).

In their attempt to prove that the Apostles led the Church astray and introduced false doctrines, they have one standard by which the Church and the Apostles are measured; but in proving that _they_ are the "faithful who have kept the new and everlasting covenant" and have remained in harmony with "the pattern" their standard of measurement is quite another thing. The Church is to be judged by all the unauthorized sayings and doings of any or all of its members or ministers. Their church is to be judged "by its authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unauthorized sayings or doings of some or many of its members or ministers." (_See Blood Atonement and Origin of Plural Marriage, page 44_).

They even go so far in their own defense as to reject the teachings and revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, wherein they are in conflict with their expressed views and have not been received by them by vote of their church as doctrine; but they deny to us the privilege of being tried by our "authorized doctrines and deeds," and would force upon us, as a body, teachings of any member of the Church wherein they think they could make a point to their advantage; and this they have done in the courts of the land. We grant unto them the right to be tried by that rule laid down by the president of their organization, and claim the right to be tried by the same kind of standard. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not responsible for the sayings or doings of any individual in conflict with that which has been received as a standard by which the Church is to be governed. We are to be judged by _our_ authorized doctrines and deeds not by the whims or notions of men. But the ministers of the "Reorganization" have not been willing from the beginning to permit us to stand on this platform, but insist that we stand on the platform they have prepared for us.

The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, including the Articles of Faith, have been received by the vote of the Church in general conference assembled as the standard works of the Church. On this platform we stand. The Church is not responsible for the remarks made by any Elder or for the numerous books that have been written. The authors of the words or books must be responsible for their own utterances. It is not to be supposed from this that all that has been written outside of the standard works of the Church is discarded and rejected, for these things are profitable as helps in the government of the Church, and to promote faith in the members. The point is this, if in these books mistakes are found, "they are the mistakes of men," and the Church as an organization is not to be held accountable for them, but for that which is received from time to time by vote of the Church, as it comes through the President of the High Priesthood. When the Lord reveals his mind and will it is to be received, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same," but we are not to be judged by "unauthorized sayings or deeds."

The ministers of the "Reorganization" tell us that the Church has departed from the teachings received from 1830-1844 in many principles of vital importance, viz., the Godhead, marriage, the atonement, the location of Zion, Temple building and the ceremonies therein, and other things, in which they have strictly adhered to the original faith. We will take these subjects up one by one and see which organization it is that is following the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the doctrines of "the Original Church." First as to the Godhead.

THE GODHEAD.

The first article of faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, reads as follows:

"We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

We accept these three personages as the supreme governing council in the heavens. The Father and the Son have tabernacles of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. (D. & C. 130:22). We worship the Father in the name of the Son, who is the Mediator between God and man, and His is the only name given whereby man can be saved (D. & C. 18:23). We accept Jesus as the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh, although we are all His offspring in the spirit, (Acts 17:28) and therefore His children. This is the teaching of "Mormonism."

We are accused by the Reorganites, however, of departing from the doctrines of the Prophet Joseph Smith in that we believe in a plurality of Gods. That we believe in a plurality of Gods is true, and if they do not--and they confess almost unanimously that they do not--then they are not following the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith. If the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, then they are three Gods, then they are plural, this fact Joseph Smith taught to the world. But our Reorganite friends quote from a purported discourse of President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. But this discourse even if reported correctly--which we have reason to believe is not the case--is not the doctrine of the Church and has not been received by the Church. Joseph Smith the Prophet taught a plurality of Gods, and moreover, that man, by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a God. And if Reorganites do not accept this truth, then they have departed from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The doctrine of plurality of Gods, did not originate with Brigham Young, but was taught him by Joseph Smith.

In a discourse delivered by the Prophet in Nauvoo at the April conference of the Church in 1844, he said:

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show
what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the
beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for
I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the
designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes
with the affairs of man.

"_God himself_ was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and
sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the
veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in
its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power,
was to make Himself visible,--I say, if you were to see Him today,
you would see Him like a man in form--like yourselves in all the
person, image and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the
very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction
from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks
and communes with another.

* * * * * * * *

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I
will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of
creation in the Bible--_Berosheit_. I want to analyze the word.
_Baith_--in, by, through, and everything else. _Rosh_--the head.
_Sheit_--grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it,
he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority
added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the
head! It read first, 'The head one of the Gods brought forth the
Gods.' That is the true meaning of the word--_Baurau_ signifies
to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the
learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I
have told you. _Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the
grand council_.

"I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh ye
lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want
to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you
do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council
to bring forth the world."--(See Era, January, 1909).

In another discourse delivered June 16, 1844 the Prophet said:

"And hath made us kings and priests unto God _and His Father_: to
Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."--(Rev. 1:6). It
is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of
late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized
from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they
declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods; and,
lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry,
'The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has
fallen.'"

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text
for the express purpose. I wish to declare I have always, and in
all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity,
it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the
Elders fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct
personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God
the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a
spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and
three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo
and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and
who can contradict it? The text says--'And hath made us kings and
priests unto God _and His Father_.' The apostles have discovered
that there were Gods above, for Paul says God was the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the Scriptures,
and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ I am bold to declare. * * John was
one of the men, and the Apostles declare they were made kings and
priests unto God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just
so in the Revelations. Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods
is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over
the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A
wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.'

"Paul says there are Gods many, and Lords many * * * But to us
there is but one God--that is, _pertaining_ to us; and he is in all
and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and
Lords many, they cry: 'Away with him! Crucify him, crucify him!'
Mankind verily say that the Scriptures are with them. Search the
Scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would
gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer,
you are. I say there are Gods many, and Lords many, but to us
only one; and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man
can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. *
* * Some say I do not interpret the Scriptures the same as they
do. they say it means the heathens' gods. Paul says there are
Gods many, and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in
spite of the whims of all men. * * You know, and I testify, that
Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and
get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and
a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the
text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the
first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates
and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they
can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. _Berosheit
Baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits_, rendered by King
James' translators, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth. I want to analyze the word _Berosheit. Rosh_, the head;
_sheit_, a grammatical termination. The _Baith_ was not originally
put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since
added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; _Eloheim_ is
from the word _Eloi_, God in the singular number; and by adding the
word _heim_, it renders it Gods. It read first--'In the beginning
the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,' or, as others have
translated it--'The head of the Gods called the Gods together.'

* * * * * * *

"The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the
learning in the world to refute me. 'In the beginning the head of
the Gods organized the heavens and the earth.' * * If we pursue
the Hebrew text further, it reads--'_Berosheit baurau Eloheim
ait Aushamayeen vehau auraits_,' 'The head one of the Gods said,
'Let us make man in our own image.' I once asked a learned Jew
'If the Hebrew language compells us to render all words ending in
heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural? He
replied--'That is the rule, with few exceptions; but in this case
it would ruin the Bible.' He acknowledged I was right. I came here
to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and
judge for yourselves: and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

"In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods
beyond the power of refutation. * * * The word _Eloheim_ ought to
be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The head of the Gods
appointed one God for us; and when you take a (this) view of the
subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and
perfection of all the Gods."--(See Mill. Star, Vol. 24:108, et seq).

This is the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith the Prophet at Nauvoo, and we accept his teachings as authentic. "But this was not published until after the Prophet's death," says our Reorganite objectors, and "Brigham Young tampered with history and made it read to suit himself, therefore we do not accept it." Nevertheless these two discourses were delivered before the congregation of the Saints and thousands of them heard the Prophet deliver these remarks, and _if he had not spoken as here represented_, the Apostles would not have dared publish his remarks within a month or two after they were delivered, for the people would have discovered the deception. But thousands of them have testified that these discourses were delivered by Joseph Smith. None can, without successful contradiction, say he did not deliver them. Again, the objection is raised, that these discourses were never accepted by the Church as doctrine, and therefore are not binding even if the Prophet did deliver them. Very well; the fact remains that the Church has accepted the Bible _as far as it is translated correctly_. Therefore, where it is not translated correctly we should receive the correct translation _when it is given_. The Prophet says the Hebrew word _Eloheim_ is plural and means Gods, and should have been so translated in the Bible throughout. Is that true? If you think not, why not accept the Prophet's challenge to prove to the contrary? If you cannot, then hold your peace about it being binding!

Well, my friends of the "Reorganization" we will give you another quotation from the Prophet Joseph Smith, _this time it was published_ before his martyrdom and that too by himself, for which he declared he stood responsible (See Times and Seasons, Vol. 3:710). This quotation is taken from the _Book of Abraham_ in the _Times and Seasons_ for March 1, 1842, which the Prophet says are some ancient records "from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, which he made in Egypt, called the _Book of Abraham_, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." These records were translated by the Prophet at Nauvoo, and in the MS. History of the Church prepared under his direction, he declares that they are absolutely the writings of Abraham, a fact which a reading of them will show. If you accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, you must, if you believe he translated the record, accept these writings, at least as the genuine translations of Abraham's record. There is no room for quibbling here.

This is from the Prophet's translation:

"Thus, I Abraham, talked with the Lord face to face, as one man
talketh with another. * * * * *

"Now the Lord had shewn unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that
were organized before the world was; and among all these there were
many of the noble and great ones, and God saw these souls that they
were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and He said, these,
I will make my rulers; for He stood among those that were spirits,
and He saw that they were good; and He said unto me, Abraham,
thou art one of them, thou wast chosen before thou wast born. And
there stood one among them that was like unto God, and He said
unto those, who were with Him, We will go down, for there is space
there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an
Earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to
see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall
command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added
upon; and they who keep not their first estate, shall not have
glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate;
and they who keep their second estate, shall have glory added upon
their heads forever and forever.

Verse 23. "And the Lord said, who shall I send? And one answered
like unto the Son of Man, here am I, send me. And another answered
and said, here am I, send me. And the Lord said, I will send the
first. And the second was angry and kept not his first estate, and,
at that day, many followed after him. And then the Lord said, let
us go down; and they went down at the beginning, and they organized
and formed (that is, the Gods) the heavens and the earth. And the
earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate; because they
had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon
the face of the deep, and the spirit of the Gods was brooding upon
the face of the water.

24. And they said, the Gods, let there be light, and there was
light. And they, the Gods, comprehended the light, for it was
bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided from
the darkness, and the Gods called the light day, and the darkness
they called night. * * * * *

25. And the Gods also said let there be an expanse in the midst of
the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters. And the
Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were
under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse: and
it was so, even as they ordered. And the Gods called the expanse
heaven. * * *

26. And the Gods ordered, saying, let the waters under the heavens
be gathered unto one place, and let the earth come up dry, and it
was so, as they ordered; and the Gods pronounced the earth dry."

Thus it continues unto the end of the 32nd verse in each verse declaring that the formation of the earth was done under the direction of the Gods. This agrees admirably with the discourses delivered at Nauvoo in 1844, previously quoted. Is it true doctrine? It certainly was taught by Joseph Smith, so in accepting it, we are not so far out of harmony with his teachings on this subject as our enemies have stated. Here again we hear another objection from our Reorganite brethren. Say they: "This _Book of Abraham_ was never accepted by the Church in the Prophet's day as doctrine and it has not been so accepted by us; it is not a part of 'our authorized doctrines and deeds,' therefore it is not binding on us." Perhaps so, you may not have accepted it. That does not destroy the truth of this doctrine, which the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church in his day _did accept_--the Doctrine of plurality of Gods. Do you deny this? If so then you deny the revelations of God given through the Seer and _you_ are out of harmony with the revelations given through that man. The Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants both have been received as the law of the Church, and these sacred books both teach the doctrine of plurality of Gods. First as to the Bible: I quote in each instance from the "Inspired Translation."

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great
God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor
taketh reward."--(Deut. 10:17).

Joshua says: "The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he
knoweth, and Israel he shall know."--(Josh. 22:22).

David the Psalmist says: "Oh give thanks unto the Lord; for He is
good; for His mercy endureth forever.

"Oh give thanks unto the God of gods; for His mercy endureth
forever.

"Oh give thanks to the Lord of lords, for His mercy endureth
forever."--(Psalm 136:1-3).

Again he says in the 138th Psalm: "I will praise Thee with my whole
heart; before the gods, will sing praise unto Thee."

But you say these were the heathen gods? but that will never do, surely the Lord is not the chief God of the heathen gods. Perhaps we may discover more light on the subject.

Again the Psalmist sings: "God standeth in the congregation of the
mighty; he judgeth among the gods. * * * I have said ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the Most High."

Say what you will of the other passages, but of this you must admit that the heathen gods are not mentioned, for this truth received the divine approval of the Redeemer Himself as He taught the apostate Jew: Hear Him:

"I and my Father are one."

"Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shown you from my
Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh
thyself God."

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods?

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, _and the
Scriptures cannot be broken_;

"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

And the Jews were shocked, just as a Reorganite minister is, with this doctrine of plurality of Gods, and they sought the life of the Savior, but He was delivered out of their midst.

The Apostle John in his First Epistle and third chapter also teaches this doctrine:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called the sons of God; therefore _the world knoweth
us not_, because it knew him not.

"Beloved, _now are we the sons of God_, and _it doth not yet appear
what we shall be_; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall
be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

If the faithful, who keep the commandments of the Father are _His sons_, then they are heirs of the kingdom and shall receive of the fulnesss of the Father's glory, even until they become like Father. And how can they be perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect if they are not like Him?

In the revelations given to Joseph which were accepted by the Church before 1844, the doctrine of plurality of Gods is also taught. From the "Vision" one of the grandest revelations ever given to man, I quote the following:

"And again, we bear record for we saw and heard, and this is the
testimony of the Gospel of Christ, concerning them who come forth
in the resurrection of the just: They are they who received the
testimony of Jesus, and believed on His name, and were baptized
after the manner of His burial, being buried in the water in His
name, and this according to the commandment which He has given,
that by keeping the commandments, they might be washed and cleansed
from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on
of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power:
and who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of
promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just
and true; they are they who are the Church of the firstborn; they
are they into whose hands the Father has given all things; they are
they who are priests and kings, who have received of His fulnesss,
and of His glory, and are priests of the Most High after the order
of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after
the order of the Only Begotten Son; wherefore, as it is written,
they are gods, even the sons of God; wherefore all things are
theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to
come, all are theirs, and they are Christ's and Christ is God's
and they shall overcome all things."--(D. & C., Sec. 76:50-60.
Reorganite edition, 76:5).

How could this doctrine be stated plainer? This is the doctrine taught by the Savior to the Jews, by David in his psalms and by others of the prophets. Here it is stated emphatically that they who are of the Church of the Firstborn (i. e., those who keep the whole law) even "_as it is written, they are gods_, even the sons of God!" Where is it written? In this section; and in the words of the Savior wherein He says, referring to David's Psalm, "_the Scriptures cannot be broken_" (John 10:34-36). Doesn't this teach plainly the doctrine of plurality of Gods? Does it not teach the fact that the children shall, through obedience, sometime obtain the exaltation of the Gods themselves? If not what does it mean? Even a Reorganite dare not argue that these are the heathen gods!

Now, if they overcome _all things, then_ there _are not some things_ that they do not overcome. If these are to receive "of His fulnesss and of His glory, and if into their 'hands the Father has _given all things_, then the Father _has not withheld_ some of the fulnesss of His glory, or _some things_. And if they receive His fulnesss and His glory, and if _all things_ are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, _all are theirs_," how can they receive these blessings and not become Gods? They cannot. Yet this is doctrine received by the Church and taught by Joseph Smith the Seer.

Speaking of this same subject in the revelation on Priesthood (Sec. 84:35-40. Reorganite edition, 83:6) the Lord says:

"And also all they who receive this priesthood receiveth me, saith
the Lord, for he that receiveth my servants receiveth me, and he
that receiveth me receiveth my Father, and he that receiveth my
Father receiveth my Father's kingdom. Therefore, _all that my
Father hath_ shall be given unto him; and this is according to the
oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.[1] Therefore,
all those who receiveth the priesthood receiveth this oath and
covenant of my Father, _which He cannot break, neither can it be
moved_; but whoso breaketh this covenant, after he hath received
it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of
sins in this world nor in the world to come."

Here again we are given to understand that those who are faithful in obtaining the priesthood and magnifying their calling that they become of the Church of the Firstborn, receiving ALL THAT THE FATHER HATH! and this according to an oath and covenant that cannot be broken. Now, again, how are they to receive _all that the Father hath_, if something is withheld? And if something is not withheld, how can they receive all that He hath and not become as He is, that is, Gods themselves?

Here is another revelation given to the Prophet December 27, 1832. This is section 88 and verses 106-7 (Reorganite edition, 85:33):

"And again, another angel shall sound his trump, which is the
seventh angel, saying, It is finished! It is finished! the Lamb
of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone; even the
wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God; And
then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of His might,
and the saints shall be filled with His glory, and receive their
inheritance and be _made equal with Him_" (i. e., with Christ).

How can the Saints receive of His fulnesss and be _equal_ with the Lord and not be as He is, that is Gods? This is not the doctrine of Brigham Young (for then in the eyes of Reorganites it would be blasphemy), but these are the revelations of the Lord to Joseph Smith. And these revelations have been received by the "Reorganized" Church as binding on them, yet they do not accept the truth these revelations contain. Therefore, they prove themselves to be those who have departed from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

ADAM.

A word now, in relation to Adam. If all those, _as it is written--and the Scriptures cannot be broken_--are Gods unto whom the word of God came, and they are to receive all things, even the fulnesss of the Father's glory and be made equal with him, will not Father Adam be included among them? What do the Scriptures say of _him_?

In section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants he is called, Michael, or Adam, the _father of all, the prince of all_, the "ancient of days."

In section 107:54-55: "And the Lord appeared unto them, and they
rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the
Archangel,

"And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him, _I
have set thee to be at the head_--a multitude of nations shall come
of thee, and _thou art a prince over them forever_." Section 78:16:
"Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet,
and _set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of Salvation
under the counsel and direction of the Holy One_, who is without
beginning of days or end of life."

These expressions are from the revelations to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young did not receive them, although he accepted them.

This is what the Prophet said in a discourse in 1839:

"The Priesthood was first given to Adam, he obtained the First
Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation.
He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as
in Gen. 1:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living
creature. He is Michael, the Archangel spoken of in the Scriptures.
* * * * The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed
with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning
of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven
whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven,
_it is by Adam's authority_. (My italics.)

"Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he
means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his
children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for
the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human
family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have
had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may
take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of
Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion.
Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was
delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains
his standing as head of the human family.--(History of the Church,
Vol. 3:385-7. See also Vol. 4:207-9.)

Now, if all the Saints who become members of the Church of the Firstborn are to become Gods--_and the Scriptures cannot be broken_--through the fulnesss of the Father's glory which they are to receive after they are "made equal with Him," will not Adam, who is appointed "_to be at the head_" as "a prince over them forever," be one of them? And as one of them he shall hold the scepter of power and rule over them under the direction of the Holy One of Israel, and they shall be in subjection to him forever.

This was taught by Joseph Smith, and in departing from it, the "Reorganized" Church has denied the revelations and teachings of the Lord.

THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER.

In connection with this subject, Reorganites also claim that Brigham Young went astray and apostatized because he declared that Jesus Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. Reorganites claim that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost, and they make the statement that the Scriptures so teach. But they do err not understanding the Scriptures. They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge the statement; the Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible. It is true there is one passage that states so but we must consider it in the light of other passages with which it is in conflict. The Book of Mormon says:

"And behold, He shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem * * she being a
virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed,
and conceive _by the power_ of the Holy Ghost."

With this Luke agrees:

"Then said Mary unto the angel; How can this be?

"And the angel answered and said unto her, of the Holy Ghost,
and _the power of the Highest_. Therefore also, that holy child
that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.--Luke
1:34-35).

In Matthew it reads "of the Holy Ghost" which evidently means "power of the Holy Ghost," to agree with the Book of Mormon and with Luke.

If Reorganites are correct then Jesus is not the Only Begotten Son of the Father, but the Son of the Holy Ghost. This will not do for it conflicts with the Scriptures. The Prophet taught that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were three separate personages, and that Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father. In the Book of Genesis, (Inspired Scriptures) Jesus is spoken of throughout as the _Only Begotten of the Father_ not less than _twelve_ times and in the Book of Mormon at least five times and a great number of times in the Doctrine and Covenants (see section 76:23, 25, 35, 57) and in these Scriptures He is spoken of as the Son of God innumerable times. Now, if He is the _Only Begotten_ of the Father in the flesh, He must be the Son of the Father and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. Yet, to be consistent, Reorganites must claim that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Ghost and not the Son of God the Father. Their alternative--if it can be called such--must be, then, the stand of Mr. William H. Kelley, the "president" of their "apostles," who in a written statement in answer to the question put to him by the writer, September 10, 1903: "You say that Jesus Christ the Son of God was begotten of the Holy Ghost. Is He the Son of the Holy Ghost?"

Mr. Kelley signed his answer as follows: "_I do not know_. Wm. H. Kelley."

Just think of this for a moment. Here is a man professing to be the Chief of the Special Witnesses for Christ, declaring that he does not know whether Jesus is the Son of God the Father or the Son of the Holy Ghost. And the Savior declared it so plainly that He was the Son of the Father, His Only Begotten, and was so acknowledged by the Father throughout the Scriptures. "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." John 17:3. Again we prove that _they_ have departed from the Scriptures and the teachings and revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Why do they make this error? Because they do not understand the Scriptures and fail to recognize the fact that all things that the Father doeth are done by the _power of the Holy Ghost_.

MARRIAGE.

The question of Celestial (including plural) marriage is treated quite extensively in _Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage_ so it will be passed with a brief notice here.

We maintain with abundant authority that Joseph Smith the Prophet introduced Celestial Marriage, that is, marriage for eternity, into the Church. This fact has been admitted by many members of the "Reorganized" Church, notwithstanding they attack us on this doctrine and say it is not a doctrine of the Church. And while they attack us the better part of them hope it is true. What is there so terrible in the doctrine of the preservation of the family union in eternity? What right-living God-fearing man is there but would be glad to meet his parents, his wife and children, in the kingdom of God and know they were united never again to separate? While this belief is not taught in the creeds of men--including the Reorganites--yet there is a hope burning in the bosoms of many people that this doctrine _may_ prove true!

Well, it is a Scriptural doctrine, and it _is_ true, for the Lord revealed it to Joseph Smith. In the beginning, the very first marriage was one intended to last forever. Do you not believe it? I quote from the Inspired Scriptures:

"And I, God, created man _in mine own image_, in the image of mine
Only Begotten created I him, _male and female created I them_,
And I, God, blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
every living thing that moveth upon the earth."--(Genesis 1:29-30).

This was a spiritual creation, man was created in the image of God, _male and female_, first in the Spirit, and told in that spiritual creation that they were expected to multiply and replenish the earth when they were placed upon it to subdue it. This we prove from the second chapter of Genesis beginning with the fifth verse:

"For I, the Lord God, created all things of which I have spoken
_spiritually_, before they were naturally upon the face of the
earth; for I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face
of the earth.

"And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men, and
not yet a man to till the ground, for in heaven created I them,
and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water,
neither in the air."

Verse 23. "And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten, that
it was not good that the man should be alone;

"Wherefore, I will make an help meet for him."

Here the Lord declares that it is not good for man to be alone, and therefore he gave him an helpmeet, Eve; and this union was formed before _mortality or death came into the world_, and there is no indication that it was meant to have an end. If, therefore, it was not good for man to be alone before the days of mortality, will it not also be good for man to have a helpmeet _after_ mortality has passed away? Paul thought so, said he: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, _in the Lord_."--(I Cor. 11:11).

Alexender H. Smith, "Patriarch" of the "Reorganized" Church, in a discourse that is very excellent in many respects, delivered July 1, 1903, and published in "Zion's Ensign" of December 31, 1903, taught the eternity of the marriage covenant as strongly and emphatically as it could have been done by an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The subject of the discourse was: "In My Father's house are many mansions," after enlarging upon the theme for some time, he concludes his discourse with some personal testimony regarding the last illness of his mother from which the following extracts are here produced:

"Pretty son the still, small voice of the Spirit said, "If your
mother dies _she will be with her companion, Joseph_. If she lives
she cannot but live a few short years at most of pain and anguish."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"Just before she passed away she called, 'Joseph, Joseph,' I
thought she meant my brother. He was in the room, and I spoke to
him, and said, Joseph, mother wants you. I was at the head of the
bed. My mother raised right up, lifted her left hand as high as she
could raise it, and called, Joseph. I put my left arm under her
shoulders, took her hand in mine, saying, Mother, what is it, laid
her hand on her bosom, and she was dead; she had passed away.

"And when I talked of her calling, Sr. Revel, who was with us
during our sickness, said, Don't you understand that? No, I
replied, I do not. Well, a short time before she died she had a
vision which she related to me. She said that your father came to
her and said to her, Emma, come with me, it is time for you to come
with me. And as she related it she said, I put on my bonnet and
my shawl and went with him; I did not think that it was anything
unusual. I went with him into a mansion, a beautiful mansion, and
he showed me through the different apartments of that beautiful
mansion. And one room was the nursery. In that nursery was a babe
in the cradle. She said, I knew my babe, my Don Carlos that was
taken away from me. She sprang forward, caught the child up in her
arms, and wept with joy over the child. When she recovered herself
sufficiently she turned to Joseph, and said. Where are the rest of
my children? He said to her, Emma, be patient, and you shall have
all of your children."

Then Alexander comments:

"Do you wonder why, as a son of that mother, I plead for those who
believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and picture their beautiful
home in the city of God, in the language that I do, when I realize
that my mother occupies, or will occupy one of those beautiful
mansions? _It may be imagination; but it is grand_; it fills me
with a grand hope."

And so they do hope, notwithstanding the fact that they oppose us in this doctrine, and say that there is no union of parents and children in family union after death. They secretly hope, and pray in their very hearts, that after all in this we _may_ be right.

BLOOD ATONEMENT.

This subject is also found in _Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage_, therefore only a brief outline will be given here. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to _atone_, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is Scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. The doctrine was established in the beginning, that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, _by man shall his_ blood shed to _atone_ as far as possible, in their behalf. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man."--(Genesis 9:12-13, Inspired Scriptures).

This was the law among the Nephites: "Wo unto the murderer, who deliberately killeth, _for he shall die_."--(II Nephi 9:35).

John says: "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. _There is a sin unto death_: I do not say that ye shall pray for it."

Every nation since the world began has practiced blood atonement at least in part as that doctrine is based upon the Scriptures. And men for certain crimes have had to _atone_ for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ.

But that the Church practices "Blood Atonement" on apostates or any others, which is preached by ministers of the "Reorganization" is a damnable falsehood for which the accusers must answer.

ZION.

Members of the "Reorganized" Church inform us that Zion does not include Utah,[2] but is limited to Jackson County, Mo., and the regions round about, Nauvoo being one of the "corner stones;" and when the Saints came westward they left the borders of Zion. Moreover, since Temples were to be built in Zion and Jerusalem, all the Temples we may build in Utah or the West are not recognized of the Lord on this ground alone, if no other.