Chapter VI (1)

Let us now consider the claims of Mr. Joseph Smith to be of right the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His claims, or those made in his behalf by his friends and followers, are based upon the following assumptions:--

First, that he was called to that position when a boy, through his father, (1) by prophecy and blessing in Liberty jail, Missouri, where his father was confined in the winter of 1838-9 (2) by revelation in 1841; and (3) by a formal anointing in a council of the priesthood at Nauvoo, in 1844:--

Second, that the position in his by lineage--it is his birthright:--

Third, that he was called to the position by "revelation" to himself; and,

Fourth, he was ordained to it by those holding legal authority.[A]

[Footnote A: See _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, p. 337; and also _The Successor_, a Josephite pamphlet, pp. 8, 9, 10, 11.]

It is my purpose to consider these claims in their order, one by one, and show the untrustworthiness of the evidence upon which they are based, the weakness of the argument by which they are sustained, and finally how these claims contradict both the facts of history and the order that exists in the holy priesthood. I take up the first assumption in its several parts:

He was called to that position [_i. e._, to be President of the church], through his father, by prophecy and blessing in Liberty jail.

This claim is based solely upon the testimony of Lyman Wight. They quote him as follows:

In the private journal of Lyman Wight, . . . . this is found:
"Sunday, December 8th, 1850, bore testimony that Joseph Smith
appointed those of his own posterity to be his successor."

And in a letter he wrote in July, 1855, from Medina river, Texas,
to the _Northern Islander_, a Strangite paper, Brother Wight said:
Now Mr. Editor, if you had been present _when Joseph called on me
shortly after we came out of jail_,[A] [Liberty jail, Missouri.
--Ed.] to lay hands with him on the head of a youth, and heard him
cry aloud, "you are my successor when I depart." and heard the
blessings poured on his head,--I say had you heard all this, and
seen the tears streaming from his eyes--you would not have been
led [into following Strang] by blind fanaticism, or a zeal without
knowledge.[B]

[Footnote A: The _italics_ are mine, note them. R.]

[Footnote B: _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 338-9.]

Of this testimony it is to be said, first on the entry in Mr. Wight's journal, that it is too general in its character to be of much service in supporting the claims of "young Joseph." We are not certain that he refers to him at all. Then if Lyman Wight knew in 1850 that Joseph the prophet had blessed his son Joseph to be his successor, as prophet and president of the church, Mr. Wight knew it in 1844; and is it not strange that he did not speak of it and advocate it when the question of a successor was warmly discussed in Nauvoo, during the autumn of 1844? Why is it that we have nothing from him on the subject earlier than 1850? And this silence on the part of Mr. Wight is the more significant when it is remembered that he was a bold, fearless man. It cannot be said in truth, that Brigham Young's influence was so masterly as to awe him into silence. As a matter of fact he violently opposed Brigham Young in some of his measures, and at last rebelled against him; but nothing is said by him until 1850, about the appointment of any of the prophet's posterity to succeed to the presidency of the church.

The letter quoted from the _Northern Islander_, might be of some force if its statements were not contradicted as to time and place and circumstance by another statement, also made in a Josephite publication. Let it be observed that according to the testimony of Mr Wight, in the _Northern Islander_, the "blessing and prophecy" under consideration was given at a time that the prophet called on Mr. Wight, _shortly after they came out of Liberty jail_. With that in mind read the following in _The Successor:_--[A]

[Footnote A: A Josephite tract sustaining the claims of "young Joseph," p. 3.]

Lyman Wight, one of the Twelve, always taught the saints whom he
led into Texas, that none but "little Joseph" could lead the
church, as successor to the martyr. He said he knew it, _for in
1839, when Hyrum, Joseph, and himself were in prison, in Liberty
jail, Missouri_, "little Joseph" was brought by his mother _and
left with his father in the jail_, while she was attending to
business affairs in the town--_and that then and there_[A] Joseph,
with Hyrum and himself, laid their hands upon the lad's head, and
Joseph proceeded to bless him, and prophesied that he would yet
lead the church of the living God; and he blessed him to that end.
Such was the testimony of Lyman Wight up to 1858, the year in
which he died.

[Footnote A: The _italics_ are mine. R.]

This statement makes the "blessing and prophecy" to have been pronounced upon the head of "young Joseph," in Liberty jail; whereas the statement made by Mr. Wight in the _Northern Islander_, places it shortly after they came out of Liberty jail. And be it further remarked, that if it took place after they came out of prison, then it must have taken place in Illinois and not in Missouri at all. For the family of the prophet started from Far West on the 7th of February, 1839, in charge of Stephen Markham, and after many hardships arrived on the banks of the Mississippi, opposite the town of Quincy, Illinois, on the 15th of the same month.[A] Joseph Smith and his fellow prisoners were taken from Liberty jail to Gallatin, for trial, in April. They applied for and obtained a change of venue from Daviess to Boone county, and while en route escaped from their guards. After making their escape the prophet says:

[Footnote A: History of Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XVI., p. 742.]

We continued our journey, both by night and by day; and after
suffering much fatigue and hunger, I arrived in Quincy, Illinois
(Monday, April 22nd) amidst the congratulations of my friends and
the embraces of my family, whom I found as well as could be
expected, considering what they had been called on to endure.[A]

[Footnote A: Hist. Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_ Vol. XVII, p.148.]

Hence if the "prophecy and blessing" on the head of "young Joseph" took place after Mr. Wight and the prophet Joseph got out of prison, it must have taken place in Illinois and not in Liberty jail, Missouri, as related in the second statement with such detail of circumstance. This contradiction in the testimony of Mr. Wight, taken in connection with the fact that at the time of making it, viz, in 1855, he had lost his honor, was an apostate, neither being true to the church of Christ led by his fellow apostles nor true to the son of the prophet whom he claimed to know had been set apart to succeed to the Presidency of the church--these considerations, I say, render the testimony of Lyman Wight worthless.

Furthermore, Caleb Baldwin and Alexander McRae were fellow-prisoners of Joseph and Hyrum Smith as well as Lyman Wight. They all occupied the same prison-cell--how is it, if the ordination of "young Joseph" to succeed his father took place in Liberty Jail, that these men knew nothing of it; for that they knew nothing of it is evident from their silence. Surely such a thing could not occur in Liberty jail without their knowing it. And had it occurred it is a matter that would have been well remembered and frequently spoken of as one of the notable incidents of their Liberty-prison life. But not one word have either Caleb Baldwin or Alexander McRae left on record that such a notable thing ever took place; neither has Lyman Wight in any way that carries even so much as a poor shadow of conviction with it.

_(2) Mr. Smith further claims that he was called to be President of the church through his father by revelation in 1841_.

The revelation referred to was given the 19th of January, 1841. The passage in it supposed to sustain the claim of appointment of "young Joseph" to be the President of the church is the following:

And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I
have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it
be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let
my servant Joseph, and his house have place therein, from
generation to generation; for this anointing have I put upon his
head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his
posterity after him, and as I said unto Abraham concerning the
kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph, in
thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.
Therefore let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place
in that house, from generation to generation, for ever and for
ever, saith the Lord.[A]

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov., sec. xxiv, 56-59.]

This is not difficult to comprehend as it stands thus in the Doctrine and Covenants unmarred. It is simply this: a commandment was given to build the Nauvoo House, a tavern, for the boarding and lodging of strangers. Joseph Smith and his family were also to have a home therein; for he was commanded to put stock in the house, and as a matter of fact did put considerable stock into it; and his family after him, from generation to generation, was to have that inheritance in the house. It was to be theirs because the prophet Joseph had purchased the stock which secured to him, and his posterity after him, the right of a home within it. The passage does not in any manner refer to succession in the Presidency of the church. What it does refer to is clearly seen in the commencement of the paragraph--"And now I say unto you, _as pertaining to my boarding house, which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, etc._" That is the subject of the passage, not the priesthood, nor the succession of the prophet Joseph's son to his father's position as President of the church. How absurd the argument that because a man's posterity are to inherit his stock in a hotel, or succeed to the right of living in it as a return for having paid a large sum towards the construction of it, that therefore we must conclude that it means, too, that a man's posterity or at least the "head" of it--the eldest son--must also inherit the father's priesthood and calling as President of the church! Yet this is the construction Josephites put upon this passage. To do it, however, they are under the necessity of reading into the revelation something which the Lord never put there. In evidence of which, and also as an illustration of Josephite methods, I reproduce the passage as they print it in their controversial writings, with this exception that I write the lines which they insert in brackets in _italics_ also, that they may the more readily be observed:

And now I say unto you as pertaining to my boarding house which I
have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it
be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let
my servant Joseph Smith and his house have place therein from
generation to generation; for this anointing [_appointment and
consecration to be prophet and president of the church_] have I
put upon his head, that his blessings [_to these offices and
callings_] shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after
him, and as I said unto Abraham, concerning the kindreds of the
earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph, in thee and in thy
seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed. Therefore [_for
that reason_] let my servant Joseph and his seed after him, have
place in that house from generation to generation, forever and
forever saith the Lord.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 338.]

Of this it is only necessary to say that a cause which requires such a wresting of the word of God to wring a promise out of it that the eldest son of the prophet would succeed to the office of the President of the church after the death of his father--a cause which requires such a reading as is here thrust into the revelation in brackets, is desperate indeed!

_(3) Mr. Smith claims that he was called through his father to be President of the church by a formal anointing in a council at Nauvoo, in 1844_.

In support of this claim Josephites quote only the testimony of Mr. James Whitehead, who resides at Lamoni, Iowa, and who is said to have been one of the secretaries of Joseph the prophet. It is said of him rather than by him, that for the past twenty and more years he has

Testified publicly that he personally knew that Joseph the seer,
in the presence of a number of the ministry, in Nauvoo, anointed
and set apart his son Joseph to be his successor in the prophetic
office and Presidency of the church, and that soon after the seer
announced publicly from the stand, on a Sunday, that his son
Joseph would be his successor.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

In _The Successor_, already several times quoted, it is said that Mr. Whitehead testifies that Bishop Newel K. Whitney was present and held the horn of oil on the occasion of this anointing. He asserts that George J. Adams was also present; and Emma, wife of the prophet, is represented as having said:--

She well remembers the time, and, though not present, she heard
her husband say that young Joseph was set apart to be his
successor. She also says that after young Joseph was anointed and
set apart, George J. Adams came down to her room greatly elated
with what had transpired, saying that they now knew who would be
the successor of Joseph; that it was young Joseph, for his father
had just set him apart to that office and calling.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 8.]

I would have more respect for this evidence if, instead of being the alleged statements of these several parties, it had been the very statements themselves--the statements of Mr. Whitehead and of Emma Smith, instead of a report of what they said by some Josephite writer. So far as Mr. George J. Adams is concerned he must very soon have forgotten his elation at finding out who the true successor of the prophet was; for he afterwards became a follower of Mr. Strang, and the very man who crowned him "king" at Beaver Island.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXV, p. 718.]

Of this alleged anointing in 1844, when Mr. Smith was a lad twelve years of age, he himself can only say:

Before the death of my father and uncle Hyrum, I was blessed by
the first, in the presence of quite a number of then prominent
Elders in the Church, this blessing being confirmed just prior to
the tragedy at Carthage.

This is the only personal statement of his that I have ever seen in all the writings of the Josephites in regard to his ordination and blessing by his father, and it appears that he has no recollection of the nature of this "blessing;" if he was anointed and blessed to be the future prophet and President of the church, he evidently has no recollection of it, though he was of an age when such a circumstance would make a deep impression on the mind and would never have left him in the doubt he confesses to, respecting his connection with the work of his father to which for many years, in his youth, he exhibited almost complete indifference.[A]

[Footnote A: See his autobiography published in Josephite edition of the Life of Joseph the Prophet, from p. 743-801.]

Of the alleged statement of Emma Smith, that she well remembers, though not present, the circumstance of the anointing in 1844--the elation of George J. Adams on learning who the successor of Joseph the prophet was to be, he coming immediately to her room after the ceremony of anointing to tell her the glad news; and also about well remembering her husband say that "young Joseph" was anointed and set apart to be his successor--of all this, I say, it is somewhat strange that Mrs. Emma Smith did not "well remember" it during the years of doubt through which "her son" passed, respecting his connection with the work of his father. How is it that she did not then come to his assistance by reminding him--since he had forgotten it, if he ever knew it--that he had been anointed and set apart to be the successor of his father,--both her husband and George J. Adams having told her so! Especially is her silence astonishing on the occasion of the visit of Messrs. Briggs and Gurley in 1856 to "young Joseph," when those gentlemen almost, as we have seen, commanded him to become the President of their organization. One of the interviews between these gentlemen and Mr. Smith was conducted in the home of Mrs. Emma Smith, they being introduced at that time both to her and her husband, Mr. Bidamon. It was on that very occasion, too, that Mr. Smith gave these gentlemen the answer that he would not go with them to be their leader, and he plodded on four years longer, in doubt as to what his future connection would be with the church. Instinctively one exclaims why did not his mother at that crisis come to the rescue, and say: Why, my son, you are yet to become the prophet and President of the church, founded under God, by your father. I well remember, though not present, the occasion on which you were anointed and set apart to that position by your father. Both your father and George J. Adams told me of it--the day you were blessed, don't you remember it? Instead of this we see her absolutely silent!

It is claimed, however, that at the Amboy conference in 1860, she endorsed her son as President of the church.

She publicly bore a faithful testimony to the work begun through
her martyred husband, and said the present occasion was one she
had looked for for the last sixteen years. Said she knew such a
time must come, but had not known until a short time before that
it was so near at hand.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 14.]

And this is the best she could do! Much stress is laid upon Mrs. Emma Smith being spoken of in one of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants as an "elect lady,"[A] and since the "elect"[B] cannot be deceived, her endorsement of her son, and her rejection of all others, is taken as

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

[Footnote B: Matt. xxiv, 24.]

Conclusive testimony that young Joseph is his father's
successor![A]

[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 15.]

But would not the "testimony" have been more "conclusive," if on that occasion she had given a personal statement that her son had been anointed and set apart in 1844, by his father; and though not present, she knew it upon the statement of both her husband and George J. Adams? Was not the occasion worthy of such a statement? Would it not have been opportune? Would it not have been at least more conclusive than the argument based on Mrs. Emma Smith being an "elect lady," and her endorsement of "young Joseph?"

I now proceed to examine the testimony given in a general way, that is, without reference to special occasions on which Mr. Smith was called or anointed to be his father's successor, as prophet and President of the church; but which represents the general idea that he was to succeed to these positions.

Charles Derry, whose word will not be questioned by those who know
him, says that William Clayton, of Salt Lake City, told him at the
time they were laboring together in England, that he knew it was
for "little Joseph" to lead the church.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

Yet William Clayton, a man of unyielding determination and probity of character, continued a member of the church of Christ, led to Utah by President Brigham Young and his fellow apostles, giving to it and its leaders his unqualified support! To accept the statement of Charles Derry is to make the best part of William Clayton's life a lie--those who knew him, at least, will refuse to do that. I put the character of William Clayton and the fact of his allegiance to the church of Christ under the Presidency of Brigham Young, against the statement of Charles Derry.

W. W. Phelps wrote to Alpheus Cutler in 1847, that church affairs
were in a bad condition, and that he did not look for a change for
the better until the Lord should send "young Joseph" to lead the
church.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

This is a case similar to the one which precedes it--Mr. Phelps gave his allegiance to the church of Christ in Utah up to the time of his death, and the fact of his allegiance is put against the statement he is said to have made in a letter to Alpheus Cutler--mark you, we have not the letter, nor even a quotation from it. It is the life and character of W. W. Phelps against the alleged statement of Mr. Cutler.

P. P. Pratt said to D. S. Mills, now of Santa Ana, California, and
to others when they were going from Utah to California, that the
church would never be fully and properly organized till young
Joseph was called to lead it.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

This testimony is on a par with the two quotations which precede it. The statement attributed to Elder Pratt is contradicted by the facts of his life and allegiance to the church of Christ led to Utah by President Brigham Young.

Sister Lucy Smith, the mother of Joseph the seer, used to tell the
saints who called on her that young Joseph would yet lead the
church, for he had been appointed by his father.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

To controvert this testimony it is only necessary to refer to the "visions?" of Lucy Smith published in this work, where she attempts to sustain the claims of her son William to be the President of the church; and wherein she says:

The Presidency of the Church belongs to William, _he being the
last of the heads of the Church, according to the lineage_, he
having inherited it from the family from before the foundation of
the world.[A]

[Footnote A: See pp. 19-21.]

Bishop Geo. Miller in a letter to the _Northern Islander_, in 1855, is represented as saying:

From hints and inuendoes that I heard frequently, I was induced to
believe that Joseph had designated his son to succeed him in the
prophetic office, and on this belief I rested. . . . . I had
frequent attempts at conversation with Brigham Young and H. C.
Kimball, in regard to Joseph's leaving one to succeed him in the
prophetic office, and in all my attempts to ascertain the desired
truth as to that personage, I was invariably met with the inuendo,
"stop" or "hush Brother Miller, let there be nothing said in
regard to that matter, or we will have little Joseph killed as his
father was;" inferring indirectly that Joseph Smith had appointed
his son Joseph to succeed him in the prophetic office.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

If Bishop Miller had any testimony of any weight that Mr. Smith, the son of the prophet, had been appointed to succeed to the position of prophet and President of the church, will those who rely on his statements explain how it is that with such testimony in his possession he ran off after other leaders? First following Mr. Lyman Wight to Texas, and after quarrelling with him joining Mr. Strang in Michigan. Bishop Miller, like Lyman Wight, lost his honor, he was neither true to the church of Christ led by the Twelve after the martyrdom of the prophet Joseph, nor true to Mr. Wight, nor "young Joseph." He became a restless man after his apostasy, unstable as water. There is nothing either in the nature of his testimony or the character of the man after his apostasy which gives any influence to his statement.

This is to certify to all concerned, that we, the undersigned,
heard Brigham Young, in Salt Lake City, in 1854, and in Brigham
City, Utah, about 1859, when he was speaking in public meeting
concerning young Joseph Smith, son of Joseph the seer, say that
there was no man in the church more willing and ready than he to
give the Presidency of the church to young Joseph, when the latter
would come and claim it.
LOUIS GAULTER,
HARRIET E. GAULTER.[A]

LAMONI, Iowa, May 26, 1892.

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

In line with this is the following:

Brigham Young, at the April conference in 1854, said that young
Joseph was the man to lead the church, and that were it not for
his mother's influence, he would have been in Utah long before;
but he would come, and he would to God he was then in Utah to take
the burden off his shoulders; he would receive him with open
arms.[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid, p. 339.]

I have carefully examined the minutes of the April conference of 1854, and also all the discourses published that President Brigham Young delivered at that conference; and neither in the minutes or in the discourses can I find anything which justifies the above statement in regard to what President Young said at that conference. I take it therefore that the assertion is based upon the statement of Louis and Harriet Gaulter which precede it. If there is anything in the discourses of President Brigham Young, or the minutes of any of the conferences of the church which would bear out the case of the "Reorganized church," the writers thereof would be at great pains to publish it. The fact that they do not publish the words of President Young, but the words of others who claim to have heard him say that "young Joseph" was the man to lead the church, is pretty fair evidence that they can find nothing directly upon the point at issue in President Young's own words.

The late Arthur Millikin, who resided at Colchester, Illinois,
brother-in-law to the martyr, said in a letter to young Joseph in
1868, Brigham Young said in a council, at our house in Nauvoo,
shortly after your father's death, that neither Rigdon, himself,
nor any other man but "young Joseph" could lead this people, when
he comes of age, and no person can take it from him, and that to
talk about it in public would endanger the boy's life.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

Amos B. Moore, of Lamoni, Iowa, is represented as saying:

I heard Brigham Young say from the public stand, in Nauvoo, soon
after the death of Joseph the Seer, that he and the Saints knew
"Little Joseph" would stand in his father's place and lead the
Church, but it would not do to teach it then, for their enemies
would kill him as they did his father.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

Is it worth while to stop to point out the inconsistencies of this testimony? What Bishop Miller represents as having been conveyed to him in private conversation (himself at the time a trusted leader,) only in the most vague manner--by "hints and inuendoes;" and to Mr. Millikin in the privacy of a confidential council of the priesthood, with the caution that nothing must be said about it least the boy's life be put in jeopardy thereby--what was conveyed to these parties in secret, Mr. Moore represents Brigham Young as teaching from the public stand! Yet so far recognizing the danger of having it taught as to say it must not be mentioned least their enemies kill the boy as they had his father--yet Brigham Young teaching it the while in the most public manner! I will not here write an apostrophe to consistency. I will merely put Brigham Young's reputation for common sense and discretion against the testimony of Mr. Moore.

This is the Josephite case on the matter of Mr. Smith being appointed by his father to the position of prophet and President of the church. I have given all the testimony they have been able to rake together, and have quoted it as they give it in their own works, not a word changed, not a witness of theirs overlooked, so far as they have published their statements. And now that this testimony is before the reader, I ask him: What is its value? Look it over, there is not a direct statement at first hand in it, except, perhaps, in the case of Mr. Wight, and in his testimony, as presented by the Josephites themselves, there is such conflict as to time and place as to render it worthless. Not even Mr. Smith, the claimant himself, makes a direct averment that he was ordained by his father to succeed him as prophet and President of the church. The best he can do is to say that he was blessed by his father in the year 1844, in the presence of quite a number of then prominent elders in the church; but as to the nature of that blessing he is silent. The testimony the Reorganized church depends on is hear-say testimony only, and that of a very questionable character--of the nature of old wives' fables, and the assertions of apostates!

Following the several testimonies relied upon by Josephites to sustain their claims that "young Joseph" was appointed by his father to succeed to the Presidency, I have made such remarks as point out the worthlessness of each statement, I now wish to call attention to considerations which destroy the whole theory:

First, the silence of Sidney Rigdon in respect to "young Joseph," when he was putting forth his claims to be the "Guardian of the church," to build it up to Joseph the martyr. Had the idea prevailed at Nauvoo, as Josephites claim, that the son of the martyred prophet was to succeed his father as President of the church, what an opportunity for Sidney Rigdon, when putting forth his claims to be the "Guardian of the church!" How greatly would it have strengthened his position, if he could in truth have said: I claim the right to be the Guardian of the church until "young Joseph," whom our late prophet anointed and ordained to succeed him, shall have arrived at a suitable age to take his place. There would have been some significance to the phrase, "Guardian of the church," if Sidney Rigdon could have assumed this position. But he did not assume it, and the fair inference is that the reason why he did not assume it is because there was no idea prevalent at Nauvoo that "young Joseph" would succeed to his father's place.

Second, the silence of William Smith in respect to "young Joseph" in his controversy with the Twelve in respect to leadership. Had any idea prevailed at Nauvoo that "young Joseph" was to succeed to the Presidency of the church, this man, his uncle, would have known it; and would have strengthened his own claims at that time to the right of leadership, by proclaiming himself, as he did afterwards, in 1850, the natural guardian of the one who had been anointed and ordained to succeed to the office of President. But this he did not do. On the contrary, he claimed the place for himself by virtue of being the _brother_ of the prophet. When he failed to secure the position of leadership for himself, he followed the leadership of James J. Strang instead of supporting the claims of "young Joseph." Not until 1850 did he begin to proclaim the right of "young Joseph" to be the President of the church; and then not by any virtue of appointment from his father, but by right of lineage; and with this movement on his part originates the claims of Mr. Smith to the Presidency.

Third, Mr. Edward Tullidge, in his life of Joseph the prophet--the Josephite edition--quotes the prophet Joseph as saying:

"I told Stephen Markham," says Joseph, "that if I and Hyrum were
ever taken again, we should [would?] be massacred, or I was not a
Prophet of God. _I want Hyrum to live to lead the Church, but he
is determined not to leave me_."[A]

[Footnote A: Page 491.--Let it be remembered that the Josephites in this work quoted accepted Mr. Tullidge as their historian. Italics are mine. R.]

Mr. Tullidge quotes this passage differently from what it is written in the history of Joseph Smith; what authority he has for doing it he does not say. In Joseph's own history it is written:

I want Hyrum to live to avenge my blood, but he is determined not
to leave me.[A]

[Footnote A: Hist. Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XXIV, p. 332.]

But though Mr. Tullidge misquotes this passage, there is evidence in addition to his word, that Joseph did desire and even ordained Hyrum Smith to succeed him. At the October conference following the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, and the 8th of August meeting at which the Twelve were recognized as the presiding quorum in the church, President Young in a discourse said:

If Hyrum had lived he would not have stood between Joseph and the
Twelve, but he would have stood for Joseph. Did Joseph ordain any
man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum. But Hyrum
fell a martyr before Joseph did.[A]

[Footnote A: _Times and Seasons_, Vol. V, p. 683.]

If the prophet Joseph wanted Hyrum to lead the church, as asserted by Mr. Tullidge, and had "ordained" him to that position--according to the statement of President Young--what becomes of the claims made in behalf of "young Joseph" to an appointment and ordination to lead the church? In desiring and ordaining Hyrum to fill his place had the prophet forgotten the "anointing" and "ordination" of his son? This clearly disposes of the claims of "young Joseph" through any appointment by his father; for if the prophet Joseph appointed and ordained his brother Hyrum to succeed him, he did not appoint or ordain his son Joseph to do the same thing. If ever there was a case of a claim not proven, Mr. Smith's claim of appointment to the Presidency of the church through his father is that case.

Having disposed of Mr. Smith's claim to the right of the Presidency of the church so far as it is based upon an appointment through his father, let us now take up his second claim, viz:

_The position is his by lineage--his birth-right_.

There are two offices and only two, in the church which descend by lineage from father to son: the office of patriarch and that of bishop. Of patriarchs it is said:

It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the Church,
to ordain evangelical[A] ministers, as they shall be designated
unto them by revelation. The order of this priesthood was
confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly
belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed to whom the
promises were made. This order was instituted in the days of Adam,
and came down by lineage in the following manner.[B]

[Footnote A: "An evangelist is a patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham."--_Joseph Smith_ (Hist. of Joseph, under date of June 27, 1839).]

[Footnote B: Doc. and Cov, cvii, 39, 40.]

The revelation then traces the lineage from Adam to Noah. This passage applies solely to patriarchs in the church, and yet Josephites attempt in their arguments to make it apply to the Presidency of the church. They say:

The law of lineage points unmistakably to young Joseph as the
legal successor of his father. The law in the Doctrine and
Covenants informs us that.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Successor_, pp. 4, 5.]

And then follows part of the foregoing quotation--beginning with "The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, etc."--being careful to omit the clause of the passage which shows it to refer to evangelists or patriarchs only.[A] This is the way the passage is used by the writer of the Josephite tract called _The Successor_. Another writer, or perhaps the same one in another place, thus quotes it in support of "young Joseph's" claims:

[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 4.]

The order [_including offices_] of this Priesthood was confirmed
to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the
literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were
made. This order [_not the Priesthood, but the offices therein_]
was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in
the following manner: From Adam to Seth [_Abel having been
slain_].[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX. p. 337.]

I have written the words inserted by the Josephite writer in brackets in italics, that they may all the more readily be noticed. The Josephites are not only guilty of making a clear misapplication of this passage, but they read into the revelation by their inserted words in brackets what is not there, and what was never intended to be conveyed even by inference. The statement of the revelation is that the patriarchal order of priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, etc.; and not the offices in the priesthood as the Josephite writer quoted above affirms by his bracketed inserted words in the revelation.

I cannot think this is merely a mistake on the part of Josephite writers, the matter is so plainly a perversion of scripture, that it amounts to downright dishonesty.

In like manner Josephites misapply a passage in the writings of Abraham,[A] where Abraham is represented as seeking after the patriarchal order of priesthood which was his by virtue of his lineage. Abraham sought for his rights as a patriarch--which right comes down from father to son, but Josephite writers make his words apply to the office of high priests in general, instead of confining it to patriarchs.

[Footnote A: Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham.]

Of the second office in the church which descends from father to son--the office of bishop--the revelations of God provide that the literal descendants of Aaron--among the first born of his sons--have a right by virtue of their lineage to that position, if at any time they can prove their lineage, or do ascertain it by revelation from the Lord. But even in that case they must be designated by the Presidency of the Melchisedek priesthood, found worthy, and ordained by that Presidency, or by its direction, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in that calling.[A]

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

These are the only offices in the priesthood which descend by lineage; yet Josephite writers quote the following in support of "young Joseph's" claims to the Presidency by lineage:

Therefore thus saith the Lord unto you [Joseph the martyr][A] with
whom the Priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your
fathers, for ye are _lawful heirs according to the flesh_, and
have been hid from the world with Christ in God; therefore your
life and the Priesthood hath remained, and must needs _remain_[B]
through you and your lineage, until the restoration of all things
spoken of by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world
began.[C]

[Footnote A: Words in brackets are the Josephite writer's.]

[Footnote B: Italics in the above are Josephite's.]

[Footnote C: Doc. and Cov. sec. lxviii.]

It is only by inserting the words, "Joseph the martyr," into the revelation--as the Josephite writer has done--that the passage can be made to apply at all to the prophet Joseph personally. The revelation quoted is one that was given, explaining the parable of the wheat and tares, and begins thus:

Verily thus saith the Lord unto you my servants, concerning the
parable of the wheat and of the tares, etc.

Throughout the Lord addresses his "servants" and not Joseph Smith personally. Hence the statement in the passage that the priesthood had continued through the lineage of their fathers; that they were lawful heirs according to the flesh; that it must remain through them and their lineage until the restoration of all things--was a statement concerning, and a promise made as much to the other elders addressed on that occasion and their posterity, as to Joseph Smith and his posterity; and the insertion in the passage of "Joseph the martyr" in order to make the passage apply to him personally and to his posterity alone, is another instance of a Josephite writer's trickery.

Moreover, the statement and promise made to all the servants of God to whom the revelation is addressed, is in relation to the priesthood--not the Presidency of the priesthood, or the Presidency of the church, or any other office in the priesthood or church of Christ. Priesthood, and office in the priesthood are two things quite distinct; and even if a man inherited the priesthood of his fathers, it does not follow that he would inherit their office, which must come to him by appointment as the law of the Lord directs, and hereafter to be considered.

Josephites are at great pains to trace in the Book of Mormon the handing down of records and other sacred things from father to son,[A] and this to prove--what? That the office of President of the church or leader of the people, descends by right of lineage from father to son! That is, because the records of a people are handed down from father to son, therefore the Presidency of the church descends by lineage also! What can be more absurd than this? Nor does it help our opponents out of the absurdity because some of those who held the records among the Nephites were presiding high priests over the church. Its only significance is that in those particular cases the office of presiding high priest and that of recorder were united.

[Footnote A: See _Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX., pp. 358-9-0.]

Moreover, in the matter of the records descending from father to son the chain of succession is frequently broken, and in some instances those breaks make a divergence from the direct line. Out of sixteen transfers of the records and other sacred things from one person to another, from the time Lehi left Jerusalem to the coming of Messiah to the Nephites--in seven instances the transfer is _not_ made from father to son! In three instances the transfer is made to brothers instead of from father to son; in two cases the transfer is made to nephews; and in two instances the transfer is made to those who are no kin at all, making seven exceptions to the rule out of sixteen cases; lacking only one of being half! Out of six transfers of the sacred things, from the coming of Messiah among the Nephites to Joseph Smith, three of them are not from father to son. One transfer is made to a brother; and two are made to persons of no kin whatever to their predecessors. Josephites say the "exceptions" in this matter "prove the rule," but a "rule" that is violated in half the cases where it is supposed to operate, has rather too many exceptions to prove it--they destroy it.

Let it not be lost sight of, however, that the argument based upon the transfer of records among the Nephites from father to son has nothing to do with the office of President of the church descending by lineage.

As a conclusion to my argument against the claim of Mr. Smith, that the position of President of the church is his by right of lineage, I quote the words of his illustrious father. In a discourse delivered on the 27th of August, 1843, having for his text the seventh chapter of Hebrews, and explaining the phrase in the third verse--"without father, without mother, _without descent_," etc., he said:

The Melchisedek priesthood holds the right from the eternal God,
_and not by descent from father and mother;_[A] and that
priesthood is eternal as God himself, having neither beginning of
days nor end of life.[B]

[Footnote A: _Italics_ mine.--R.]

[Footnote B: Hist, of Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XXII, p. 55.]

In the face of this how can Mr. Smith claim any right, by virtue of lineage, to the Melchisedek priesthood, much less to the highest office in that priesthood? His claim is denied by that very father from whom he claims to have received it by inheritance. It occurs to me here to ask a question: If the office of President of the church does descend by lineage from the fathers, through the line of the eldest sons, how is it that the "law" did not operate on the other side of the prophet Joseph as well as on this side of him? If that "law" had operated so--and there is no good reason why it should not so operate, if indeed it be the "law" of the priesthood--it would have left out not only the present Mr. Smith but even the prophet Joseph himself. For in that event it would have come first to Joseph Smith, the father of the prophet, who was a noble, righteous man; and then after his death to his eldest living son, Hyrum Smith, than whom there has been no more righteous man among all the sons of God who have lived in this generation; and from him it would have passed on to his eldest son, thus leaving out the prophet Joseph altogether, as well as Mr. Smith. But let us leave a claim already disproved, and an argument which proves too much for those who employ it.

The third claim made in behalf of Mr. Smith is:

_He was called to the position of President of the church by "revelation" to himself_.

Of this it is not necessary to say very much. It could only be important if sustained by the other two claims, viz: that he was appointed by his father to succeed to the office of President of the church; and secondly, that the office is his by lineage. Since these two claims have been disproven, it renders his third claim of no effect. The "revelations" to himself by which he was called, however, are as shadowy as the arguments by which it is attempted to sustain his two preceding claims are weak.

Those "revelations" calling him to the Presidency of the church, as I gather them from Mr. Smith's Autobiography, are as follows: First, a vision just after recovering from an illness, in 1853, in which was shown to him, on the one hand, the busy marts of the world where men struggle for place, power and distinction; and on the other hand, an extended plain covered with the peaceful homes of a thrifty, happy people. A personage who appeared by his side said:

Which would you prefer, life, success and renown among the busy
scenes that you first saw; or a place among these people without
honors or renown? Think of it well, for the choice will be offered
to you sooner or later, and you must be prepared to decide. Your
decision once made you cannot recall it, and must abide the
result.[A]

[Footnote A: Aut. of Joseph Smith, in Josephite edition, Life of Joseph, p. 753.]

Second, one day out in an open field, while considering the question, "why not go to Utah?" he was overshadowed by a bright cloud and he heard the words: "Because the light in which you stand is greater than theirs."[A]

[Footnote A: Aut. of Mr. Smith, in Josephite edition of Life of Joseph, p. 763.]

Third, a manifestation was given to him that he must oppose polygamy; but in what way the manifestation was given is not stated.[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid.]

Fourth, in 1859, when revolving the question in his mind: "where and with whom shall my life-labor lie," he received a manifestation--how he does not say--to the following effect:

The Saints reorganizing at Zarahemla and other places, is the only
organized portion of the Church accepted by me. I have given them
my spirit, and will continue to do so while they remain humble and
faithful.[A]

[Footnote A: Aut. of Mr. Smith, Life of Joseph, Josephite edition, p. 772.]

These are all the "revelations" spoken of by Mr. Smith in his autobiography, or quoted by his supporters, hence these must be the "revelations" to himself by which he was called to be President of the church! Just where the "call" can be found in them is the thing which the writer of these pages cannot see: and he challenges anybody else to point it out.

It should be observed here, perhaps, that "revelations" to a man personally, that he is called to be President of the church, even when clear and definite, do not constitute him the President. Something else is necessary. As observed elsewhere, not only must a man be called of God, but he must be accepted by the church--"chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church."[A] Besides having no definite call by "revelation," even to himself (judging by the visions and manifestations related by Mr. Smith) to preside over the church, Mr. Smith has never complied with the conditions of the law of the church stated above. That is, he has never been "chosen by the body . . . . upheld by the confidence, faith and prayers of the church"--unless, indeed, the few people, scarce a corporal's guard, who gathered at the Josephite conference at Amboy, in 1860, constituted out of all the tens of thousands of saints in this country at the time, the church! What of the scores of thousands of saints in Utah at that time who never so much as received notice of or an invitation to be present at that "general conference of the church" at Amboy? Surely _Messrs._ Gurley and Newkirk were somewhat at fault in neglecting to notify the majority of the saints to attend that conference at which the only true President of the church was to be chosen! To call that gathering at Amboy the general conference of the church, is as ridiculous as absurdity can make it. It is on a par, however, with the "revelations" to Mr. Smith, calling him to be President of the church--the one is a fitting concomitant of the other.

[Footnote A: Doc. and Cov., Sec. cvii, 22.]

Of course Josephites see the absurdity of this gathering at Amboy being called a general conference of the church, and try to escape it by explaining that all the rest of the saints were in transgression, and could not call a conference--those represented at the Amboy conference were the only saints;[A] that is, the only saints who were "faithfully honoring and obeying the law of the Lord, and the order of his church"[B]--so easy is it to say:

[Footnote A: _The Successor_, p. 9.]

[Footnote B: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. XXXIX, p. 375.]

Orthodoxy, my lord, is _my_ doxy; and heterodoxy is some other
man's doxy![A]

[Footnote A: Bishop Warburton's answer to Lord Sandwich when he said he did not know the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy.]

I come next to the fourth and last claim made in behalf of Mr. Smith, viz:--

_He was ordained to be President of the church by those holding legal authority_.