SUCCESSION

CHURCH OF

OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.

The keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come; nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to another—even to the Church, — The Lord to Joseph Smith, Doc. and Cov., sec. xc.

PREFACE.

THE fact that many honest people in the United States and other countries are being led astray by the pretensions of the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," or "Josephite Church," as it is more commonly called, must justify the publication of this work. My desire to preserve from error those not acquainted with the order of the priesthood of God, and the facts of church history in the great dispensation of the last days, has been the incentive which prompted me to write it. Moreover, though the facts of church history which of themselves disprove the claims of the "Josephite Church," are abundant, yet are they scattered through the church works in such a manner as to make it exceedingly difficult for the Elders of the church to consult them; and, therefore, the writer believes he is doing a service to those Elders who are and shall hereafter be engaged in the ministry, especially to those who travel in the localities where they will come in contact with "Josephite" pretensions—by publishing this treatise on the Succession in the Presidency of the Church.

I have endeavored to treat the theme on as broad a basis as possible, and have avoided technical disputes with our opponents, which only serve to burden the subject with matter that is not only unprofitable in itself, but wearying to the patience of the reader. Nor does the successful issue of our argument demand that we stop to contend over every error, either in history or argument, made by "Josephites." Did we attempt it, our task would be endless. An attorney being called upon to explain why his absent client should not be punished for contempt of court, told the judge he could assign several good reasons for the absence of his client— -reasons which he hoped and believed would clear him, even in the opinion of the judge, of any intention to treat the court with disrespect. "You may name them," gruffly said the judge. "Well, then, your honor, in the first place my client is dead; and in the second place—" "Never mind your ‘in the second place,"’ said the judge, "if the man is dead that is sufficient— the Court dismisses the case." So with this controversy; there being a few leading facts of church history, and a principle or two connected with the order of the priesthood which, if considered in the light of right reason, dispose of all the claims made by "Josephites," it is not necessary to consider their quibbles and all the details of their sophistry.

The writer is under deep obligation to acknowledge assistance he has received from a number of prominent brethren; to some for placing at his disposal books and papers, and to others for reading the work from the manuscript and greatly improving it by their invaluable suggestions. The brethren who have thus rendered me assistance are too numerous to mention by name, and it would be unfair to name a few only, when the writer is indebted to so many and to each equally. The consciousness of having assisted in a work which is designed to carry enlightenment to many in regard to so important a matter as the subject of this writing, will reward them for their labors.

THE AUTHOR.

SUCCESSION
IN THE
PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH.

WHEN the Prophet Joseph Smith fell a martyr at Carthage, Illinois, on the 27th of June, 1844, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was deprived of its President. As that was a condition which had never existed before in this dispensation, and one that the church had not anticipated, the question very naturally arose: Upon what person or quorum devolved the responsibility of leadership—of Presidency? It is a matter of astonishment that so many arose as claimants for the position; but it reveals the vanity and weakness of human nature which in its love of power looks clear beyond the responsibilities in the case, and seeks only for that position which exalts its possessor above his fellows.

Among the many who claimed to be the legal successor to the prophet Joseph, and, indeed, the first, was Sidney Rigdon, the only remaining counselor in the First Presidency.

[2] Hyrum Smith, the other counselor to the prophet, had nobly suffered martyrdom with him at Carthage. At the time of the martyrdom of Presidents Joseph and Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon was living at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, presiding over the branch of the church and preaching the gospel at that place. He had removed from Nauvoo to Pitts burg, in opposition to a revelation from God which required him to make his home in Nauvoo, and stand in his office and calling of counselor and spokesman to the prophet Joseph.

The truth is that from the expulsion of the saints from Missouri in 1838-9, Sidney Rigdon had been of but little service either to the church or to the prophet as a counselor. He was a man of admitted ability as an orator, but lacked discretion; a man of fervid imagination, but of inferior judgment; ambitious of place and honor, but without that steadiness of purpose and other qualities of soul which in time secure them. In the early years of the church he suffered much for the cause of God, but he also complained much; especially was this the case in respect to the hardships he endured in Missouri; and subsequently of his poverty and illness at Nauvoo. This habit of complaining doubtless did much to deprive him of the spirit of the Lord; for at times it bordered upon blasphemy. More than once he was heard to say that Jesus Christ was a fool in suffering as compared with himself! Having lost, in part at least, the spirit of the Lord, his interest in the church and its work waned, and after the settlement at Nauvoo he was seldom seen in the councils of the priesthood. Moreover, it was known that he was in sympathy and even in communication with some of the avowed enemies of Joseph, among others with that arch traitor, John C. Bennett, who was plotting the overthrow of both Joseph and the church. It was doubtless these considerations

[3] which led Joseph to make an effort to get rid of Sidney Rigdon as counselor, at the October conference in ????

On that occasion the prophet represented to the church that such had been the course of Sidney Rigdon that he considered it no longer his duty to sustain him as his counselor. Hyrum Smith, however, pleaded the cause of his fellow counselor, and so strongly urged the saints to deal mercifully with Sidney Rigdon, that when the question of sustaining him was presented to the conference, the saints voted in his favor. "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me," said Joseph. "You may carry him, but I will not." And so confident was he that Sidney Rigdon would continue to fail in the performance of his duty, that he ordained Elder Amasa Lyman to succeed him, both as counselor and spokesman. "Some of the Elders did not under stand how Elder Lyman could be ordained to succeed Elder Rigdon, as the church had voted to try him another year. Elder Joseph Smith was requested to give an explanation. ‘Why,’ said he, ‘by the same rule that Samuel anointed David to be king over Israel, while Saul was yet crowned. Please read the 16th chapter of I Samuel.’ Elder Smith’s explanation, though short, proved a quietus to all their rising conjectures."

Notwithstanding all his fair promises of amendment, Sidney Rigdon continued neglectful of his high duties, and if for a time his old-time enthusiasm revived—as it seemed to at the April conference following, it was as the flickering flame of a tallow dip, only—not the steady rays of the ever-shining sun. He longed to return to the east; and notwithstanding the word of the Lord commanding him to make his home at Nauvoo, he frequently talked with Joseph about going to

[4] Pittsburgh to live, and finally obtained his consent to go there, and take his family with him. He was instructed to preach, write and build up the church in that city.

Such was the standing and course of the man who after the martyrdom of the prophet Joseph was the first to claim the right to lead the church! He made all haste to Nauvoo, and ignoring the members of the quorum of the Twelve who were in the city—Elders Willard Richards, John Taylor, and Parley P. Pratt—he conferred with Elder William Marks, president of the Stake of Nauvoo, and at once began agitating the question of appointing a "Guardian" to the church. He arrived in Nauvoo on Saturday, the 3rd of August; next day he harangued the saints who assembled in the grove near the temple, upon the necessity of appointing a "Guardian" to build up the church to the martyred prophet, and in the afternoon meeting urged William Marks to make a special appointment for the saints to assemble on the following Tuesday for that purpose. Elder Marks was in sympathy with Sidney Rigdon, but for some reason he refused to make the appointment for Tuesday, but made it for Thursday, the 8th of August. This was a most fortunate circumstance, since a sufficient number of the Twelve to make a majority of that quorum arrived on the evening of the 6th, and, of course, they were in time to be present at the meeting to be held on the 8th. The day previous to that meeting, however, the Twelve called a meeting of the high council and high priests, before which they called on Sidney Rigdon to make a statement of his purposes and relate the revelation he claimed to have received at Pittsburg, which prompted his journey to Nauvoo. In substance he replied that the object of his visit was to offer himself to the saints as a "Guardian;" that it had been shown to him in vision at Pittsburg, that the church must be built up to Joseph the martyr; that all the blessings the saints could receive would come through their late prophet; that no man could be

[5] a successor to Joseph; that the church was not disorganized, though the head was gone; that he had been commanded to come to Nauvoo and see that the church was governed properly, and propose himself to be a "Guardian" to the people.

To this Elder Brigham Young replied:

I do not care who leads this Church, even though it were Ann Lee; but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it. (have the keys and the means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject. . . . Joseph conferred upon our heads all the keys and powers belonging to the apostleship which he himself held before he was taken away, and no man nor set of men can get between Joseph and the Twelve in this world or in the world to come. How often has Joseph said to the Twelve, I have laid the foundation and you must build thereon, for upon your shoulders the kingdom rests.

The next day was the one appointed by Sidney Rigdon for the church to assemble and choose a "Guardian." The attendance was large, as intense interest had been awakened upon the subject to be considered. Sidney Rigdon addressed the assembly, setting forth his claim to the "Guardianship" of the church. He had full opportunity to present his case, and for an hour and a half spoke without interruption; but despite his reputation as an orator, he failed to convince the saints that he was sent of God.

As soon as Sidney Rigdon closed his speech, Elder Brigham Young arose and made a few remarks. It was on that occasion that he was transfigured before the people, so that through him the saints heard the voice and felt the presence of their departed leader. George Q. Cannon, who was present on that occasion, says:

If Joseph had risen from the dead and again spoken in their hearing, the effect could not have been more startling than it was to many present at that meeting; it was the voice of Joseph himself; and not only was it the voice of Joseph which was heard, but it seemed in the eyes of the people as if it were the very person of Joseph which stood before them. A more wonderful and miraculous event than was wrought that day in the presence of that congregation we never heard of.

In the journal of Elder Wm. C. Staines, of that date, the following statement is recorded:

Brigham Young said— "I will tell you who your leaders or guardians will be. The Twelve—I at their head!’ This was with a voice like the voice of the prophet Joseph. I thought it was he, and so did thousands who heard it. This was very satisfactory to the people, and a vote was taken to sustain the Twelve in their office, which, with a few dissenting voices, was passed."

President Wilford Woodruff, describing the event, says:

When Brigham Young arose and commenced speaking, as has been said, if I had not seen him with my own eyes, there is no one that could have convinced me that it was not Joseph Smith; and anyone can testify to this who was acquainted with these two men.

The remarks of Elder Young, during which he was transfigured before the people, closed the forenoon meeting. When in the afternoon the church again assembled and Elder Young addressed them at some length on the subject of appointing a leader for the church, representing the claims of the Twelve as the quorum having the right to act in the absence of the late prophet-president. Following are some quotations from a summary of his speech taken down at the time:

For the first time in my life, for the first time in your lives, for the first time in the kingdom of God, in the nineteenth century, without a prophet at our head, do I step forth to act in my calling in connection with the quorum of the Twelve, as Apostles of Jesus Christ unto this generation—Apostles whom God has called by revelation through the prophet Joseph, who are ordained and anointed to bear off the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world.

… If any man thinks he has influence among this people, to lead away a party, let him try it, and he will find out that there is power with the Apostles, which will carry them off victorious through all the world, and build up and defend the church and kingdom of God.

… If the people want President Rigdon to lead them, they may have him; but I say unto you that the quorum of the Twelve have the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world. The Twelve are appointed by the finger of God. Here is Brigham, have his knees ever faltered? have his lips ever quivered? Here is Heber, and the rest of the Twelve, an independent body, who have the keys of the priesthood—the keys of the kingdom of God—to deliver to all the world; this is true, so help me God. They stand next to Joseph, and are as the First Presidency of the Church.

… You must not appoint any man at our head; if you should, the Twelve must ordain him. You cannot appoint a man at our head; but if you do want any other man or men to lead you, take them, and we will go our way to build up the kingdom in all the world,

… Brother Joseph, the prophet, has laid the foundation for a grand work, and we will build upon it; you have never seen the quorums built one upon another. There is an almighty foundation laid, and we can build a kingdom such as there never was in the world: we can build a kingdom faster than Satan can kill the saints off.

… Now, if you want Sidney Rigdon or Wm. Law to lead you, or anybody else, you are welcome to them; but I tell you, in the name of the Lord, that no man can put another between the Twelve and the prophet Joseph. Why? Because Joseph was their file leader, and he has committed into their hands the keys of the kingdom in this last dispensation, for all the world; don’t put a thread between the priesthood and God.

Elder Amasa Lyman spoke in support of the Twelve; and then Sidney Rigdon was granted the privilege of speaking;

[9] he declined personally, but called on Elder W. W. Phelps to speak in his behalf. Elder Phelps while evidently sympathizing with Elder Rigdon, supported the claims of the Twelve. After further discussion Elder Young arose to put the question as to whether the church would sustain the Twelve or Sidney Rigdon:

I do not ask you to take my counsel or advice alone, but every one of you act for yourselves; but if Brother Rigdon is the person you want to lead you, vote for him, but not un less you intend to follow him and support him as you did Joseph And I would say the same for the Twelve, don’t make a covenant to support them unless you in tend to abide by their counsel I want every man, before he enters into a covenant, to know what he is going to do; but we want to know if this people will support the priesthood in the name of Israel’s God. If you say you will, do so.

Elder Young was then about to put the question to the assembled quorums as to whether they wanted Elder Rigdon for a leader, when, at the request of the latter, the question on supporting the Twelve as the presiding quorum in the church was first put in the following manner:

"Do the Church want and is it their only desire to sustain the Twelve as the First Presidency of this people ? If the Church want the Twelve to stand as the head, the First Presidency of the Church, and at the head of this kingdom in all the world, stand next to Joseph, walk up into their calling, and hold the keys of this kingdom—every man, every woman,

[10] every quorum is now put in order, and you are now the sole controllers of it—all that are in favor of this in all the congregation of the Saints, manifest it by holding up the right hand. (There was a universal vote.) If there are any of the contrary mind—every man and every woman who does not want the Twelve to preside, lift up your hands in like manner. (No hands up.) This supersedes the other question, and trying it by quorums.

This disposed of Sidney Rigdon. He had full opportunity to present his case before the church. The saints had full opportunity and liberty to vote for him had they wanted him for their leader; but they rejected him and sustained the Twelve.

I have been careful to deal with this case of Sidney Rigdon’s in so great detail, for the reason that it exhibits in operation a very important principle, viz., that of "common consent" or the "voice of the people" in electing their leaders. I use the word "elect" advisedly, for though the manner of electing the officers of the church is by indirect means—by popular acceptance—the elective principle is nevertheless operative, since men proposed for office cannot act unless the people vote to sustain them. The law of the church in this matter is:

No person is to be ordained to any office in this Church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, with out the vote of that Church.

This law applies to the First Presidency as well as to the humblest officer in the church:

Of the Melchisedek Priesthood, three presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith and prayer of the Church, from a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

It is not enough that the men constituting the First Presidency of the church be "appointed and ordained to that office;" they must also be "chosen by the body" and "up held by the confidence, faith and prayer of the church." President Brigham Young on this subject says:

Joseph presided over the Church by the voice of the people. …Does a man’s being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no. A man may be a prophet, seer and revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being President of the Church. Suffice it to say that Joseph was the President of the Church, so long as he lived. The people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people.

… The keys of the priesthood were committed to Joseph to build up the kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people, though he held the keys of the priesthood independent of their voice.

But, mark you, he did not hold the power to preside over them contrary to their voices, that is, contrary to their con sent. President Taylor says:

It is by the voice of God and the voice of the people that our present President [Brigham Young] obtained his authority. He obtained his authority first from God, and secondly from the people; and if a man possesses five grains of common sense, when he has the privilege of voting for or against a man, he will not vote for a man who will, oppress the people; he will vote according to the dictates of his conscience; for this is the right and duty of this people in the choice of their President and other leading officers of the kingdom of God.

Thus in ecclesiastical as in civil government it is true that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We shall have occasion in the course of our argument, to recur to this principle and its importance in respect to the subject treated in this writing.

It may be interesting to the reader to know that Sidney Rigdon himself outwardly seemed to acquiesce in the decision of the church with regard to himself. The Sunday following the meeting above described he addressed the saints for a long time, "blessed them in the name of the Lord; telling them emphatically that he was with the Twelve. He wished to know the mind of the church in relation to his returning to Pittsburg, they said, "go in peace." Yet all the while he was thus seemingly accepting the decision of the church and seeking its counsel, secretly he was holding meetings with men of questionable integrity in the church, telling them that it was revealed to him before leaving Pittsburg that the church would reject him; but, nevertheless, he was the proper person to lead the church—to be its Guardian; for to that position he had been called of God, and held keys of authority higher than any ever conferred upon the Prophet Joseph—the keys of David which, according to his representations, gave him the power to open and no man could shut; to shut and no man could open; and the power to organize armies for the destruction of the Gentiles. In fact his fervid imagination

[13] pictured himself a great military chieftain, by whose prowess all the enemies of God were to be subdued. He secretly ordained men to be prophets, priests and kings to the Gentiles. He also chose and appointed military officers to take command of the armies that were to be raised ere long to fight the battles of the great God. Meantime, while he in public had spoken of the virtues and honor of the martyred prophets, Joseph and Hyrum, in the highest terms, in his secret meetings he began to cast reflections upon their conduct, and hint at the existence of grave iniquity among the Twelve and in the church.

As soon as the Twelve learned of these proceedings on the part of Elder Rigdon, they called upon him to explain by what authority he held secret meetings and ordained men to the aforesaid offices. He sought to evade the question, but finding that he was dealing with men not to be trifled with he at last confessed to both holding the meetings and ordaining the officers. His brethren sought to convince him of his error, but at this point he refused to be corrected. The quorum of the Twelve, with the presiding bishop of the church, held a council meeting to consider his conduct, and concluded to demand Elder Rigdon’s license. He refused to surrender it, saying that he had not received it from the Twelve and he would not give it up to them. He was then cited before the council of the church which has a right to try a president of the high priesthood, viz., the presiding bishop of the church assisted by twelve high priests.

He refused to appear before this council, and therefore, after giving him due notice and an opportunity to appear and defend himself, the council convened in the presence of a large

[14] congregation of the saints on the 8th of September, 1844, and proceeded to hear evidence in the case. The evidence established the insubordination of Elder Rigdon and the irregularity of his course, and a motion that he be excommunicated from the church until he repented was carried both by the council composed of the bishop and the twelve high priests, and also by the great congregation of the saints. Ten only, and they of Rigdon’s following, voting in the negative.

After his excommunication he made an attempt at organizing a church, choosing twelve apostles, etc., but his efforts amounted to but little. He soon retired from Nauvoo to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, which he established as his head quarters. He sent missionaries to many branches of the church to represent his claims to the Presidency, but they succeeded in getting only slight support and that for the most part from among those weak in the faith. His church, never strong either in numbers or prominent men, soon crumbled into decay; Sidney Rigdon himself sank out of sight and in 1876 he died in obscurity in Alleghany county, state of New York.

The fate of Sidney Rigdon and the fate of the organization which he founded prove the prophetic character of the words of Brigham Young:

II.

FOLLOWING the attempt of Sidney Rigdon to become the "Guardian of the Church," we will consider the efforts of William Smith, brother to the prophet Joseph, to become its President. He was a member of the quorum of the Twelve at the death of the prophet, though for some time his conduct had been such as to bring him into disrepute among the Saints. He was of a turbulent, ungovernable disposition; a man of fierce passions and violent temper. When the saints were driven from Missouri, in 1838, and his brother Joseph cast into prison, such was his vindictiveness against the prophet that at a general conference of the church held near Quincy, Illinois, May 4th, 1839, he was suspended from fellowship; but was afterwards restored, mainly through the pleadings of that same brother against ‘whom he railed with such bitterness of speech.

Shortly after the martyrdom of his brothers, Joseph and Hyrum, William was ordained to the office of patriarch to the church, to succeed Hyrum Smith, who held that office at the time of his death. The associate editor of the Times and Sea sons in making the announcement of William’s appointment put it that he had been appointed and ordained patriarch "over the Church." Whereupon a number of persons of a disposition ever ready to take advantage of a word or make men an offender because of it, begun to ask if William was Patriarch "over" the church, did not that also make him President of the church. In the issue of the Times and Sea sons following, the editor corrected the error of his associate by saying that the notice of William’s appointment to be patriarch

[16] should have read patriarch "to" the church, not "over" it. He, of course, also denied that William was President of the church.

Whether it was the discussion about William’s appointment to be patriarch "over" the church which first put it into his head to make a claim to the office of President of the church; or that he took advantage of the phrase "Patriarch over the Church,’’ to bring forward claims to the Presidency which he had previously entertained, may not be accurately determined; but most likely it was the latter, because on the occasion of the writer’s visit to William Smith, at his home, near Elkader, Clayton County, Iowa, late in the summer of 1880, he claimed to have been anointed, appointed, and ordained by the prophet Joseph to succeed to the office of President of the church after the prophet’s death.

William Smith, however, based his claim to the position of president, mainly upon the fact that he was the brother of the Prophet, the only surviving brother, and therefore he should succeed to his brother’s position. He claimed to find a precedent for this in scripture. In the council which convened in the early Christian church to consider how far the Gentile converts were under obligations to observe the forms and ceremonies of the Jewish law, after Peter and Paul and Barnabas and others were through speaking on the subject, James, "the Lord’s brother," is represented as saying:

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles have turned unto God; but that we write unto them; that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood.

The "sentence" of James here is regarded as the "decision" of the council; and William Smith argued that if James gave the decision of the council, he must have been the president of the council; and if president of the council, then President of the church; and since James was the Lord’s brother and succeeded him in the Presidency of the church, so in this dispensation, as in the former one, the surviving brother of him who stood at the head of the church should succeed to the Presidency.

But this sophistry is confronted by the stubborn fact that the Lord Jesus had said to the Apostle Peter in the most direct terms:

I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

It is controverted also by all the facts of history which represent Peter as the chief Apostle and as holding a Presidency over the entire church. In modern revelation, too, the order in which the Apostles have been named who have administered to men on the earth—has been invariably Peter, James and John—Peter always named first as the leader, the chief.

William Smith, however, did not command much of a following in this first attempt to make himself a leader. His profligate life was too notorious in Nauvoo to make it possible for him to wield much influence even as a schismatic. His efforts at leadership on this occasion resulted only in violent denunciations of those who would not receive him, and his final expulsion from the church. At the general conference held on the 6th of October, 1845, he was disfellowshipped from the quorum of the Twelve, and on the 12th of the same month, more of his wickedness having come to light, he was excommunicated from the church. He shortly afterwards became associated with James J. Strang and other apostates in an attempt to establish a church in the state of Wisconsin, but that failed as we shall see.

Here it will be proper to note the support which Lucy Smith, mother of William, gave to his claims to the Presidency. I regret being under the necessity of quoting her in such a controversy, as it shows this good and noble woman to have been very much mistaken in this matter, and one must ever be sorry to see those who are upright mistaken, especially in so grave a matter as this under consideration. One must ever feel a delicacy in referring to the words and actions of the mother of Joseph and Hyrum, of Don Carlos and Samuel H. Smith. She was a woman who had suffered much for the work of God and the testimony of Jesus; who’ in addition to toil, sick ness, .poverty and exile had lived to see her two noblest Sons murdered, and two other sons and her husband laid away in premature graves, indirectly the victims of that relentless persecution which followed her family and the church from the beginning. These sufferings and her great age doubtless will account for that weakness of mind through which, and not through any wrong intent, I feel sure, she was led into this error of sup porting the claims of her son William. But glad as I would be to pass by this matter for the sake of Sister Lucy Smith, I cannot do so, for the reason that the Josephites quote her as supporting the claims of ‘Young Joseph," and I wish to show by her support of William that she did not do it.

The evidence that Sister Lucy Smith sustained the pretensions of William Smith to the Presidency and not those made in behalf of "Young Joseph," is found in the journal of the late President John Taylor, a member of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the time in Nauvoo:

Friday, June 27th, 1845.

This was the anniversary of the day that Brothers Joseph and Hyrum were killed and myself shot. We met together (the quorum of the Priesthood) to pray, several of the Twelve were present. When I returned [home] in the evening, Mrs. Taylor showed me a copy of a vision that Mother Lucy Smith had, stating that her son William was head of the Church; the following is a copy:

FIRST VISION.

Brothers and children, I was much troubled and felt as if I had the sins of the whole world to bear, and the burden of the Church; and I felt that there was something wrong. I called on the Lord to show me what was wrong, and if it was I. I called upon him until I slept. I then heard a voice calling on me saying, awake, awake, awake, for the only son that thou hast living, they for his life have laid a snare. My aged servant Joseph who was the first Patriarch of this Church, and my servant Hyrum who was the second Patriarch, my servant Joseph who was Prophet and Seer, and my servants Samuel, William and Don Carlos—they were the first founders, fathers and heads of this Church, raised up in these last days, and thou art the mother, and thy daughters have helped, and they are the daughters in Israel, and have helped raise up this Church. Arise, arise, arise, and take thy place, you know not what has been in the hearts of some; hut he said thou shalt know. He told me what it was; but I shall not tell. (I saw William in a room full of armed men and he having no weapons. They would have crushed him down, if it had not been for the power of God; and many of the family would have been cut off— [the] Lord having softened their hearts. Two of them had blacker hearts than the rest, and I know who they are, and I will tell them if they will come to me. Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball know it is so, and dare not deny it.) Call upon the Twelve, let all things be set in order, and keep their hearts pure from this time hence forth; the voice saith be merciful, and then Zion shall arise and flourish as a rose. What I was told I cannot tell.

Thou art the mother in Israel, and tell thy children all to walk uprightly. Thy son William, he shall have power over the churches, he is father in Israel over the patriarchs and the whole of the Church; he is the last of the lineage that is raised up in these last days. He is Patriarch to regulate the affairs of the Church. He is President over all the Church, they can’t take his apostleship away from him. 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. Thou art a mother in Israel. Thy spirit arose and said in eternity that it would take a body to be a mother to prophet [s] who should be raised up to save the last dispensation. And the spirit said unto me to be faithful, (and that I was faithful,) and tell the Church to be faithful. And the spirit said I should live until I was satisfied with life.

Brothers and children, I want you to take notice that the burden of the Church rests [on William].

SECOND VISION.

Joseph came to me and said: "That day is coming when I shall wave the scepter of power over my enemies. Be patient my brothers and sisters, the day is coming when you shall have eternal life and be rewarded for all your troubles.

THIRD VISION.

Father came to me and I said, Father, have you come? And he said "yes." I said tell me where you have been. And he said, "I have been all around here. I have come to you again to tell you one thing certain, which I have told you many times before. It is my prayer and the prayers of our sons that you live to take care of William and my daughters,

[21] and see that they have their rights and standing where they ought to have it. He turned to go away, and I said I will go with you. He said you must stay.

The following persons were present at the time this vision was related:

William Smith, Mrs. Taylor,

A. Milliken, Mrs. Millikeri,

W. I. Salisbury, Mrs. Salisbury,

David Elliott, Mrs. McLery,

Robt. Campbell, Mrs. Kelly,

Elias Smith, Mrs. Sherman.

Joseph Cain,

Bro. Stringham,

Chas. Kelly,

Bro. McLery,

On June 30th, 1845, at the request of Sister Lucy Smith, seven of the Twelve, with Bishops Miller and Whitney and Elder Cahoon, met at her house to talk over these visions in respect to William. Several members of her family were present. It was also arranged for William Smith to be present, but he failed to appear. I copy from Elder Taylor’s journal, under date of June 3oth:

The conversation was full and free. President Young stated that William was "aiming at power and authority and priesthood that did not belong to him; that he would sustain William in his office and calling, but would not allow him to tread upon his or any other man’s neck; that if the Church wanted to have William Smith, he would mention it to them, and they should have their choice. This, however, neither the Church, nor the Twelve would consent to; for if it had been put to them—I do not suppose that twenty would have voted for him, out of the many thousands there are in the Church. Mother Smith said he [William] did not want it; she did not profess to be a revelator only for herself and family, that she wanted peace, union and harmony. The Twelve all expressed the same feeling and manifested the greatest kindness to Mother Smith as did also the bishops.

[22] Though William did not meet with the Twelve, he addressed a letter to President Brigham Young which was read at the above meeting. After complaining about the article on Patriarchs, which had appeared in the Times and Seasons, he concludes thus:

"My proposition is, my share of the kingdom, and if you will publish in the Neighbor and Times and Seasons the true state of the case in regard to my office as Patriarch over the whole Church, this will give me a right to visit all branches of the Church, and intrude on no man’s rights; and further to attend to all of the ordinances of God, no man being my head, I will reconcile all difficulties, and Elder Young can stand as the President of the Church, and by my most hearty wish and consent. This will settle all difficulties and restore peace and good order, and farther than this, I cannot say, only that I want all men to understand that my father’s family are of the royal blood, and promised seed, and no man or set of men can take their crown or place in time nor eternity. Brother Young, the above is my proposition and will settle all difficulties at once, and these are my avowed sentiments and no equivocation.

WILLIAM SMITH.

To this letter the Twelve wrote an answer before leaving the house of Mother Smith. In said letter the brethren regretted not having had the pleasure of meeting William. They had had considerable talk with

"Mother Smith, and find her possessing the best of feelings towards the whole Church. As to your requests in your letter we would say: we are perfectly willing and wish to have all things right, but there are some ordinances in the Church that cannot be administered by any person out of this place at present, but must be done here. As to having the right to administer all ordinances in the world and no one standing at your head, we could not sanction, because the President of the Church, and each one of our quorum are amenable to the quorum of which you are a member. But as to your right to officiate in the office of Patriarch, we say you have the right to officiate in all the world wherever your lot may be cast, and no one to dictate or control you excepting the Twelve, which body of men must preside over the whole Church in all the world."

The following postscript was added:

"We have read this to Mother Smith, Catherine, Lucy, and Arthur, and they express their satisfaction with it, as well as those of the council who are present."

Elder Taylor thus concludes his account of this visit with ‘‘Mother Smith:’’

We prayed with Mother Smith before we left her; and she and the family manifested good feelings. I am sorry the old lady should be troubled, she is a good woman and has passed through much trouble for the cause of truth, and has the respect and confidence of the whole Church."

After his failure in Nauvoo, and in Wisconsin in connection with Mr. Strang, we next hear of William Smith in the winter and spring of 1850, visiting those who had been members of the church in Illinois and Kentucky, teaching ‘‘lineal priesthood as applied to the Presidency of the church." That is, he taught that his brother Joseph’s eldest son had a right by virtue of lineage to succeed to the Presidency of the church; but also taught in connection with this that it was his right as the only surviving brother of the former President, uncle and natural guardian of the "seed" of Joseph the prophet, to stand, in the interim, as president pro tern of the church. There seemed to be a general acquiescence with this by the members of the church remaining in the districts where he labored—most of whom were either apostates or weak in the faith—and in the spring of 1850, he called a conference to assemble in Covington, Kentucky, where he effected an organization by having himself sustained as President pro tern, of the church, and Lyman Wight and Aaron Hook as counselors pro tern to the President pro tern, and Joseph Wood as counselor and spokesman. It is claimed that many of the "saints" in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin, were identified with this movement.

A year later, viz., in the summer of 1851, Palestine, Lee ‘county, Illinois, was designated as a Stake of Zion, a gatherering [sic] place for the saints, and the home of William Smith. At the October conference held at Palestine that year, there was a confession of belief in and the practice of polygamy, which resulted in many immediately withdrawing from the organization; and, it is said, that the declaration proved the means ultimately of its complete destruction.

This was the last effort of William Smith at organizing a church; subsequently, when an organization was effected with Joseph Smith, eldest son of the prophet, as its President, he became nominally connected with that movement, but he was never prominent or influential. In the summer of 188o, the writer, then on a mission in the state of Iowa, in company with Hyrum Jensen, called at the home of William Smith, near Elkader, and found him living in poverty and obscurity.

As I think upon this man, and of how far he fell—from the office of an Apostle and Patriarch to the Church—when I

[25] think of his vain attempt to become President of the church, and, failing in that, attempting to lead away a party, then organizing a faction from the remnants of the church left in Illinois and Wisconsin, and every effort of his ending in failure—I think of the prophetic words of President Brigham Young:

III.

IT can scarcely be said that either Lyman Wight or Bishop George Miller sought to lead the church; but they were guilty of insubordination to the constituted authorities and lead away parties with them, and illustrate the truth of President Young’s prediction about the failure of such persons, hence we consider their course.

Lyman Wight was a strong, bold man; fixed in his friend ship for the prophet Joseph, and true to him under many trying circumstances; but withal rather difficult to control, and after the death of Joseph soon manifested a disposition of insubordination to authority. As far back as February, 1844, he had expressed a desire to go to Texas, and after the death of the prophet seemed determined that the church should be removed there. For some time a number of persons had worked under his and Bishop George Miller’s direction in the pineries of Wisconsin, getting out lumber for the Temple. In the latter part of August, President Young desired him to return to the pineries and continue his labors; but he refused and expressed a determination to carry out his own views, and be the controller of his own conduct regardless of the counsel of the presiding quorum. He therefore went to Texas instead of to Wisconsin, taking a small company of saints with him and settling in Texas, not far from the present site of Austin.

For his insubordination Lyman Wight was excommunicated from the church, the action being taken in Salt Lake City, 1848, The company of saints that followed him were soon scattered as sheep that have wandered from the fold and the care of the shepherd; but some few of them finally found their way back into the church. Lyman Wight lived in obscurity in Texas, unknown by the world, unhonored, without a following, and died outside the church of Christ, with which he had suffered so much during the persecutions it passed through in Missouri.

Bishop George Miller was closely associated with Lyman Wight in his rebellion against the authority of President Young. As already stated they had been associated in directing the labors of the brethren working in the pineries, and on returning to Nauvoo both had manifested a spirit of insubordination to authority. Bishop Miller, however, did not immediately follow Lyman Wight to Texas, but remained with the church some two years longer, and was among the first to cross the Mississippi in the great exodus from Nauvoo. During the subsequent journey through what was then the wilderness of Iowa, he manifested a disposition to draw off with his company from the main camp; and when the great body of the exiled saints went into Winter Quarters, near Council Bluffs, Bishop Miller and his company were more than a hundred and fifty miles north at the junction of the Running Water and the Missouri River, where they remained during the winter of 1846-47.

In the spring of 1847, when the saints were making ready for their journey to the west, Bishop Miller urged the advisability of changing their destination, and going to Texas, where Lyman Wight had already settled. The bishop’s views being rejected, he withdrew from the camp, followed by a few over whom he had influence, and with them he joined Lyman Wight in Texas. The union, however, was of short duration. The spirit which led them to rebel against President Young would not permit them to live in peace together. They soon quarrelled [sic] and separated, Miller making his way to Wisconsin where he joined James J. Strang. He was excommunicated from the church for his rebellion at the same time as Lyman Wight, in Salt Lake City, 1848. Of the circumstances under which he died we have not learned, instead of living among the saints, honored as God’s servants, supported by the faith, prayer, love and confidence of the church of Christ, they lived and finally died in wretched obscurity—unwept, unhonored and unsung, their lives and their ending only important as illustrating the truth of the prophetic words of him who said:

IV.

BUT little is heard of James J. Strang in the church until after the death of the prophet Joseph; but that he was a man of considerable intellectual ability there can be no question. Mr. Strang claimed that about ten days before his death the prophet Joseph gave to him a letter containing a revelation appointing him [James J. Strang] to be his successor as President and Prophet of the church. The letter also appointed Mr. Strang’s counselor, and commanded the Twelve Apostles to proclaim Voree, Wisconsin, as the gathering place of the saints. Mr. Strang attempted to strengthen his claim to the position of President and Prophet of the church by reference to the revelation which says:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my Church, through him whom I have appointed to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. And this ye shall know assuredly that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations, until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken from him, he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

Mr. Strang claimed that the appointment he received through the letter here presented as coming from the prophet Joseph, fulfilled the terms of the revelation above quoted; for he had been appointed through the prophet Joseph.

When he presented this "letter" and "revelation" to some of the saints in Michigan, viz., to those living in the

[31] town of Florence, St. Joseph County, they asked him if the Twelve that were commanded in his "revelation" to proclaim Voree, Wisconsin, as the gathering place for the saints, were the Twelve Apostles at Nauvoo. He replied they were. Did they know anything of this "revelation?" They did not. Had he been ordained a prophet? He replied no. The saints were suspicious of his claims, and would not receive him.

This question as to his ordination presented a serious difficulty to Mr. Strang, a difficulty which he tried to surmount by announcing soon afterwards that immediately after the martyrdom of the prophet Joseph, an angel appeared to him and ordained him to be a prophet to the church, and the successor to Joseph as the President thereof.

He presented himself in Nauvoo and succeeded in drawing to his support a number of restless men—men who had been neglectful of their duties in the church of Christ, and of a disposition to follow any person who promised them change and excitement. Not many followed him from Nauvoo, however, for there his influence amounted to little; but in the scattered branches, especially in those in Wisconsin, he succeeded in deceiving many. Among those who accepted and sustained his claims were William Smith, the only surviving brother of the prophet Joseph; the notorious John C. Bennett, who had been excommunicated from the church for his crimes, and afterward plotted with the enemies of Joseph to bring to pass his destruction; and also John E. Page, one of the Twelve, who for several years previous to Joseph’s death had been in bad repute with the church. John C. Bennett had first supported Sidney Rigdon, claiming to have received a sealed document from the prophet Joseph—when as yet he was in full fellowship with the church—with a strict charge not to open

[32] it until after the prophet’s death. When he opened it, lo! it contained what purported to, be a revelation from the deceased prophet appointing Sidney Rigdon to be his successor. John C. Bennett averred that this was as it should be, and so eagerly was this purported revelation accepted by the supporters of Mr. Rigdon, that they had it published and widely circulated among the branches of the church. But when Mr. Strang came forward with his claims, John C. Bennett turned from Sidney Rigdon and supported Mr. Strang—having forgot, apparently, the "revelation" contained in the sealed document which appointed Mr. Rigdon President of the church!

John E. Page, in support of the Strang movement, intercepted a company of saints in Michigan, en route from Canada to Nauvoo. He represented that it was the will of the Lord that they should settle in Voree, Wisconsin, Mr. Strang’ s gathering place, and not go to Nauvoo. This company, however, were prudent enough not to receive his representations without investigation. They sent messengers to Nauvoo who received such instructions from the Twelve as preserved them from the deceitfulness of this apostate Apostle. John E. Page continued to support the claims of James J. Strang, and for doing so was excommunicated from the church, and swelled the number of those who have made shipwreck of faith through opposing legitimate authority.

Mr. Strang in a short time changed his gathering place from Voree, Wisconsin, to Beaver Island, in the north end of Lake Michigan. He organized a township on Beaver Island, went to the state legislature and succeeded in having the whole group of islands in north Lake Michigan organized into a county, under the name of Manitou County, which for some years Mr. Strang represented in the Michigan state legislature.

Mr. Strang was not satisfied with being Prophet and President

[33] of the church, he must also be a king; and accordingly was crowned and given a scepter—"The attribute to awe and majesty, wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings!"

He was crowned by George J. Adams, also an apostate from the church. At one time Mr. Adams had been appointed to go on a mission to the empire of Russia, to preach the gospel; but before he started he was found to be in transgression. His appointment was, of course, cancelled; and subsequently, as he still further transgressed, he was excommunicated’ from the chruch, [sic] after which he joined Mr. Strang at Beaver Island.

It may be well to observe, in passing, that all these aspirants for place and power manifested an insatiable desire for the honors and titles of men, a thing which shows them to be as vain as they were ambitious, and distinguishes them from true leaders (especially those whom God calls), who so loose [sic] themselves in their work, that self is unthought of, much less the empty honors and titles of men. Mr. Strang was not only a "king" in name, but also one in disposition if those who represent his conduct speak truly. Arbitrary and cruel in his methods of government, he finally provoked much dissatisfaction among his followers, and not a few dissensions. [sic]

The people whom he gathered together on Beaver Island soon fell into disrepute with their neighbors. They are represented as claiming that the earth was the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; that they were the Lord’s saints and heirs to that which was the Lord’s, and hence did not hesitate to purloin their neighbor’s goods. In other words, they were accused by their neighbors with being an organized community of thieves, who thrived by plundering more honest people. It is not our prerogative to pronounce upon the truth or falsity of these charges. It is enough to say that Mr. Strang and his followers were held in great abhorrence by the other inhabitants of the Manitou group of islands and the

[34] people on the neighboring main-land; and in the summer of 1856, there was a general uprising of the people in those parts which resulted in the killing of Mr. Strang—some accounts say, by two men of his own party, and the breaking up of his organization.

Once more we stand face to face with the prophetic words of President Young:

[35]

V.

WE now come to the last organization that was brought into existence through the agency of men once associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the so-called "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," commonly called the "Josephite Church." This organization is still in existence, and has for its President, Joseph Smith, the eldest son of the prophet Joseph. It is my purpose first to give an account of how this organization came into existence, and then consider the claims of Mr. Joseph Smith to be of right the President of the church founded, under God, by his father.

Jason W. Briggs, one of the founders and leaders in the Josephite movement, informs us that in the spring of 1850, William Smith, whose acquaintance the reader has already formed, called a conference at Covington, Kentucky:

From which time he visited many of the branches and scattered saints, teaching "lineal Priesthood" as applying to the Presidency of the Church. . . . This principle, though pretty clearly shown in the books, had been almost entirely overlooked or forgotten by the saints; but when their attention was thus called to it, many at once received it as the solution of the question of Presidency."

William Smith as the reader is already informed, claimed the right ‘as natural guardian of the "seed" of Joseph the prophet, to stand as President pro tem of the church until the

[36] "seed" should come forward to take his place; and procedeed [sic] to organize a church with that understanding. This organization as already stated held a conference, in October, 1851, at which was proclaimed a belief in and practice of polygamy. Among those who attended this conference of William Smith’s church was Jason W. Briggs, who, after returning to his home in Wisconsin, was much perplexed over the condition of the church. While pondering in his heart the situation, on the 18th of November, 1858, on the prairie some three miles from the town of Beloit, Wisconsin, he claims to have received a revelation from God. In that "revelation" the Lord is represented as declaring it to be the duty of those elders who had been ordained by the prophet Joseph, or by the hand of those ordained by him, to preach the gospel—

As revealed in the record of the Jews, and the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; and cry repentance and remission of sins through obedience to the gospel, and I will sustain them and give them my spirit; and in my own due time will I call upon the seed of Joseph Smith, and I will bring one forth, and he shall be mighty and strong, and he shall preside over the High Priesthood of my Church; and then shall the quorums assemble, and the pure in heart shall gather, and Zion shall be re-inhabited, as I said unto my servant Joseph Smith; after many days shall all these things be accomplished, saith the spirit.

This "revelation" Mr. Briggs was commanded to send to the churches at Palestine, Voree, Waukesha and other places. While the messengers of Mr. Briggs are carrying his "revelation" to the scattered churches in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan, it is necessary to relate some incidents said to have occurred in another part of Wisconsin, in what is called the

[37] "Yellow Stone Branch." This "branch" belonged to that organization founded by James J. Strang, and was presided over by Zenas H. Gurley, frequently called "Father Gurley." During the year 1850, according to Mr. Gurley’s own statement, several strange things came to his knowledge which satisfied him that

"Neither .J. J. Strang, Brigham Young, William Smith, nor any that had claimed to be prophets, since Joseph’s death, were the servants of God."

The doubts born in 1850, grew stronger in Mr. Gurley’s mind in 1851; and one Sunday evening, in the fall of that year, while reflecting upon the prophecies of Isaiah, respecting the great latter-day work—especially of that prophecy which speaks of the house of the Lord in the last days being established in the top of the mountains, and all nations flowing unto it—he thought then of Strang’s Beaver Island operation, and felt ashamed that he had ever thought that this would bring to pass the work predicted by the Hebrew prophet. He claims then to have heard the voice of the spirit say to him:

Rise up, cast off all that claim to be prophets, and go forth and preach the gospel and say that God will raise up a prophet to complete his work.

A few weeks afterwards this commandment and prophecy was repeated, and he began looking about for a starting point. Meantime one David Powell arrived at Yellow Stone with Mr. Briggs’s "revelation," which predicted the coming forth of one from the seed of Joseph the prophet, to lead the church. Mr.

[38] Gurley, however, could not wholly accept the "revelation" of Mr. Briggs. It had been "revealed" to him that God would raise up a prophet, but who it would be had not been made known to him. About ten or fifteen days after the arrival of Mr. Briggs’s messenger, word was brought to Mr. Gurley that his little daughter was "singing and speaking in tongues" at a neighbor’s house. Mr. Gurley hurried to the house and after listening to the child a short time, he requested all present to join with him in asking the Lord to tell them who the successor of Joseph was. They spent a few moments in prayer when the Holy Spirit declared:

The successor of Joseph Smith is Joseph Smith, the son of Joseph Smith the prophet. It is his right by lineage, saith the Lord your God.

Shortly after this manifestation of the gift of tongues and the proclamation of the above reputed revelation, the "Yellow Stone branch" was convened and James J. Strang formally renounced as a prophet, seer and revelator to the church, and the allegiance of the branch pledged to the "seed" of Joseph Smith the prophet. The above "revelation" made it possible for Mr. Gurley to unite with Mr. Briggs, and word was accordingly sent to the latter, that evidence of the truth of his "revelation" had been received, and proposed the holding of a conference in June, 1852. After some correspondence it was finally settled that the conference be held in the town of Beloit, Wisconsin.

This conference by resolution first disclaimed all connection and fellowship with those men who had presumed to lead the church, charging them with having assumed powers contrary to the law of God. Secondly the conference

Resolved, That the successor of Joseph Smith, junior, as

[39] the presiding High Priest in the Melchisedek Priesthood, must of necessity be of the seed of Joseph Smith, junior, in fulfillment of the law and promises of God.

The other resolutions of importance adopted by the conference declared that the office of President of the church grew out of the authority of the presiding high priest in the high priesthood; that they recognize the validity of all legal ordinations in the church; that the whole law of the church is contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants; that there was no stake of Zion to which the saints are commanded at present to gather; and that it was the duty of the elders to cry repentance and remission of sins to this generation. A committee was appointed to write a pamphlet based on these resolutions entitled "A Word of Consolation to the Scattered Saints."

It was about this time, viz, during the summer of 1852, that the "stake of Zion" in Lee county, Illinois, founded by William Smith’s church, went to pieces and a number of the members thereof joined this Josephite movement set on foot by Messrs. Briggs and Gurley.

The next conference of the Josephite church was held in October, 1852, at the Yellow Stone branch. and then more especially was considered the question of authority to preside in the church that was forming, pending the coming forth of "young Joseph" to be its president. The pamphlet which the June conference had ordered written, announced that the "highest authority presides always," and the deliberations of the conference resulted in the following:

Resolved, That in the opinion of this conference, the one holding the highest priesthood in the church is to preside, and represent the rightfull [sic] heir to the presidency of the high priesthood in a presiding capacity.

[40] These men, however, found great difficulty in determining who held the highest authority as many unwarrantable ordinations had taken place in the various factions.

After earnest discussion it was determined that all ordinations not within the limits of the law should be ignored, and all within the limit recognized. This excluded all above an high priest, who being the highest recognized, was sustained as the presiding authority.

I have been unable to learn, however, that any one of the high priests was selected to preside over the Josephite church at this juncture, and one is left to infer that the whole body of so-called high priests were to preside. During the winter of 1853, the "spirit" intimated to Mr. Gurley, that they must "organize;" but this they knew not how to do, further than they had done. They were even unable to decide on the validity of the ordinations of the men who had attended the October conference.

In the month of March, 1853, the subject of organization being still agitated, the question was put to the Lord: "Were those ordained apostles by William Smith recognized by God?" The answer was that those ordinations were not acceptable—were not of God. Near the close of this revelation the men engaged in this movement were commanded to organize themselves:

"For ere long,’ saith the Lord, ‘I will require the prophet at your hand.’"

But how to organize they did not know. They claim to have had two high priests and one senior president of the seventies among them. "But how could these men organize the church?" asks Mr. Gurley:

It was impossible, utterly impossible. We counseled upon it, and concluded that possibly, under the present circumstances, it might be right for high priests, and for the senior President of seventies to ordain seventies; but when done what would it accomplish? Nothing, just nothing. We were in trouble—deep trouble! To refuse to organize was disobedience; to go forward in the attempt was darkness. There was but one alternative, and that was to seek wisdom from above.

The result of inquiring of the Lord, according to the statement of Mr. Gurley, was that a commandment was given appointing a day of fasting and prayer, and the Lord promised to show them how to organize. When the meeting assembled the following question was put to the Lord:

Will the Lord please to tell us how to organize And who among us will he acknowledge as the representative of the legal heir to the Presidency of the Church.

To this inquiry it is claimed that an answer was obtained through a "revelation" to one H. H. Deam, a high priest, which reads as follows:

Verily thus saith the Lord, as I said unto my servant Moses,—see thou do all things according to the pattern,—so I say unto you. Behold the pattern is before you. It is my will that you respect authority in my Church; therefore let the greatest among you preside at your conference. Let three men be appointed by the conference to select seven men from among you, who shall compose the majority of the Twelve, for it is my will that that quorum should not be filled up at present. Let the President of the conference, assisted by two ‘others, ordain them. The senior of them shall stand as the

[42] representative. Let them select twelve men from among you, and ordain them to compose the high council. Behold ye understand the order of the bishopric, the seventies, the elders, the priests, the teachers, and deacons. Therefore organize according to the pattern; behold I will be with you unto the end.

This alleged revelation was given on the 20th of March, 1853, and at the April conference following an organization was effected on the above indicated plan. After a long discussion, about whose priesthood was the highest—in the course of which a great deal of ill-feeling was manifested—finally the controversy ended in favor of Mr. Briggs, and he was called to preside at the conference. Ethan Griffith, William Cline and Cyrus Newkirk were appointed the committee to select the seven "apostles" to form the majority of the quorum of the Twelve. The men selected were Zenas H. [Father] Gurley, Henry H. Deam, Jason W. Briggs,’ Daniel B. Razy, John Cunningham, George White and Reuben Newkirk. It was voted that a "stake of Zion" be organized in the town of Argyle, Lafayette Co., Wisconsin, of which William Cline, Cyrus Newkirk and Isaac Butterfield were chosen and ordained the presidency. A number of "seventies" were also ordained. At the close of the conference a "revelation" was received informing the conference that what had been done was recorded in heaven, and to the seven "apostles" it was said:

I give unto you the care of my flock on earth; take the oversight of them, as you shall give an account unto me in the day of judgment.

The period between the time of this organization effected in April, 1853, and the time when Joseph Smith, son of the prophet became its president, April, i86o, is called by the Josephite historian Tullidge, "an apostolic interval." During

[43] that interval the Josephite church seemed not to make much progress. Joseph Smith was several times solicited to take the Presidency of it, but he seemed not at all anxious for the place.

In 1856, the "reorganized church" sent to the predicted head of it, the word of the Lord, urging him to come and take his place.’ The document was signed by J. W. Briggs, "representative president of the church and the priesthood in Zarahemla." Messrs. Briggs and Gurley were appointed a committee to present this message to Mr. Smith, which they did at his home near Nauvoo. According to Mr. Smith’s own account of this visit, these messengers did not meet with a very cordial reception; and when Mr. Briggs vehemently urged the matter upon him, and "announced the culmination of the message in tones of thunder, and almost dictatorially" urged him to accept the message and do as directed therein, or reject it at his peril, he says he met this "vehemence indignantly, and almost turned these messengers out of doors."

The effort on the part of Messrs. Briggs and Gurley to induce Mr. Smith to become their president ended on this occasion in disappointment, though before leaving Nauvoo the whole situation was talked over in the presence of Mrs. Emma Smith, mother of Joseph.

It is to be remarked as passing strange that neither on this occasion, nor on any other that Josephite history speaks of, was it urged upon Joseph Smith that he had already been formally anointed by his father to be the President of the church.

Early in February, 1860, a call was issued, signed by Z. H. Gurley and Reuben Newkirk, calling for a general conference to assemble at Amboy, Illinois, the following April. All the branches of the church in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan were urged to send representatives, as it was desirable to

[44] choose a high council and organize and set in order all the quorums under the First Presidency; and an intimation was made that much more than was anticipated might be realized—was it an intimation that Joseph Smith would come and accept the Presidency of their church?

Meantime Joseph Smith who, according to his own autobiography, had failed as storekeeper, railroad contractor, in the study of law, in farming, and while keeping soul and body together by labor and from his fees as justice of the peace, was confronted with the question of his connection with his "father’s work;" and in the winter of 1859, resolved to put himself in communication with the "reorganized church. "

He accordingly wrote to Mr. William Marks, informing him that he was "soon going to take his father’s place at the head of the Mormon church," and requested him and others that he considered nearest him, to come to Nauvoo and confer with him. Mr. Smith states as his reason for sending for

[45] Mr. Marks that he was president of the stake of Zion at Nauvoo at the death of Joseph, the prophet; that he had retained his faith in Mormonism as taught by Joseph and Hyrum; and hence his council would be valuable. Mr. Smith also announced his intention to his mother and step-father; the former approved his course, the latter took a speculative view of it and built fond schemes for obtaining wealth through the position to be taken by his step-son.

Soon after this, Mr. Marks, one Israel L. Rogers and William’ W. Blair, all interested in the ‘‘Reorganized church" movement, visited Mr. Smith at his mother’s home in Nauvoo, and held an interview with them. It was finally decided that Mr. Smith and his mother should attend the ensuing April conference, called to assemble at Amboy, Lee county, Illinois, and the matter was to be laid before the church and a decision arrived at:

"For, said Elder Marks; we have had enough of man—made prophets, and we don’t want any more of that sort. If God has called you, we want to know it. If he has, the Church is ready to sustain you; if not, we want nothing to do with you."

Messrs. Marks, Rogers and Blair, in 1860, seem not to have been so urgent as Messrs. Briggs and Gurley had been in 1856; the latter had commanded him to take the Presidency of the church, or refuse to do so at his peril; the former merely agreed to see about it, by presenting the matter to the church. Indeed for men who professed to have evidence that Mr. Smith had been called, blessed and anointed by Joseph the prophet to be the President of the church, and to possess the right to that position by virtue of lineage, the reply of Mr. Marks to Mr. Smith’s proposition to take the Presidency of the Reorganized church seems unaccountably cold, and too

[46] much burdened with doubt and independence when addressing the only man who, on the theory of the "Reorganized church," could possibly succeed to the Presidency. Mr. Smith affects to have been made indignant at the urgency of Messrs. Briggs and Gurley, in 1856; the coldness and independence of Messrs. Marks, Rogers and Blair must have been a still greater source of annoyance.

Mr. Smith Went to the conference at Amboy, and in the afternoon of the 6th of April, i86o, made a speech, at the conclusion of which it was moved that he be received as a prophet, —the successor of his father. The motion was carried by a unanimous vote, after which Mr. Gurley who, assisted by Mr. William Marks, presided at the conference, arose and said:

Brother Joseph, I present this Church to you in the name of Jesus Christ!

And of course Mr. Smith accepted it.

The speech made by Mr. Smith at the above mentioned conference is remarkable only for its tameness; but I quote a few sentences that may be of special interest; first as showing that he claimed to be called to his position by a power not his own:— I came not here of myself but by the influence of the spirit. For some time past I have received manifestations pointing to the position I am about to assume. I wish to say that I have come here not to be dictated by any men or set of men. I have come in obedience to a power not my own, and shall be dictated by the power which sent me.

… Some, who ought to know the proprieties of the church, have told me that no certain form was necessary in order for me to assume the leadership, that the position came by right of lineage, yet I know that if I attempted to lead as a prophet by these considerations, and not by a call from heaven, men would not be lead to believe who do not believe now. And so I have come not of my own dictation to this sacred office.

[47]

As to revelations he said:

I have my peculiar notions in regard to revelations, but am happy to say that they accord with those I am to associate with, at least with those of them with whom I have conversed. I am not very conversant with those books (pointing to a volume before him), not so conversant as I should be and will be.

That his "notions in regard to revelations" were indeed "peculiar," one only has to read the following to be convinced:

I pledge myself to promulgate no doctrine that shall not be approved by you, or the code of good morals.

How different this from the reply of one of the ancient prophets, when some sought to have him give out no prophecy or revelation but what should be approved by them:

And Micaiah said, as the Lord liveth what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak!

How different, too, from the spirit of Brigham Young who shortly after being chosen President of the church wrote:

As the Lord’s will is my will all the time—as He dictates so will I perform. If He don’t guide the ship, we’ll go down in the whirlpool.

What a contrast also between his "I-pledge-myselfto-promulgate-no-doctrine-that-shall-not-be-approved-by-you" position of the son of the great prophet, and the position in which the Almighty God of heaven placed his father. The prophet Joseph’s position may be learned from the following revelation given the very day the church was organized:

[48]

Behold there shall be a record kept among you, and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, through the will of God the Father and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ.

…Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receive/h them, walking in all holiness before me. For his words ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith; for by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good and his name’s glory.

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so is this position given to the prophet Joseph by the Lord higher than that assumed by his son, who claims to be his successor, and yet stands pledged to promulgate no doctrine that shall not be approved by his associates! What manner of prophet is this?

Following Mr. Smith’s acceptance of the church at the hands of Mr. Gurley, he was ordained to the office of President of the high priesthood and President of the church by William Marks, Zenas H. Gurley, Samuel Powers and W. W. Blair. Mr. Marks was president of the Nauvoo stake of Zion at the death of the prophet, and the other three gentlemen were "apostles" in the Reorganized church.

We have now followed the history of the "Reorganized church" as far as it is necessary. It only remains to remark that it is a stream formed by the confluence of two other streams; one of which, represented by Mr. Gurley and his following, flows from Strangism; and the other, represented by

Mr. Briggs and his following, flows from the church organized by William Smith. We leave it for Josephites to inform us on what principle of philosophy two corrupt, apostate streams by uniting, make a pure one!

[49]

VI.

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, (i) 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.

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.

[50]

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 alter we came out of jail, [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.

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 8844; 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,

[51] 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:--

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 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.

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

[52] 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 15^th of the same month. 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:

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.

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

[53] 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.

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

[54] 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

[55] 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.

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.

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

[56] 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.

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.

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

[57]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.

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 ii 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

[58] 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 i86o, 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.

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," and since the "elect" cannot be deceived, her endorsement of her son, and her rejection of all others, is taken as

Conclusive testimony that young Joseph is his father’s successor!

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

[59] 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.

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.

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

[60] 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.

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.

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.

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

From hints and innuendoes that I heard frequently, I was induced to believe that Joseph had designated his son to succeed

[61] 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 innuendo, "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.

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.

LAMONI, Iowa, May 26, 1892.

[62] 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.

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.

[63] 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.

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 innuendoes;" 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

[64] 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.

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 Hyrurn to live to avenge my blood, but he is determined not to leave me.

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.

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

[67] 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 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.

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.

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. This is the way the passage is used by the writer of the Josephite tract called The Successor.

[68]Another writer, or perhaps the same one in another place, thus quotes it in support of "young Joseph’s" claims:

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].

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, 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.

Of the second office in the church which descends from ‘fathe