BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 <> 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
n 
 
 gy$: 
 
 
 7^ XJ 
 
 V xrT7"~v v t j 
 
 ^ r 
 
 
 
TRUE SUCCESSION 
 
 IN 
 
 CHURCH PRESIDENCY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST 
 OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. 
 
 BEING A REPLY TO ELDER B. H. ROBERTS ON 
 "SUCCESSION IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH/ 
 
 ELDER HEMAN -C. SMITH, 
 // 
 
 Church Historian. 
 
 "While I have powers of body and mind; while water runs and grass grows; 
 while virtue is lovely, and vice hateful; and while a stone points out a sacred 
 spot where a fragment ef American liberty once was; I or my posterity will 
 plead the cause of injured innocence, . . ." Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, 
 vol. 5, p, 395. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 LAMONI, IOWA: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
 
 REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST 
 
 OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. 
 
 1908. ' 
 
0%* 
 
 Copyrighted by the BOARD OF PUBLICATION of the Reor- 
 ganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Publishers 
 and Proprietors, in the year 1898, in the office of the Librarian 
 of Congress at Washington, D. C. 
 
 HERALD PUBLISHING HOTJ8K, 
 LAMONI, IOWA. 
 
BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 THE only apology needed for the appearance of this work 
 is, that we have been attacked, and it is both a privilege 
 and a duty to respond. Some have thought the church 
 was too slow and should have replied long ago. But had 
 we rushed into print when the work of Mr. Roberts first 
 appeared, we would have done so unadvisedly. We did not 
 know whether he was authorized to write or not; nor did 
 we know whether the church he represented would indorse 
 his positions; hence no one was appointed to reply; thougfi 
 it was not lost sight of, and several of the elders upon 
 their own responsibility were carefully collecting material 
 for use in such reply. Now that the representatives of the 
 church in Utah, both in Europe and America, have made 
 it their chief weapon of attack and defense, we think the 
 opportune time has come, for they are thus pledged to its 
 support. Further, we have the direct testimony of Mr. 
 Roberts that the First Presidency in Utah indorsed his 
 work. The book was copyrighted in February, 1894. 
 
 In the latter part of the year 1895 Mr. Roberts, together 
 with Moses Thatcher, fell under the displeasure of church 
 authorities for his political actions; while under the ban of 
 disapproval he was interviewed, and the interview pub- 
 lished in the Salt Lake Tribune for October 14, 1895. The 
 following is an extract from the interview: 
 
 STATEMENT BY EGBERTS. 
 CLAIMS THAT HE CONFRONTS A GRAVE CRISIS. 
 
 The following authorized statement by B. H. Roberts, In the 
 form of an interview, was given out at the Democratic State 
 headquarters last evening. 
 
 Being asked for his views upon the present political situation, 
 Mr. Roberts said: 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 'I have always regarded myself as properly respectful and 
 attentive to church authority. In my labors in the church, 
 whether in missionary or literary affairs. I have always con- 
 sulted with the presidency when communication was possible; 
 and their wishes have been respectfully followed. All the 
 manuscripts of tracts and books of which I am the author, that 
 have been written in advocacy or defense of the Mormon faith 
 have been invariably submitted to their personal inspection or 
 to the inspection of committees appointed by them." 
 
 This, then, fixes the responsibility of an indorsement 
 upon the Presidency; and in meeting the issues discussed 
 by Mr. Roberts in "Succession in the Presidency of the 
 Church," we are not simply meeting Mr. Roberts alone, 
 but we are meeting the authorized positions of the church 
 rn Utah upon the issues involved. 
 
 In addition to this Mr. Roberts is one of the seven Presi- 
 dents of Seventy, a leading minister, a popular lecturer, 
 and an author of no mean repute among his fellows, being 
 the author of the "Life of John Taylor," "Outlines of 
 Ecclesiastical History," "The Gospel," and other publi- 
 cations. , 
 
 Having then located our contestants and estimated the 
 strength of their position, we advance to the examination 
 confident of the final triumph of the right wherever found; 
 and send forth this little book with a humble prayer that 
 the erring may learn wisdom and the darkened mind 
 receive light. We wish here to gratefully acknowledge 
 the assistance rendered us by valuable suggestions given 
 us by several. 
 
 With much confidence we submit the issues involved to 
 the careful investigation of an indulgent, but discerning 
 
 public. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Basic Prediction Rigdon Slandered Exonerated A 
 Fraud Meeting of August 8 Woodruff Against the 
 Record Resolution of August 8 5 
 
 CHAPTER 2. 
 
 William Smith Slandered by Roberts Suspended From 
 Office Restored Sustained Ordained a Patriarch 
 Highly Commended Roberts Errs Concerning Him 
 Preaches Lineal Priesthood Brighamites Expel Him 
 Lucy Smith et al. Considered 15 
 
 CHAPTER 3. 
 
 Wight and Miller Wight's Character Roberts' Blunder- 
 Wight Goes to Wisconsin His Record His Followers 
 Galveston News' Tribute Miller His Reason for Leav- 
 ing Former Associations Hewett's Letter 21 
 
 CHAPTER 4. 
 
 Strang Challenges Taylor and Hyde Their Reply Rob- 
 erts' Unmanly Attack 26 
 
 CHAPTER 5. 
 
 History of Reorganization Briggs' Priesthood Twelve at 
 Nauvoo Roberts' Sarcasm Piercy on Smith Family 
 President Smith's Pledge Roberts' Philosophy 28 
 
 CHAPTER 6. 
 
 Wight's Testimony Goes to Wisconsin Roberts' Theory 
 False- Smith and Wight Teach Lineal Priesthood 
 Strangite Resolution "Young Joseph's" Blessings His 
 Statement Revelation of 1841 Joseph's Blessing 
 Whitehead's Testimony Testimony of Emma Smith G. 
 J. Adams on Lineage Carter's Testimony Witnesses 
 Not Impeached Bishop Miller Hyrum Smith's Ordina- 
 tionLaw of Lineage Joseph Smith on Descent Cal- 
 houn Letter Call by Revelation Reorganization 
 Approved Richards' Correspondence Ordination of 
 President Smith Rights of Appointment 86 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER 7. 
 
 Roberts' Discrepancies Twelve Second In Authority- 
 Temple not Completed Church Rejected Pratt's Reve- 
 lation 67 
 
 CHAPTER 8. 
 
 Keys of Authority Keys and Oracles Pratt's Revelation 
 Oracles to the Twelve William Marks Roberts' Climax. 76 
 
 CHAPTER 9. 
 
 The Twelve Necessity for a Reorganization Church Held 
 Together Building of Nauvoo, etc. Driven to Rocky 
 Mountains Joseph's Prophecy Pratt's Statement 
 Isaiah's Prophecy The Exodus Seventies Baptism 
 For the Dead Temple Building Persecution 85 
 
 CHAPTER 10. 
 
 Penrose Leading Spirits Woodruff's Testimony Disci- 
 pline Spencer Interview 101 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Brigham Young His Career Whereabouts of Authori- 
 ties Authorities not in Harmony Twelve Sustained 
 Seasonable Notice Promised Growth of Presiding Idea 
 Rebaptism Reordination Reorganization Promise of 
 Seasonable Notice Violated Changes Made Written 
 Word Discarded Adam-God Vulgar Teaching Con- 
 cerning Debts Expert Scoundrels Blood Atonement 
 Polygamy 114 
 
 CHAPTER 12. 
 
 Points Established Relevant Question Acknowledged 
 People of God Authority to Choose and Ordain Teach- 
 ing of Joseph Smith's Successor Conclusion 132 
 
 CHAPTER 13. 
 
 Correspondence Letters of Long of Deseret News of 0. 
 W. Penrose of Clark of Richards Position of Rich- 
 ards and Penrose of Reorganization Presidency 
 Apostleship Presidency of High Priesthood Josephite 
 Contention Sustained Penrose Dilemma Conclusion. .. 149 
 
Ynle Secession in Glitch Presidency, 
 
 CHAPTEE 1. 
 
 
 
 BASIC PREDICTION RIGDON SLANDERED EXONERATED A 
 FRAUD MEETING OF AUGUST 8. WOODRUFF AGAINST THE 
 RECORD RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 8 RIGDON ACQUIESCES. 
 
 ME. ROBERTS introduces his treatise by quoting what 
 purports to be language of Brigham Young used on 
 August 8, 1844, as follows: 
 
 Att that want to draw away a party from the Church after them, 
 let them do it if they can, but they will not prosper. 
 
 He assumes that this language is prophetic, then pro- 
 ceeds to show its fulfillment by citing the failure of the 
 movements under Rigdon, William Smith, J. J. Strang, 
 and others. In each of these cases he repeats this pur- 
 ported prediction as a climax to his argument. As Mr. 
 Roberts has given this purported statement so much 
 prominence, we will give it a brief consideration. 
 
 First, there is nothing peculiarly significant in the 
 statement. It is but a sentiment which any person who 
 had accepted the latter-day work would feel safe in 
 expressing, and one which was generally held and 
 doubtless frequently expressed at the time, and one which 
 would have received the unqualified indorsement of Rigdon, 
 Strang, and every other claimant to the Presidency of the 
 church; a sentiment too which we most heartily agree to, 
 for we most assuredly believe that no man or men will 
 prosper in leading away a party from the church. But the 
 questions were then and are now, Where was or is the 
 church?. Who represented or represents it? Instead of 
 meeting these questions squarely and fairly, Mr. Roberts 
 assumes the very point at issue by supposing that the 
 
6 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 party led by Brigham Young and his colleagues was and is 
 the accepted church. This is illogical, and contrary to all 
 rules of evidence, subjecting its author to an unenviable 
 position as a controversialist. 
 
 In the second place, if we concede that the* statement 
 referred to was a prophetic one, the evidence of its cor- 
 rectness is not complete so long as there are two flourish- 
 ing organizations contending for recognition; and Mr. 
 Roberts admits that he cannot point to a fulfillment of his 
 pet prediction as applied to the Reorganization. He 
 says: 
 
 Now that we draw to the close of our consideration of the 
 claims of this "Reorganized church," we cannot point to its 
 destruction as we have done in the case of Sidney Rigdon's 
 church, William Smith's church, and James J. Strang's 
 church; for the Reorganized church still exists. But its doom 
 is written as distinctly as that of the other false churches that 
 we have seen crumble to pieces into shapeless heaps of ruin. It 
 is only a question of time with regard to its failure. MENE, 
 MENE, TEKEL, is written upon its walls God hath numbered 
 thy kingdom weighed in the balances found wanting! Suc- 
 cession, by Roberts, page 99. 
 
 Mr. Roberts forms his conclusion in advance of the evi- 
 dence to support it, and then utters a prediction of his 
 own upon the fulfillment of which depends the correctness 
 of his basic prediction, a very unfortunate and unsafe 
 thing to do. Were we, like he, to beg the question by 
 assuming, in advance of the evidence, that the Reorganiza- 
 tion is accepted of God, we could cite in confirmation the 
 failure of Rigdon, Smith, and Strang, with as much con- 
 sistency as does he. We could also bolster up our conclu- 
 sion by predicting the downfall of the church in Utah with 
 just as much flourish and with at least as much prospect 
 of success. We hope, however, that if driven to such 
 straits we will have the honesty to withdraw from the 
 controversy. 
 
 If this purported statement of Brigham Young's is a 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 7 
 
 true prediction, who can now tell whether it will be ful- 
 filled in the destruction and dismemberment of the organi- 
 zation of the church in Utah or that of the Reorganization? 
 
 In the third place, the evidence that Brigham Young 
 made this statement at the time and place claimed, is not 
 very clear. Mr. Roberts quotes it from the Millennial 
 Star, volume 25, page 216, a publication issued about 1863, 
 nearly twenty years after the event. The account of the 
 meeting published soon afterward, in Times and Seasons 
 for September 2, 1844, does not contain these words or 
 anything of like purport. Had such a sentiment been 
 expressed and understood to have been prophetic in its 
 character, it is but reasonable to suppose that some notice 
 of it would have been included in the published account. 
 (See Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, pp. 637, 638.) 
 
 So much then for this so-called prediction which is 
 brought forward with so great a flourish of trumpets to 
 form the basic thought of Mr. Roberts' great effort. Sum- 
 marized, it amounts to this: (a) The statement if made is 
 irrelevent and of no force, (b) It lacks evidence of com- 
 plete fulfillment, (c) The evidence that such a statement 
 was made is very questionable. If Mr. Roberts has not 
 endeavored to make a mountain out of a molehill, who ever 
 did? It was the custom then for these several factions to 
 prophesy against each other, and if there was either evi- 
 dence or argument in it, we could quote more remarkable 
 predictions from Rigdon and others against the Brigham- 
 ites. We have no inclination to defend either the claims 
 or the acts of Rigdon and some others referred to by Mr. 
 Roberts; but in the interest of common justice, and in 
 behalf of historic truth, we feel called upon to notice some 
 of Mr. Roberts' blunders and misrepresentations. 
 
 For the most of Mr. Roberts' assertions regarding Mr. 
 Rigdon and what Joseph the Prophet said of him, he cites 
 no authority, and for the remainder cites hearsay, or pub- 
 
8 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 lications issued many years afterward. He quotes largely 
 from the "History of Joseph Smith" as contained in the 
 Millennial Star, volume 25. How came these events, trans- 
 'piring after the death of Joseph Smith, to be made a part 
 of his history? Who wrote them as such, and by what 
 authority? 
 
 One of the most unkind things said of Mr. Rigdon by 
 Mr. Roberts is the following: 
 
 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. Rob- 
 erts, page 2. 
 
 That Mr. Rigdon was suspected of this is true, but that 
 he was known to be guilty, is very doubtful. On the con- 
 trary, he was exonerated. The supposed correspondence 
 and conspiracy between him and Governor Carlin, John C. 
 Bennett, and others, was fully investigated at the October 
 conference of 1843; and at the conclusion of the examinar 
 tion, as the published minutes of the conference have it: 
 
 President Joseph Smith arose and satisfactorily explained to 
 the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with 
 Ex-Governor Carlin, which wholly removed suspicion from 
 Elder Sidney Rigdon, and from every other person. Times and 
 Seasons, Vol. 4, p. 330. 
 
 That Mr. Rigdon's conduct in some respects was blam- 
 able, we do not doubt; but how could Mr. Roberts assert 
 that it was knoion that he was guilty of an offense of which 
 the record says that suspicion was wholly removed from 
 him to the satisfaction of the assembled church? Yet Mr. 
 Roberts in his "Preface" explains the incentive that has 
 prompted him in this work as follows: 
 
 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. 
 
 To misrepresent the facts of history is not the proper 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 9 
 
 way to preserve from error those who are ignorant on the 
 subject; and to falsely heap odium upon a man who is not 
 here to defend himself, no matter what his failings may 
 have been, is detestable. But it has been the policy of 
 Brigham Young and his fellows, since 1844, to vilify, 
 slander, and abuse every one who 1 refused to indorse their 
 measures. These tendencies to misrepresent the facts of 
 history and to heap opprobrium upon opponents are pain- 
 fully apparent in the work of Mr. Roberts now under 
 consideration. We may have occasion to frequently invite 
 attention to these tendencies, though we should not do so 
 only in the interest of truth and justice. 
 
 After other reflections upon the character of Mr. Rig- 
 don, Mr. Roberts introduces the meeting of August 8, 
 1844, which was called by Mr. Rigdon, but which, 
 according to the record, was largely under the dicta- 
 tion of some members of the Quorum of Twelve with 
 Brigham Young at their head. To the events of this 
 meeting we wish to pay some attention, for it is important 
 to know just what the church did in that critical 
 emergency. 
 
 One peculiar feature of the meeting as reported by 
 eyewitnesses needs close attention from the fact that Mr. 
 Roberts and others have relied upon it as strong evidence 
 that God had chosen Brigham Young to lead the people. 
 It is asserted that on that occasion Brigham Young spoke 
 with the voice of Joseph Smith and in personal appearance 
 looked like him, which convinced the people that the 
 mantle of Joseph had fallen upon him. Upon this point 
 Mr. Roberts introduces three witnesses, as follows: 
 
 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 
 
10 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 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 fol- 
 lowing 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. Roberts, pp. 5-7. 
 
 Upon this but little comment is needed. If the testi- 
 mony of the witnesses be true, it furnishes no evidence 
 that God had chosen Brigham Young. In the history of 
 God's dealings with men there is not found evidence that 
 he causes one to change his individuality for that of 
 'another, or to imitate another so as to deceive his people 
 into the belief that it is the one imitated. By the influ- 
 ence of his Spirit he enables men to develop and more fully 
 equips them for usefulness in his service, but never causes 
 them to deceive the people by appearing to be what they 
 are not. Only hypocrites are guilty of this species of 
 fraud. To make God the author of it is to make him a 
 party to a hypocritical transaction of which no honest man 
 would be guilty. Had God chosen Brigham Young he 
 would have presented Brigham Young before the people 
 clothed with authority and power to lead his people, but 
 he would not have fraudulently passed him off as Joseph 
 Smith. That instance if true would brand the movement 
 as a deceptive one. 
 
 This kind of a trick was tried as early as the days of 
 Moses. In a revelation given through Joseph Smith, in 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 11 
 
 June, 1830, and now published in the Inspired Translation 
 
 of the Scriptures, it is recorded: 
 
 And now, when Moses had said these words, Satan cried with 
 a loud voice, and went upon the earth, and commanded, saying, 
 I am the Only Begotten, worship me. Par. 12. 
 
 Paul gives us some light upon this sort of work. He 
 says: 
 
 -For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming 
 themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for 
 Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore 
 it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the 
 ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to 
 their works. 2 Cor. 11:13-15. 
 
 If the reader will carefully examine the above passages 
 he will not be at a loss to determine by what power it is 
 probable that Brigham Young could so transform himself 
 that "it seemed in the eyes of the people as if it were the 
 very person of Joseph which stood before them;" especially 
 so when nothing of this nature can be found in the deal- 
 ings of God. Mr. Young himself may have been deceived, 
 but whether he was ignorant or conscious of the part he 
 was playing, we cannot be ignorant in regard to the 
 authorship of this deceptive transformation policy. 
 
 The counterpart of this transaction can be found in mod- 
 ern spiritualism, where a medium or a spirit assumes a 
 familiar form and voice. This clew may enable us to 
 account for some of the dark and mysterious things con- 
 nected with the people who accepted, as from God, the 
 peculiar phenomenon exhibited at Nauvoo on August 8, 
 1844. It was an opportune time for the spirit of darkness 
 to step in, and was improved to the sorrow and disap- 
 pointment of many. Oh, that he who had the influence to 
 lead had possessed the discernment and strength of Moses 
 to have said, "Depart hence, Satan ! " 
 
 Just what did transpire at that important meeting it is 
 very hard to determine, for the accounts are quite conflict- 
 
12 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 ing. It is quite clear that the meeting was called by Elder 
 Sidney Rigdon for the purpose of presenting his claims, 
 but it appears that Brigham Young took the active over- 
 sight of it, if he did not entirely monopolize it. By the 
 account published at the time it does not appear that 
 Elder Rigdon was permitted to address the meeting. 
 Brigham Young "called the audience to order" and "ar- 
 ranged the several quorums." Prayer was offered by 
 Elder Phelps. Elder Young then spoke, followed by 
 Elders Lyman, Phelps, and Pratt; then Elder Young 
 closed and during his remarks presented certain motions. 
 Elder Rigdon is not mentioned as a participant except in 
 his refusal to have his name presented to the assembly 
 when the voting was had. See Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, 
 pp. 637, 638. Yet Mr. Roberts states: 
 
 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. Roberts, p. 5. 
 
 After this discussion the published account states: 
 "Counsellor Rigdon refused to have his name voted for as 
 a spokesman or guardian." In harmony with this Mr. 
 Roberts explains in a footnote on page 10, as follows: 
 
 The quorums had been arranged to vote separately and in 
 their order, but when Elder Young put the question on accept- 
 ing the Twelve to preside over the church, the question was 
 put to all the quorums and the whole congregation at once. 
 And since the vote to sustain the Twelve was unanimous, there 
 was no need of putting the question on the acceptance of 
 Sidney Rigdon either to the quorums or the people. The facts 
 in the text are quoted from the history of the prophet Joseph, 
 Mill. Star, Vol. XXV., p. 264. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 13 
 
 Yet Mr. Roberts makes President Woodruff to contra- 
 dict this by quoting him as follows: 
 
 Nearly all the quorum of the Twelve were on missions in the 
 eastern States when the terrible tragedy at Carthage took place; 
 and we did not hear of it for some time afterwards. We 
 returned to Nauvoo. It has been repeated to you here tonight 
 what was done in the conference in Nauvoo. I do not know 
 whether there is anyone present here tonight but myself who 
 was at that conference there are but few living who were 
 present on that occasion. Brig-ham stepped forth as a leader of 
 Israel, as has been said here tonight by Brother Roberts, and 
 Sidney Rigdon also tried to get the presidency; but when his 
 name was put to a vote before the conference of the Latter-day 
 Saints, and they were asked if they wanted him as their guar- 
 dian, to guide them in the Celestial Kingdom, Brigham said: 
 **^.ll who do, raise your right hand," and I did not see a hand 
 raised in his favor in that congregation. Roberts, p. 119. 
 
 Now let us inquire what did that assembly vote for? It 
 is important to know. The record as published in Times 
 and Seasons gives it as follows: *' 'All in favor of support- 
 ing the Twelve in their calling, (every quorum, man and 
 woman,) signify it by the uplifted hand;' and the vote was 
 unanimous, no hand being raised in the negative." No 
 wonder it was unanimous. No Latter Day Saint would 
 refuse to support them in their calling. Very likely Elder 
 Rigdon voted for that. In doing so no one was committed 
 to the subsequent policy of the Twelve. But Mr. Roberts, 
 on the authority of the Millennial Star published nearly 
 twenty years later, gives the resolution as follows: 
 
 "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 king- 
 dom in all the world, stand next to Joseph, walk up into their 
 calling, and hold the keys of this kingdom every man, every 
 woman, 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 con- 
 gregation of the Saints, manifest it by holding up the right 
 hand. (There was a universal vote.) If there are any of the 
 o.ontrary mind every man and every woman who does not 
 wanti the Twelve to preside, lift up your hands in like manner. 
 
14 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 (No hands up.) This supersedes the other question, and trying 
 it by quorums. Roberts, pages 9, 10. 
 
 The reader I think will concede that the account pub- 
 lished at the time is the more likely to be correct, and 
 hence the church was not at that time committed to sus- 
 taining the Twelve as a First Presidency. If then Mr. 
 Rigdon did as Mr. Roberts states he did in the following 
 quotation, the reason is quite clear: 
 
 It may be interesting to the reader to know that Sidney Rig- 
 don 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." Roberts, page 12. 
 
 And if Elder William Marks and others, who afterwards 
 opposed the Twelve, acquiesced at the time, it can be easily 
 explained. But more of this resolution, its interpretation, 
 and effects when we come to treat directly the claims of 
 Brigham Young and his colleagues. We have followed 
 Mr. Roberts in his comments regarding the movement 
 under Rigdon, not because we have any sympathy with the 
 claims of Elder Rigdon, but for the purpose of correcting 
 certain misrepresentations because of the influence they 
 might have upon the discussion of the question of Succes- 
 sion, which is the leading issue between us. 
 
CHAPTER 2. 
 
 WILLIAM SMITH SLANDERED BY ROBERTS SUSPENDED FROM 
 OFFICE RESTORED SUSTAINED ORDAINED A PATRIARCH 
 HIGHLY COMMENDED ROBERTS ERRS CONCERNING HIM 
 PREACHES LINEAL PRIESTHOOD BRIGHAMITES EXPEL HIM 
 LUCY SMITH ET AL. CONSIDERED. 
 
 MR. ROBERTS next introduces the work of William 
 Smith, the brother of the prophet; and, true to the dispo- 
 sition manifested by him throughout his treatise, com- 
 mences with a slanderous statement, for which he cites no 
 proof. It is as follows: 
 
 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. Roberts, p. 15. 
 
 He who seeks thus to prejudice a case against an oppo- 
 nent before the investigation begins, manifests an unbe- 
 coming spirit of bitterness or a conscious weakness; and 
 when he afterwards assumes the role of a witness, as Mr. 
 Roberts does in relating a personal interview with William 
 Smith, we must consider and treat him as a prejudiced 
 witness. The minutes of the conference of May 4, 1839, 
 have this entrv: 
 
16 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Resolved 9th: That Elders Orson Hyde and William Smith 
 be allowed the privilege of appearing personally before the next 
 General Conference of the church, to give an account of their 
 conduct; and that in the meantime they both be suspended 
 from exercising the functions of their office. Millennial Star, 
 Vol. 17, p. 204. 
 
 So when Mr. Boberts asserts that William Smith was 
 suspended from fellowship, he misstates the case, and 
 when he assumes to give the cause for this action he goes 
 outside the record. By what authority these statements 
 are made, we are left to conjecture. 
 
 In the History of Joseph Smith, under date of May 25, 
 1839, occurs the following: 
 
 This day I met the Twelve in council. The case of Brother 
 William Smith came up for investigation and was disposed of. 
 Mill. Star, Vol. 17, p. 232. 
 
 Not a word about Joseph Smith pleading for him; nor 
 are we informed how the case was disposed of. He was no 
 doubt either vindicated or forgiven, as we find in the 
 October conference minutes of the same year, the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 Orson Hyde to stand in his former office, and William Smith 
 to be continued in his standing. Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, 
 p. 30. 
 
 What a fruitful imagination Mr. Roberts has! 
 In the very next sentence after the one quoted above Mr. 
 Roberts says: 
 
 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. 
 
 Rather an unfit man for Patriarch, if Mr. Roberts repre- 
 sents him fairly. But to add to this absurdity, Mr. 
 Roberts, on page 18, returns to the attack, and says: 
 
 William Smith, however, did not command much of a follow- 
 ing 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. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 17 
 
 Is this the character of men that Mr. Young and his 
 associates placed in responsible positions? It was they 
 who ordained William Smith a patriarch. At or near the 
 time of this ordination, when John Taylor, of the Twelve, 
 was * 'Editor and Proprietor," the Times and Seasons had 
 this to say editorially of William Smith: 
 
 Father Smith, the first Patriarch, and Hyrum, his successor, 
 conferred many blessings upon the saints that made their 
 hearts glad. But they, in the wisdom of God, have been called 
 away, and William, the son and brother, succeeds them. How 
 many, now will say, I wish I had my patriarchal blessing? 
 This has been the lamentation of many since the death of 
 Joseph and Hyrum. William is the last of the family, and 
 truly inherits the blood and spirit of his father's house, as well 
 as priesthood and the patriarchal office from his father and 
 brother, legally, and by hereditary descent. Times and Seasons, 
 Vol. 6, p. 905. 
 
 Is this the way that disreputable and profligate charac- 
 ters are recommended by the church which Mr. Eoberts 
 represents? 
 
 In assuming to trace the career of William Smith, Mr. 
 Koberts claims that after becoming estranged from the 
 Twelve he set up claims to the Presidency in his own 
 right, then became associated with James J. Strang, and 
 
 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 priest- 
 hood 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. 
 Roberts, p. 23. 
 
 The inference conveyed in this language is that William 
 Smith did not teach "lineal priesthood as applied to the 
 Presidency of the church" until the winter of 1850. But 
 
18 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 to make it clearer that Mr. Roberts does so affirm we 
 quote a positive assertion found on page 65: 
 
 Not until 1850 did he begin to proclaim the right of "young 
 Joseph" to be the President of the church; and then not by 
 &ny 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. 
 
 That this statement is false appears from the following 
 extract from a letter written from St. Louis, Missouri, 
 November 22, 1845, by James Kay, and published in the 
 Millennial Star for May 1, 1846: 
 
 Doubtless you will have heard of William Smith's apostasy. 
 He is endeavoring to "make a raise" in this city. After he left 
 Nauvoo he went to Galena, when he published a "proclama- 
 tion" to the church, calling upon them to renounce the Twelve 
 as an unauthorized, tyrannical, abominable, bloodthirsty set of 
 scoundrels. I suppose you have his pamphlet. I did think 
 to send one the day he landed here, but felt inclined to hear 
 and see his course a little while. Reports were daily coming 
 from east to west of William's unmanly conduct; sorry I was to 
 hear them, they seemed so well authenticated. He contends 
 the church is disorganized, having no head; that the Twelve 
 are not, nor ever were, ordained to be head of the church; that 
 Joseph's priesthood was to be conferred on his posterity to all 
 future generations, and that young Joseph is the only legal suc- 
 cessor to the presidency of this church, etc. G. J. Adams is 
 William's right hand man, and comes out as little Joseph's 
 spokesman; they intend holding a conference here this week 
 and organizing the church on the old original plan, according 
 to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, and 
 New Testament. Discussions are to take place between the 
 Rigdonites and Josephiteson the claims of each to the "Mor- 
 mon Throne." Two high priests have been disfellowshiped, 
 one seventy, and a number of other officers and members from 
 this branch I suppose will join the Smith party. Vol. 7, p. 134. 
 
 Here then is William Smith preaching lineal priesthood 
 and the right of "young Joseph" to the Presidency, as 
 eaily at least as the next month after action was taken 
 against him by that faction of the church remaining at 
 Nauvoo. 
 
 It was on the 6th of October, 1845, that the conference 
 failed to sustain William Smith as one of the Twelve, and 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. . 10 
 
 as Patriarch (Times and Seasons, Vol. 6, pp. 1008, 1009), 
 and he was soon after expelled from their fellowship. 
 What then becomes of Mr. Roberts' statement just preced- 
 ing the one last above quoted, which is as follows? 
 
 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 proclaim- 
 ing 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 con- 
 trary, 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." 
 
 Certainly he would have known it; he did know it, and 
 immediately proclaimed it. Nothing but ignorance of his- 
 tory, or a willful desire to deceive, would lead a man to 
 blunder as Mr. Roberts has blundered in the above. In 
 either case, is he the proper man to "preserve from error 
 those not acquainted with . . . the facts of church 
 history"? 
 
 We do not appear as -an apologist for Elder William 
 Smith. We neither approve nor deny much that is said 
 of him by Mr. Roberts and his associates; but enough has 
 been said to show that neither he nor anyone else could 
 consistently be condemned by the inaccurate evidence and 
 false statements of Mr. Roberts. 
 
 In regard to Mr. Roberts' labored effort to convict Lucy 
 Smith, the mother of the prophet, and others, of indorsing 
 the claims of William Smith, we have but little to say. 
 Mr. Roberts relies solely upon extracts from the private 
 journal of John Taylor to sustain his allegation. We have 
 not access to Mr. Taylor's journal, so cannot give this tes- 
 timony a thorough examination; but after a careful 
 examination of Mr. Roberts' work we cannot accept as 
 conclusive his presentation of the evidence. 
 
20 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Again, it seems strange that if this is true no evidence is 
 brought, except from this one private source. And again, 
 if we admit it all to be true, what is there in it? Suppose 
 that Lucy Smith et al. did indorse the claims of Elder 
 William Smith, it does not prove that they had heard no 
 other claims. Besides, as we have shown, William Smith's 
 position then (June, 1845,) or soon after, was that of lineal 
 priesthood. Mr. Roberts could have spared himself the 
 mortification of "quoting" "this good and noble woman," 
 for he has accomplished nothing by it. 
 
CHAPTER 3. 
 
 WIGHT AND MILLER WIGHT'S CHARACTER ROBERTS' BLUNDER 
 WIGHT GOES TO WISCONSIN His RECORD His FOLLOWERS 
 GALVESTON NEWS' TRIBUTE MILLER His REASON FOB 
 LEAVING FORMER ASSOCIATIONS HEWLETT'S LETTER. 
 
 IN his third chapter Mr. Roberts introduces Lyman 
 Wight and George Miller, as follows: 
 
 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 [led] 
 away parties with them, and illustrate the truth of President 
 Young's prediction about the failure of such persons, hence we 
 consider their course. Roberts, p. 26. 
 
 Here Mr. Roberts makes his characteristic mistake of 
 assuming the point at issue by concluding that the authori- 
 ties whom Elder Wight and Bishop Miller opposed were 
 properly in authority. With the same reckless assumption 
 he continues: 
 
 Lyman Wight was a strong, bold man; fixed in his friend- 
 ship for the prophet Joseph, and true to him under many try- 
 ing circumstances; but withal rather difficult to control, and 
 after the death of Joseph soon manifested a disposition of in- 
 subordination to authority. Ibid. 
 
 What caused this "strong, bold man," this man "diffi- 
 cult to control," to be fixed in his friendship and true to 
 the prophet Joseph? Such characters are not Controlled 
 by fear or easily moved by influences. There is but one 
 solution; viz.: Lyman Wight fully and sincerely indorsed 
 the doctrine preached and the policy pursued by Joseph 
 Smith. If then Mr. Roberts' estimate of the man is cor- 
 rect, it follows that if these so-called ' 'constituted authori- 
 ties" had been preaching the doctrine and following the 
 
28 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 policy which he had so ardently espoused, Lyman Wight 
 would have been fixed in his friendship and true to them. 
 Mr. Roberts continues: 
 
 As far back as February, 1844, he had expressed a desire to 
 go to Texas, and after the death of the prophet seemed deter- 
 mined 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, 1844, 
 President Young desired him to return to the pineries and con- 
 tinue 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. Roberts, p. 26. 
 
 So far as the issues between us are concerned, it does 
 not make a particle of difference whether Lyman Wight 
 went to Texas or to Wisconsin; but to show the utter unre- 
 liability of this champion of "the order of the priesthood 
 of God and facts of church history," we will quote briefly 
 from the journal of Lyman Wight, now before us. It is 
 true that he and Bishop G-eorge Miller had been directing 
 a company in getting out lumber in the pineries in Wis- 
 consin, but he returned to Nauvoo about April 20, 1844, 
 and at the time of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith 
 he was with others of the Twelve in the Eastern States. 
 He again returned to Nauvoo, arriving August 6, 1844. 
 In his journal under date of March 17, 1845, is this 
 entry: 
 
 From the 6th day of August, 1844, until the 28th, I was mak- 
 ing preparation to start on the mission appointed unto me 
 previous to my going to the city of Washington. Accordingly, 
 on the 28th of August, I left Nauvoo accompanied by one hun- 
 dred and sixty-four persons on board the steamer General 
 Brooke, and landed at Prairie La Cross [Wisconsin], up the 
 Mississippi River four hundred and fifty miles above Nauvoo, 
 on the first day of September, 1844. From that time until the 
 present we have been engaged in cutting wood, laboring in the 
 pinery, and at various kinds of business to procure a living. 
 
OHUROH PRESIDENCY. 28 
 
 So he did go to the pineries just when Mr. Roberts says 
 he refused to go; not by request of Elder Young, but to 
 fulfill a mission previously given him. 
 
 If Mr. Roberts disputes the above we are ready to fur- 
 nish names of men who were in this expedition, some of 
 whom are communicants of the church which Mr. Roberts 
 represents. 
 
 Again, Mr. Roberts says: 
 
 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 scat- 
 tered 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 suf- 
 fered so much during the persecutions it passed through in 
 Missouri. Roberts, pp. 26, 27. 
 
 As we have said of others, so we say of Elder Wight, 
 we do not appear as his apologist. That he erred in some 
 things, is conceded. But to more fully get the measure of 
 Mr. Roberts, let .us compare a few facts with the above 
 statement: Elder Wight retained a considerable follow- 
 ing until his death. In the spring of 1858 he started to 
 move with this body to the northern States, when death 
 overtook him, on March 31, of that year, at San Antonio, 
 Texas. After his death the company continued their jour- 
 ney, still maintaining an organization; and though their 
 numbers were diminished from time to time, the organiza- 
 tion was not entirely extinct until it was absorbed by the 
 Reorganization; when the most of its members, true to the 
 teachings of Elder Wight on lineal priesthood, accepted 
 the presidency of Joseph Smith, the son of the prophet. 
 Some few left Lyman Wight's following at different times 
 and went to Utah, but a part of them have returned and 
 are now members of the Reorganization. Two of the pos- 
 terity of Lyman Wight now occupy positions in the Quo- 
 
24 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 rum of Twelve; two in the quorums of Seventy; several 
 hold other offices; besides others of his followers hold re- 
 sponsible positions in the Reorganization. 
 
 At the time of Lyman Wight's death the Galveston 
 News, then the leading paper in Texas, had this to say 
 editorially of him and his following: 
 
 We believe we have omitted to notice the death of Mr. Lyman 
 Wight, who for some thirteen years past has been the leader of 
 a small and independent Mormon settlement in Texas. As far 
 as we have been able to learn, these Mormons have proved 
 themselves to be most excellent citizens of our State, and we 
 are no doubt greatly indebted to the deceased leader for the 
 orderly conduct, sobriety, industry, and enterprise of his 
 colony. Mr. Wight first came to Texas in November, 1845, and 
 has been with his colony on our extreme frontier ever since, 
 moving still farther west as settlements formed around him, 
 thus always being the pioneer of advancing civilization, afford- 
 ing protection against the Indians. He has been the first to 
 settle five new counties, and prepare the way for others. He 
 has at different times built three extensive saw and grist 
 mills, etc. 
 
 How is this for living in obscurity, unknown to the 
 world and unhonored and without a following? So far as 
 his dying outside the church is concerned, that is begging 
 the question again. Was it the church that expelled him? 
 
 Where would this guardian of historic facts lead us if we 
 were blind enough to follow? 
 
 Mr. Roberts' strictures on Bishop Miller are without 
 material point, and the eloquent effusion with which he 
 closes the chapter is only interesting on general principles. 
 The application is farfetched. 
 
 It might be well, however, in this connection, to give 
 Bishop Miller's version of why he separated from what 
 Mr. Roberts is pleased to call the church. In June, 1849, 
 Bishop Miller and Richard Hewett, then in Texas, each 
 wrote a letter of inquiry to J. J. Strang, both writing on 
 the same sheet of paper. (It is now before us.) Elder 
 Hewett writes: 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 35 
 
 Now I want to know what your mind is about men having 
 the priesthood having more wives than one. The principle is 
 taught amongst all that I have been with. Some have from 2 
 to 10 or 20, and some have none. If it is consistent I want you 
 to let me know when you write to me, and I want you to write 
 as soon as you get this so Brother Miller and myself will know 
 what to do. You must excuse me for asking so much, but you 
 must bear with me, as I confess I am ignorant. Bro. Miller 
 says their whoring will send them all to hell. You can see 
 Brother Hyrum's epistle to me on that subject in the Times and 
 Seasons, 15th March, 1844, if I don't mistake. I don't find such 
 things in the Book of Covenants, nor in the Book of Mormon, 
 nor in the writings of the apostles, and I don't want to be 
 deceived nor flattered any more. 
 
 Bishop Miller's statement, as given by Elder Hewett, is 
 not elegant but very expressive, and gives .us an idea of 
 why he left Mr. Roberts' so-called church. The strong 
 presumption is that when he penned these words Mr. 
 Hewitt had not heard of the so-called revelation on 
 polygamy, and if not, Bishop Miller, who writes on the 
 same paper with Mr. Hewitt, certainly had not. It is 
 rather an honor than a disgrace to be expelled from some 
 churches, and if Bishop Miller was right, this is one of 
 them. For an extract from Bishop Miller's letter here 
 referred to, see Church History, Vol. 2, pp. 793, 794. 
 
CHAPTER 4. 
 
 STRANG CHALLENGES TAYLOR AND HYDE THEIR REPLY ROB- 
 ERTS' UNMANLY ATTACK. 
 
 WE make these chapters to correspond in number with 
 those of Mr. Roberts' for the sake of more ready reference, 
 hence some will be very short. Tn his fourth chapter he 
 treats of the work of J. J. Strang; but there is nothing in 
 it to demand especial attention from us. This much can 
 be said for Elder Strang that he possessed the courage of 
 his convictions and was both willing 'and anxious to dis- 
 cuss the issues between members of the Twelve who 
 indorsed Brigham Young, and himself. And as these were 
 living issues of the time, and as Mr. Roberts admits "he 
 succeeded in deceiving many," it occurs to us that they 
 should have been willing to have canvassed these points 
 and thus protected those who were being deceived. 
 Instead of this they adopted that craven, cowardly policy 
 which they have followed ever since, of refusing to meet 
 their opponents in honorable controversy, while boasting 
 londly of their own pretensions and seeking to slander 
 their competitors. 
 
 Mr. Strang wrote two of their number, respectfully 
 inviting a public investigation. They penciled a reply 
 upon the same sheet of paper and returned it. In that 
 reply they scarcely maintained the dignity of gentlemen, 
 to say nothing of apostles of Jesus Christ. That paper is 
 now before us and reads as follows: 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, August 30, 1846. 
 Messrs. J. Taylor and Orson Hyde: 
 
 Knowing from your public proceedings, as well as otherwiw, 
 that you and others appointed with you, claim the right and 
 
OHUROH PRESIDENCY. 27 
 
 are attempting to use the power of dictating all the affairs of 
 the Church of Jesus Christ in all the world, not under the 
 direction of the First Presidency thereof, but independently, I 
 suggest to you the propriety of your publicly showing by what 
 means you are authorized to act as leaders of said church, and 
 offer to publicly discuss that question with you in this city or 
 any other proper place that will suit your convenience. Your 
 answer to this left at the house of Jacob Gibson, N. E. corner 
 of Third and Dock St., near the Post Office, will receive imme- 
 diate attention. Most respectfully, 
 
 JAMBS J. STRANG. 
 
 Sir: After Lucifer was cut off and thrust down to hell, we 
 have no knowledge that God condescended to investigate the 
 subject or right of authority with him. Your case has been 
 disposed of by the authorities of the church. Being satisfied 
 with our own power and calling, w have no disposition to ask 
 from whence yours came. Respectfully, 
 
 ORSON HYDE. 
 
 JOHN TAYLOR. 
 
 With this we dismiss Mr. Roberts' work, so far as it 
 relates to J. J. Strang, with merely the suggestion, that 
 after Elders Hyde and Taylor had thus declined to meet 
 him while living, it is unmanly for Mr. Roberts, while rep- 
 resenting the same organization, to attack him when dead. 
 
CHAPTER 5. 
 
 HISTORY OF REORGANIZATION BRIGGS' PRIESTHOOD TWELVE 
 AT NAUVOO ROBERTS' SARCASM PIERCY ON SMITH FAMILY 
 PRESIDENT SMITH'S PLEDGE ROBERTS' PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 MB. ROBERTS devotes this chapter to what he terms the 
 history of the Reorganization. Though there are some 
 inaccuracies in his statements we will not here pause to 
 follow him minutely, as the facts of history will come out 
 in the investigation of the issues. However, there are a 
 few points which may demand a consideration as we pass 
 along. 
 
 On page 42 of his work Mr. Roberts makes the following 
 statement: 
 
 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. 
 
 The above is misleading in this: it indicates that the 
 decision was that Elder Briggs held the highest priest- 
 hood. The facts were as follows: They were commanded 
 to choose seven to form a majority of the Quorum of 
 Twelve, and the instruction provided that the senior of the 
 seven should preside, or stand as the representative, not 
 by virtue of the priesthood which he had formerly held, 
 but by virtue of his apostleship then conferred. He did 
 not hold a higher priesthood than the other six, but by 
 virtue of being chosen he was the senior among them. 
 
 There was doubtless much misunderstanding and some 
 confusion and feeling manifested, but the final conclusion 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 29 
 
 was in harmony with the law; for as the Twelve were the 
 highest in authority present, it was proper that their 
 senior or president should preside or stand as the chief 
 representative until higher authority came. 
 
 Some may inquire, Why do you then object to the 
 Twelve presiding at Nauvoo after the death of Joseph 
 Smith? The cases were different. In the one under con- 
 sideration none of the First Presidency were present; at 
 Nauvoo there was one of that quorum among them. 
 Again, we do not object to the Twelve presiding at Nau- 
 voo, or elsewhere, under proper circumstances; but when 
 they do so preside it should be in their own calling, and not 
 by assuming, as they did at Nauvoo, to be the First Presi- 
 dency. In saying this we do not wish to be understood as 
 advocating the right of Sidney Rigdon to preside at 
 Nauvoo. The truth is that neither Rigdon nor the 
 majority of the Twelve were content to preside in his or 
 their calling, but each aspired to honors and position not 
 guaranteed by the law. 
 
 On page 44 Mr. Roberts makes the following sarcastic, 
 but characteristically contemptible statement: 
 
 Meantime Joseph Smith who, according to his own auto- 
 biography, 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." 
 
 For confirmation of this statement . he refers us to the 
 autobiography of Joseph Smith in the "Life of Joseph the 
 Prophet," by Tullidge, pp. 743-773. While it is true that 
 Joseph Smith was not very successful in some of these 
 enterprises, anyone who will take the trouble to read the 
 reference will see that Mr. Roberts has overdrawn the 
 picture for the evident purpose of casting a slur. 
 
 In consideration of this effort to reflect upon Joseph 
 
30 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Smith we will here quote a statement from the Utah peo- 
 ple regarding Joseph Smith and the Smith family, from one 
 of their own works published a few years before the time 
 referred to by Mr. Roberts. The following is from the 
 "Illustrated Route from Liverpool to Salt Lake Valley." 
 Frederick Piercy, by arrangement with S. W. Richards, 
 made a trip from Liverpool to Salt Lake in 1853-54 to 
 make sketches for this work. It was edited by James 
 Linforth and published at Liverpool, by F. D. Richards, in 
 1855. Mr. Piercy visited Nauvoo enroute, and among 
 other things says: 
 
 While in Nauvoo I lodged at the Nauvoo Mansion, formerly 
 the residence of Joseph Smith, and now occupied by his 
 mother, his widow, and her family. I could not fail to regard 
 the old lady with great interest. Considering her age and 
 afflictions, she, at that time, retained her faculties to a remarka- 
 ble degree. She spoke very freely of her sons, and, with tears 
 in her eyes, and every other symptom of earnestness, vindi- 
 cated their reputations for virtue and truth. During my two 
 visits I was able to take her portrait, and the portraits of two of 
 her grandsons also. That of Joseph, the eldest son, .was done on 
 his 21st birth-day. He was born about 2 o'clock in the morn- 
 ing of the 6th of November, 1832, at Kirtland, Ohio. He is a 
 young man of a most excellent disposition and considerable 
 intelligence. One prominent trait in his character is his affec- 
 tion for his mother. I particularly noticed tha this conduct 
 towards her was always most respectful and attentive. The 
 other portrait is of David, the youngest son, who was born five 
 months after the assassination of his father. He was born about 
 9 o'clock in the morning of the 17th of November, 1844. He is 
 of a mild, studious disposition, and is passionately fond of draw- 
 ing, seeming to be never so happy as when he has a pencil and 
 paper in his hand. The other two boys whom I saw, were very 
 fine, strong, healthy fellows, and as it may be interesting to 
 many, I will say, that during some conversations which I had 
 with persons in the neighborhood, I found that the whole 
 family had obtained a most excellent reputation for integrity 
 and industry. Pages 63-66. 
 
 Considering the amount of prejudice at Nauvoo against 
 the Smith family and the church, this is a good showing. 
 But Mr. Roberts must sneer. It is a manifestation of his 
 nature or education. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 81 
 
 On pages 46 and 47 Mr. Roberts quotes some detached 
 extracts from President Smith's speech of acceptance of 
 April 6, 1860, and especially criticises these words, as 
 extracted therefrom: 
 
 / pledge myself to promulgate no doctrine that shaU not fa 
 approved by you, or the code of good morals. 
 
 Mr. Roberts' criticism is based upon the thought that a 
 prophet should not be governed except by revelation to 
 himself, and should not be bound by the voice of the body. 
 He evidently has overlooked the fact that God himself does 
 not force upon the church an edict without consent of the 
 church. In the revelation of 1841 he names the men who 
 should fill the leading offices in the church, and then 
 adds: 
 
 And a commandment I give unto you that you should fill all 
 these offices and approve of those names which I have men- 
 tioned, or else disapprove of them, at my general conference, 
 etc. D. C. 107:46. 
 
 According to this, God himself would not force upon the 
 church that which it did not approve; but Mr. Roberts' 
 ideal prophet would have no regard to church approval. 
 He has perhaps overlooked the further fact that according 
 to Orson Hyde, Joseph the Seer had established a rule that 
 revelations were to be approved by the quorums ere they 
 were promulgated. 
 
 Mr. Hyde says: 
 
 There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from 
 God through any man can be tested. Brother Joseph gave us 
 the plan, says he, when all the quorums are assembled and 
 organized in order, let the revelation be presented to the quo- 
 rums, if it pass one let it go to another, and if it pass that, to 
 another, and so on until it has passed all the quorums; and if it 
 pass the whole without running against a snag, you may know 
 it is of God. But if it runs against a snag, then says he, it 
 wants enquiring into: you'must see to it. It is known to some 
 who are present that there is a quorum organized where revela- 
 tions can be tested. Brother Joseph said, let no revelation go 
 to the people until it has been tested here. Times and Seasons, 
 Vol. 5, pp. 649, 650. 
 
32 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Mr. Roberts also fails to notice the positive assertion oi 
 President Smith as follows: 
 
 I have come in obedience to a power not my own, and shall 
 be dictated by the power that sent me. 
 
 This indicates that he would not submit to any power 
 other than the one that sent him, though he, as President 
 of the church, would not promulgate any doctrine until 
 approved. 
 
 Mr. Roberts should not overlook the further fact that 
 Mr. Smith when he made the pledge complained of was 
 acquainted with the views of those with whom he was to 
 associate, as appears from these words found in his 
 speech : 
 
 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. 
 
 Again, it is evident from the following words connected 
 with the statement complained of, "or the code of good 
 morals" that he had in his mind the fact that many of this 
 people had been deceived by leaders who had stealthily 
 introduced polygamy and other immoral practices; and he 
 wished to assure them that they had nothing of this nature 
 to fear from him. He has been true to that assurance. 
 
 Further, the son of the Prophet knew that after the 
 death of his father several of those who had assumed the 
 self-imposed task of leading the church had taught doc- 
 trines and practices which the code of good morals con- 
 demns; and he, feeling the necessity of putting a moral 
 safeguard into the pledge which he felt called upon to make 
 in accepting the position offered to him at Amboy, deliber- 
 ately stated his determination not to teach, promulgate, or 
 attempt to fasten upon the tenets of the church, dogmas, 
 teaching, or practices which would not be approved by a 
 righteous people, or could not be approved upon the appli- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 33 
 
 cation to them of the requirements of the "code of good 
 morals." 
 
 When it is understood that the Bible, the Book of Mor- 
 mon, and the revelations in the Book of Doctrine and 
 Covenants, were the acknowledged basis of the faith of the 
 church in the martyred Joseph's time, and the accepted 
 source from which the code of good morals for the church, 
 including the church in Utah and the Reorganization is 
 derived, the statement made by the son of the Martyr on 
 that April day in 1860 to the people to whom he was sent by 
 the voice of the Spirit, was a strong, not a weak pledge; 
 was a safe, and not a compromising statement; one which 
 reflected honor and not disgrace upon the name of his father; 
 and a statement and pledge which all good, all decent- 
 minded citizens of the world, and all Latter Day Saints of 
 every shade of belief ought to accept in good faith and give 
 "young Joseph" credit for being strong enough to make it. 
 
 Mr. Roberts then seeks to draw a contrast between this 
 position of President Smith's and that assigned to his 
 father in the following: 
 
 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto 
 all his words, and commandments, which he shall give unto 
 you, as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 
 for his word 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 dis- 
 perse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the 
 heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory. Doc- 
 trine and Covenants 19: 2. 
 
 The reader will observe that the church was to receive 
 his words as he received them from G-od, "walking in all 
 holiness" before him; but according to the rule quoted 
 above, the church was guaranteed the right to be satisfied 
 that he had so received them, and they were not to be 
 promulgated until approved. 
 
 Brigham Young's words, quoted in this connection, by 
 Mr. Roberts, only reveal the boastful spirit of the man. 
 
84 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Mr. Roberts closes this chapter with the following 
 peculiar paragraph: 
 
 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 fol- 
 lowing, 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! 
 
 This conclusion is evidently based upon the supposition 
 that when parties come out of one organization -to affiliate 
 with another, the one they leave becomes a part of the one 
 to which they adhere. 
 
 How profound! According to this philosophy the 
 church organized by Joseph Smith and others from 1830 to 
 1835, was a stream formed by the confluence of several 
 other streams issuing from the several sectarian churches. 
 
 It may be said that the parties composing the former 
 organization renounced their allegiance to other churches; 
 but so did the parties composing the Reorganization. 
 Emphatic as were the memorable words of the personage 
 who addressed Joseph Smith, when he was told that he 
 "must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and 
 . . . their creeds were an abomination," they are no more 
 emphatic than the words of revelation to Zenos H. Gur- 
 ley: 
 
 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. 
 
 The following resolution, adopted June 13, 1852, has no 
 uncertain sound: 
 
 Besolved, That this Conference regard the pretentions of Brig- 
 ham Young, James J. Strang, James Collen Brewster, and Wil- 
 liam Smith and Joseph Wood's joint claims to the leadership of 
 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as an assump- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 35 
 
 tion of power, in violation of the law of God; and consequently 
 we disclaim all connection and fellowship with them. Tht 
 Messenger, Vol. 2, p. 9. 
 
 What a wonderful acquisition this man Roberts will 
 make to the United States Congress, if he succeeds in get- 
 ting there. He can inform his illustrious colleagues that 
 this government is a stream formed by the confluence of 
 several corrupt streams which flow from all the despotic 
 and priest-ridden monarchies of Europe. And we are 
 called upon to reply to such profound philosophy. Lest 
 such heights make us dizzy, we will just come down and 
 simply inform Mr. Roberts that neither now nor at any 
 time in the past has the Reorganization been composed of 
 Strangites and William Smithites. Though some who 
 were once associated with them have united with us, this 
 is also true as regards members coming from the Brigham- 
 ites and from every other society in the country, 
 many have come to us from the world. ' 
 
 
CHAPTER 6. 
 
 WIGHT'S TESTIMONY GOES TO WISCONSIN ROBERTS' THEORY 
 FALSE SMITH AND WIGHT TEACH LINEAL PRIESTHOOD 
 STRANGITE RESOLUTION " YOUNG JOSEPH'S" BLESSINGS His 
 STATEMENT REVELATION OP 1841 JOSEPH'S BLESSING 
 WHITEHEAD'S TESTIMONY TESTIMONY OF EMMA SMITH G. 
 J. ADAMS ON LINEAGE CARTER'S TESTIMONY WITNESSES 
 NOT IMPEACHED BISHOP MILLER HYRUM SMITH'S ORDINA- 
 TION LAW OP LINEAGE JOSEPH SMITH ON DESCENT CAL- 
 HOUN LETTER CALL BY REVELATION REORGANIZATION 
 APPROVED RICHARDS' CORRESPONDENCE ORDINATION OP 
 PRESIDENT SMITH RIGHTS OP APPOINTMENT. 
 
 MR. ROBERTS begins his criticism in this chapter by 
 quoting the testimony of Lyman Wight as published in 
 some publications of the Reorganized Church, 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 succes- 
 sor." 
 
 And in a letter he wrote in July, 1855, from Medina river, 
 Texas, to the Northern Islander, a Strangite paper, Brother 
 Wight said: Now Mr. Editor, if you had been present when 
 Joseph called on me shortly after we came out of jail, [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. Roberts, p. 50. 
 
 Upon this Mr. Roberts comments as follows: 
 
 Of this testimony it is to be said, first on the entry in Mr. 
 Wight's journal, that it is too general in its character to be of 
 much service in supporting the claims of "young Joseph." 
 We are not certain that he refers to him at all. Then if 
 Lyman Wight knew in 1850 that Joseph the prophet had 
 blessed his son Joseph to be his successor, as prophet and 
 president of the church, Mr. Wight knew it in 1844; and is it 
 not strange that he did not speak of it and advocate it when 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 37 
 
 the question of a successor was warmly discussed in Nauvoo, 
 during the autumn of 1844? Why is it that we have nothing 
 from him on the subject earlier than 1850? And this silence 
 on the part of Mr. Wight is the more significant when it is 
 remembered that he was a bold, fearless man. It cannot be 
 said in truth, that Brigham Young's influence was so masterly 
 as to awe him into silence. As a matter of fact he violently 
 opposed Brigham Young in some of his measures, and at last 
 rebelled against him; but nothing is said by him until 1850, 
 about the appointment of any of the prophet's posterity to suc- 
 ceed to the presidency of the church. Ibid. pp. 50, 51. 
 
 It would be difficult for anyone to make more blunders 
 in the same space than Mr. Roberts has made in the above 
 comment. If he is so obtuse after all that has been pub- 
 lished as to fail to understand who is referred to in Elder 
 Wight's journal, he might read the following from a manu- 
 script of Elder Wight's now in our possession, dated 
 December, 1851, and published in Church History, Vol. 2, 
 p. 791: 
 
 The fifties assembled should have called on all the authori- 
 ties of the church down to the lay-members from all the face of 
 the earth, as much as was convenient, and after having taken 
 sweet counsel together, in prayer and supplication before God, 
 acknowledged our sins and transgressions which had caused 
 our head to be taken from our midst; and then have called on 
 young Joseph, and held him up before the congregation of 
 Israel to take his father's place in the flesh. 
 
 Elder Wight was not at Nauvoo in 1844, as we have 
 seen, after the death of Joseph Smith, except from August 
 6 to August 28. Certainly Elder Wight knew as much 
 of this blessing in 1844 as he did in 1850; and if, as Mr. 
 Roberts asserts, he "violently opposed Brigham Young in 
 some of his measures," may not this have been one of the 
 points of disagreement? If not, what did they disagree 
 about? 
 
 But Mr. Roberts says, and repeats it, that Lyman Wight 
 said nothing on the subject of Joseph's posterity succeed- 
 ing him until 1850. Again Mr. Roberts is wrong. In the 
 Gospel Herald, Strang's organ, published at Voree, Wis- 
 
38 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 consin, in its issue for August 31, 1848, is the following 
 comment: 
 
 Lyman Wight seems to cherish the idea that is ignorantly 
 held out by some others, that Joseph, the prophet's son, will 
 yet come up and take his father's original place in the church 
 as the prophet to the church; whereas there is not one single 
 word in all the book of Doctrine and Covenants to warrant the 
 idea. Prophetic Controversy, No. 2, p. 17. 
 
 Mr. Roberts has a theory that the claims of Joseph 
 Smith to the Presidency originated with the movement of 
 William Smith in 1850 (see p. 18), and seems determined to 
 make everything bend to the support of that theory; hence 
 he asserts in positive terms, both of William Smith and 
 Lyman Wight, that they did not teach lineal priesthood as 
 applied to the Presidency until 1850. We have exploded 
 this theory by showing that William Smith is on record on 
 that subject as early as November, 1845; and we have now 
 shown that Lyman Wight was criticised as early as 
 August, 1848, for teaching that Joseph Smith's posterity 
 would succeed him; and he must have been teaching this 
 theory some time? prior to this date, for news did not travel 
 rapidly in those days from the frontiers of Texas to 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 We present the fact that these two members of the Quo- 
 rum of the Twelve preached this so soon after their differ- 
 ence with the quorum, as strong presumptive evidence 
 that this was one of the points upon which the difference 
 arose. It must be remembered that neither William 
 Smith nor Lyman Wight at that time had control of a 
 press by which to preserve on record their views, and we 
 are dependent upon statements of their opponents. The 
 Times and Seasons, controlled by the Twelve and published 
 in Nauvoo, Illinois, carefully avoids stating what the issues 
 were. 
 
 It leaks out, however, through i^he Millennial Star, pub- 
 lished in England, in the case of William Smith, and 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 30 
 
 through the Gospel Herald, published in Wisconsin, in the 
 case of Lyman Wight, that at. least one of their conten- 
 tions was that the posterity of Joseph Smith should suc- 
 ceed to the Presidency. Here then are two of the Quorum 
 of the Twelve opposing the usurpations of their quorum 
 from the beginning. 
 
 Nor were they alone in this. The above quotation 
 states: 
 
 Lyman Wight seems to cherish the idea that is ignorantly 
 held out by some others, etc. 
 
 We are not told who those some others were nor how 
 many there were of them, but it is evident that the feeling 
 that "young Joseph" was appointed to some special posi- 
 tion was quite strong, even among Elder Strang's follow- 
 ers, notwithstanding the adverse comment above quoted; 
 for at their General Conference held in Voree, Wisconsin, 
 April, 1849, the following resolution was presented and 
 passed unanimously: 
 
 That we give our prayers daily for Joseph, the son of Joseph, 
 that he may be raised up of God to fill the station to which he 
 has been called by prophecy. Gospel Herald, Vol. 4, p. 16. 
 
 These evidences leave Mr. Roberts in a very unenviable 
 position as an exponent of "the facts of church history;" 
 and his theory that u the claims of Mr. Smith to the Presi- 
 dency" originated with the movement of 1850 is pitiably at 
 fault. Will Mr. Roberts, like an honest man, abandon 
 that theory, and confess his error? 
 
 He next seeks to impeach the testimony of Lyman 
 Wight by referring to a statement that Lyman Wight was 
 said to have taught that "young Joseph" was blessed by 
 his father while in Liberty jail, Missouri, and comparing 
 that with the statement quoted above that he blessed him . 
 shortly after he came out of jail. This he claims is a dis- 
 crepancy in time and place. It is only necessary in this con- 
 nection to say that the evidence shows that Joseph Smith, 
 
40 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 the Prophet, blessed his son Jo.seph both in Liberty jail and 
 after he came out, and Lyman Wight was with him both in 
 jail and after his escape and arrival in Illinois; hence both 
 statements may have been correct. 
 
 As evidence that two blessings were given, or rather the 
 same blessing pronounced at two different times and 
 places, corresponding with the statements of Elder Wight, 
 read the following from the pen of President Smith, pub- 
 lished in October, 1868: 
 
 In Liberty jail the promise and blessing of a life of usefulness 
 to the cause of truth was pronounced upon our head, by lips 
 tainted by dungeon damps, and by the Spirit confirmed 
 through attesting witnesses. 
 
 This blessing has by some been called an ordination, from 
 the usual predilection to confound names and terms. 
 
 The blessing which marked Moses as the deliverer from 
 Egyptian bondage, -was not that which Jethro pronounced upon 
 his head. 
 
 Subsequent to our baptism in 1843, upon two occasions was 
 the same blessing confirmed by Joseph Smith, once in the 
 council room in the brick store on the banks of the Mississippi, 
 of which we have not a doubt there are witnesses who would 
 confirm the present testimony; once, in the last interview 
 Joseph Smith held with his family before he left Nauvoo to his 
 death. A public attestation of the same blessing was made 
 from the stand in the grove in Nauvoo, some time prior to the 
 murder in Carthage. True Latter Day Saints' Herald, Vol. 14, p. 
 105. 
 
 In the light of these facts these quibbles of Mr. Roberts 
 amount to contemptible pettifoggery. After making 
 another unsupported, slanderous statement, Mr. Roberts 
 seeks to throw discredit upon the testimony published in 
 the Northern Islander, in 1855, by affirming that this is not 
 corroborated by Caleb Baldwin and Alexander McRae who 
 were in the jail at the time, and who have left nothing on 
 record regarding the occurrence. In answer we ask, If 
 the statement published in 1855 was untrue, why did not 
 Alexander McRae (who we believe was then living) contra- 
 Hct it? His silence was a tacit acknowledgement of its 
 >rrectness. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 41 
 
 Mr. Roberts' next attack is in the following language: 
 
 . (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 com- 
 mandment was given to build the Nauvoo House, a tavern, for 
 the boarding and lodging of strangers. Joseph Smith and his 
 family were also to have a home therein; for he was com- 
 manded 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 com- 
 mencement 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 priest- 
 hood and calling as President of the church! Roberts, pp. 
 53, 54. 
 
42 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Suppose we admit that the subject of this passage is the 
 Nauvoo House, and that a special provision was made 
 that Joseph Smith and his family were to have place 
 therein from generation to generation; then the inquiry 
 is pertinent, Why was this provision made? If we under- 
 stand Mr. Roberts, his position is that it was because 
 Joseph Smith held stock in the house and the Lord was 
 providing that his posterity should succeed to his property 
 rights. This was provided for by the laws of the land, 
 and why should the Lord interfere in such a matter? The 
 law of the land would also protect the property rights of 
 the heirs of every other stockholder in that institution. If 
 this is all he intended to do, why did he make a specialty 
 of the family of Joseph Smith? Were their property 
 rights more in jeopardy than the rights of hundreds of 
 others? There must have been some special reason why 
 his family should have a place in that house. That reason 
 will become clear by quoting the remainder of the para- 
 graph from which Mr. Roberts quotes but a part. Mr. 
 Roberts' quotation ends at a comma. Commencing at the 
 beginning of the sentence which he breaks and continuing 
 it reads: 
 
 Therefore, let my servant Joseph, and his seed after him, 
 have place in that house, from generation to generation, forever 
 and ever, saith the^Lord, and let the name of that house be 
 called the Nauvoo House; and let it be a delightful habitation 
 for man, and a resting place for the weary traveler, that he 
 may contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this the 
 corner stone thereof; that he may receive also the counsel from 
 those whom I have set to be as plants of renown, and as watch- 
 men upon her walls. D. C. 107: 18. 
 
 Here we have the purpose of the house described as 
 being a resting place for the "weary traveler, that he may 
 contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this the 
 corner stone thereof; that he may receive also the counsel from 
 those whom I have set to be as plants of renown, and as watch- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 48 
 
 men upon her icalls. " This being the purpose of the house, 
 does it not follow that those whom God decreed should 
 remain in the house, notwithstanding their property rights 
 were no better than others, were ' 'set to be as plants of 
 renown and as watchmen" upon the walls of Zion? Some 
 one may ask, Could they not "be as plants of renown, and 
 as watchmen" without being in the Presidency? In a 
 general sense they might be; but this indicates that their 
 counsel was to be in a special manner sought by the inves- 
 tigator. Why should they be thus specially pointed out 
 and located where their counsel could be had unless their 
 position was to be a special one? Had Nauvoo been built 
 up according to the command of God this provision would 
 doubtless now be in force. 
 
 Let us now return to that part of the quotation fur- 
 nished us by Mr. Roberts: "Let my servant Joseph, and 
 his house have place therein, from generation to genera- 
 tion." Why? Because they have property rights? Their 
 rights in this respect are just as good, but no better than 
 others. Let the Lord tell us why: "for this anointing 
 have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be 
 put upon the head of his posterity after him." Then to 
 remain in the house was not the blessing, but they were 
 to remain in the house because of the conditions attaching 
 to the blessing. What blessing were the posterity to 
 have? Joseph's blessing. What was his blessing? The 
 Lord gave a commandment on the very day the church 
 was organized, April 6, 1830, and gave instruction that a 
 record should be kept and that Joseph in that record 
 should "be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, and an 
 apostle of Jesus Christ," etc. (D. C. 19: 1.) 
 
 Again, the duty of the president of the office of the high 
 priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like 
 unto Moses. Behold, here is wisdom, yea, to be a seer, a reve- 
 lator, a translator, and a prophet; having all the gifts of God 
 which he bestows upon the head of the church. D. C. 104: 42. 
 

 44 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Here then is the blessing given to Joseph to occupy in 
 this position, and to discharge these duties and responsi- 
 bilities. But some one objects that this is not called a 
 "blessing;" but is it not a blessing? However, to silence 
 this caviling we refer the reader to the blessing of Joseph 
 Smith as pronounced by his father on the occasion of the 
 ordination of the High Council, February 19, 1834. Joseph 
 in his history says: 
 
 "My father Joseph then laid his hands upon my head and 
 said, 'Joseph, I lay my hands upon thy head and pronounce the 
 blessings of thy progenitors upon thee, that thou mayest hold 
 the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, until the 
 coming of the Lord; amen." 1 Church History, Vol. 1, p. 433; 
 Times and Seasons, Vol. 6, pp. 994, 995. 
 
 Here the doctrine of lineal descent is recognized for the 
 right to "hold the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom of 
 heaven" belonged to Joseph's progenitors, and descended 
 to him. Now mark you, "his blessing shall also be put upon 
 the head of his posterity after him. " So we have it clearly 
 denned that the blessing of Joseph's progenitors was con- 
 ferred on Joseph that he might "hold the keys of the 
 mysteries of the kingdom of heaven;" and this blessing 
 was to descend unto his posterity. Now what position in 
 the church does this blessing guarantee? Hear what the 
 Lord said to Frederick G-. Williams in March, 1832: 
 
 Hearken to the calling wherewith you are called, even to be 
 a high priest in my church, and a counselor unto my servant, 
 Joseph Smith, Jr., unto whom I have given the keys of the 
 kingdom, which belongeth always unto the presidency of the 
 high priesthood; etc. D. C. 80:1. 
 
 The question as to whether this special blessing always 
 comes to the eldest son is not an issue between us and the 
 people of Utah, hence it is idle to discuss it here. We 
 agree that it was bestowed upon Joseph Smith the Martyr, 
 and the above shows clearly that it should be in his 
 posterity. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 45 
 
 Summarizing the points in the paragraph under exam- 
 ination we get the following: 
 
 1. The boarding house is the subject under consid- 
 eration. 
 
 2. Joseph Smith's family was to have place in that house 
 from generation to generation, forever and ever. 
 
 3. The reason for this is that they were to inherit their 
 father's blessing. 
 
 4. That blessing entitles them to hold the keys of the 
 mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 5. These keys belong always unto the presidency of the 
 high priesthood. 
 
 6. Hence the presidency should be in Joseph's posterity. 
 We grant that all these hereditary rights are contingent 
 
 upon efficiency and worthiness, and a man or family may 
 be removed from his or their place for transgression 
 or unfaithfulness. But these disabilities must be proved, 
 not assumed, in order to deprive one of his rights under 
 the law. 
 
 Again, when it is considered that this revelation com- 
 pares the blessing of Joseph Smith with that of Abraham, 
 and affirms that in Joseph Smith and his seed "shall the 
 kindred of the earth be blessed," how poor and mean 
 appears the idea of Mr. Roberts and his echo, C. W. Pen- 
 rose, that 
 
 it has not the remotest application to Priesthood, or Presi- 
 dency, or succession in anything, but the right of Joseph the 
 Prophet and his posterity to have place in that house. Priest- 
 hood and Presidency, by Penrose, p. 15. 
 
 Mr. Roberts resumes, as follows: 
 
 (S) Mr. Smith claims that he was called through Tiis father to be 
 President of the church by a formal anointing in a council at Nau- 
 voo, 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 
 
46 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 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. Roberts, p. 55. 
 
 When Mr. Roberts penned the words, "Josephites quote 
 only the testimony of Mr. James Whitehead," etc., he evi- 
 dently had forgotten that which he quotes on next page 
 from the pen of Joseph Smith, as follows: 
 
 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. 
 
 Upon this statement Mr. Roberts comments as follows: 
 
 This is the only personal statement of his that I have ever 
 seen in all the writings of the Josephites in regard to his ordi- 
 nation and blessing by his father, and it appears that he has no 
 recollection of the nature of this "blessing;" if he was anointed 
 and blessed to be the future prophet and President of the 
 church, he evidently has no recollection of it, etc. 
 
 This is not the fault of "the writings of the Josephites," 
 but the fault of Mr. Roberts' information. We have 
 already quoted in these pages another and fuller statement 
 from the pen of President Smith published as early as 
 1868, (see p. 40). If we are to be held responsible for what 
 Mr. Roberts has not seen, our case is indeed a hopeless 
 one. In regard to the testimony of James Whitehead and 
 Emma Smith, Mr. Roberts states: 
 
 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 ela- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 47 
 
 tion 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. Roberts, p. 50. 
 
 These statements were published during the lifetime and 
 with the knowledge of James Whitehead and Emma Smith, 
 and received their tacit approval by not being corrected 
 by them. However, we will here present the following 
 direct statement of Elder Whitehead, given under oath in 
 the Temple Lot suit: 
 
 I recollect a meeting that was held in the winter of 1843, at 
 Nauvoo, Illinois, prior to Joseph Smith's death, at which the 
 appointment was made by him, Joseph Smith, of his successor. 
 His son Joseph was selected as his successor. Joseph Smith 
 did the talking. There were present Joseph and Hyrum 
 Smith, John Taylor, and some others who also spoke on the 
 subject; there were twenty-five I suppose at the meeting. At 
 that meeting Joseph Smith, the present presiding officer of the 
 complainant church, was selected by his father as his succes- 
 sor. He was oraained and anointed at that meeting. Hyrum 
 Smith, the Patriarch, anointed him, and Joseph his father 
 blessed him and ordained him, and Newell K. Whitney poured, 
 the oil on his head, and he was set apart to be his father's suc- 
 cessor in office, holding all the powers that his father held. I 
 cannot tell all the persons that were present, there was a good 
 many there. John Taylor and Willard Richards, they were 
 two of the "Twelve," Ebenezer Robinson was present, and 
 George J. Adams, Alpheus Cutler, and Reynolds Cahoon. I 
 cannot tell them all; I was there too. Plaintiff's Abstract, 
 p. 28. 
 
 Shall we now have more respect from Mr. Roberts? 
 George J. Adams may have lost confidence in this appoint- 
 ment afterward; we do not know. But he did not forget 
 "his elation at finding out who the true successor of the 
 prophet was" so readily as Mr. Roberts would have us 
 believe; for, according to the letter of James Kay, from 
 which we have quoted (see p. 18), he was with William 
 Smith at St. Louis, in November, 1845, advocating the 
 right of young Joseph to the presidency. Emma Smith 
 and James Whitehead agree that G. J. Adams was present 
 at this anointing. We present the fact that Mr. Adams 
 
48 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 advocated the right of succession in young Joseph imme- 
 diately after, as a strong corroborative circumstance. 
 
 In confirmation of the testimony of James Whitehead 
 and in refutation of Mr. Roberts' statement that ' ' Joseph- 
 ites quote only the testimony of Mr. James Whitehead," we 
 cite the testimony of John H. Carter, of near Provo, Utah, 
 taken in the Temple Lot suit, at Salt Lake, Utah, March 
 14, 1892. After relating that this took place when he was 
 present, at a Sunday service held in the Bowery near the 
 Temple, at Nauvoo, not long before Joseph was killed, he 
 says: 
 
 Joseph Smith came on the stand leading his son, young 
 Joseph, and they sat him down on a bench at the prophet's 
 right hand, and Joseph got up and began to preach and talk to 
 the people, and the question he said was asked by somebody, 
 "If Joseph Smith should be killed or die, who would be his 
 successor?" And he turned around and said, pointing to his 
 son, "There is the successor," and he went on and said "My 
 work is pretty nearly done," and that is about all he said in 
 regard to his son. He said in answer to a question that was 
 asked as to who should be his successor in case he should be 
 killed or die, and he pointed to his son, young Joseph, who was 
 sitting there at his side, and said he; "There is your leader." 
 Plaintiff's Abstract, pp. 180, 181. 
 
 Upon this point the testimony of Mr. Whitehead and 
 Mr. Carter agrees; and they corroborate the statement of 
 President Smith published in 1868. (See p. 40.) Is it 
 stupidity or dishonesty that causes Mr. Roberts to flounder 
 so? 
 
 Mr. Roberts seeks to throw discredit upon the testimony 
 of Charles Derry, D. S. Mills, Lucy Smith (mother of the 
 prophet), George Miller, Louis G-aulter, Harriet E. Gaul- 
 ter, Arthur Milliken, and A. B. Moore; but as in neither 
 case does he introduce evidence in rebuttal or to impeach, 
 we shall not follow him in his immaterial struggle. The 
 testimony of the witnesses must stand until it is proved 
 false or they are impeached. These witnesses are known 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 40 
 
 by reputation, and some of them personally to many of our 
 readers. 1 .ey need no certificate of character. 
 
 We will however briefly notice the comment of Mr. 
 Roberts on Bishop Miller's testimony. .He says: 
 
 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 quarrel- 
 ling 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 influ- 
 ence to his statement. Roberts, p. 61. 
 
 To say that the above insinuations are mean and despica- 
 ble is to put the case mildly. Not one word of testimony 
 that he and Mr. Wight quarreled; that either of them lost 
 their honor; that the church which he rejected was the 
 Church of Christ; that he was untrue to Mr. Wight or 
 young Joseph; that he became a restless man; that he 
 apostatized; that he was unstable as water. All this is 
 flaunted before us without proof with a recklessness that 
 betrays that its author is conscious that his success 
 depends on his blinding the eyes of the people to the real 
 issue. In contrast with this, let us quote what the Lord 
 said of George Miller in 1841: 
 
 Let no man despise my servant George, for he shall honor 
 me. D. C. 107: 8. 
 
 The issue then is between the Lord and Roberts. We let 
 it rest there. 
 
 As for the explanation asked for by Mr. Roberts, Bishop 
 Miller probably went to Lyman Wight because Lyman 
 Wight taught lineal priesthood, and afterwards to J. J. 
 
60 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Strang because of the resolution passed by the Strangite 
 conference in 1849. (See p. 39.) 
 
 Elder Roberts in his work page 66 quotes Brigham Young 
 as stating (see Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 683) that Joseph 
 Smith ordained his brother Hyrum to succeed him. This 
 claim made in October, 1844, by Elder Brigham Young, 
 would, if true, destroy the prophetic character of Joseph 
 Smith; for, as Elder Young informs us, Hyrum fell a mar- 
 tyr before Joseph did; hence if he was so ordained, it was 
 a failure, and certainly God did not prompt it. We cannot 
 accept this upon the unsupported statement of Elder 
 Young. 
 
 The words quoted by Mr. Roberts from Tullidge do not 
 convey the idea that Joseph ordained Hyrum to be his suc- 
 cessor, 
 
 Mr. Roberts presents another division of the subject in 
 these words: 
 
 Having disposed of Mr. Smith's claim to the right of the 
 Presidency of the church so far as it is based upon an appoint- 
 ment 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. Roberts, pp. 66, 67. 
 
 We do not object to the application of the law of lineage 
 to the offices of Patriarch and Bishop. We believe, as a 
 general rule, that what belongs to the father belongs to 
 his posterity if competent, available, and worthy. Recog- 
 nizing, however, that the son's right to his father's 
 position is contingent upon these conditions, and that God 
 alone is a competent judge of ability and worthiness, we 
 hold that no man should be ordained to any office without 
 a call from God. We believe, however, that, under favor- 
 able conditions, all other things being equal, God recog- 
 nizes this principle in his selections. What we object to 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 51 
 
 in Mr. Roberts' theory is the limiting of the application of 
 this law to the two offices he mentions. This we believe to 
 be erroneous. 
 
 We have already shown that Joseph Smith, the Martyr, 
 held the keys of the kingdom by virtue of his having 
 received the blessings of his progenitors, and that this 
 blessing was to descend to his posterity after him. We 
 now proceed to show that this law has a general applica- 
 tion. 
 
 A revelation was received through Joseph Smith the 
 prophet on December 6, 1832, which is addressed to the 
 Priesthood without distinction as follows: 
 
 Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servants, etc. D. C. 
 84: 1. 
 
 In this revelation is found the following paragraph: 
 
 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the 
 priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers, 
 for ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been 
 hid from the world with Christ in God: therefore your life and 
 the priesthood hath remained, and must needs remain, through 
 you and your lineage, until the restoration of all things spoken 
 by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. 
 D. C. 84: 3. 
 
 Here the law of lineage is specifically and clearly taught 
 as applied to those holding the priesthood, and it is 
 expressly declared that those who held the priesthood in 
 1832 did so in harmony with the rights of lineage. It is 
 natural for. some men in the heat of argument to inad- 
 vertently strain a point for the sake of a specific applica- 
 tion, and if overzealous individuals have made this mistake 
 with this passage we decline to be bound by such argu- 
 ment. We concede, and believe, that this passage does 
 not have an exclusive application to Joseph Smith and his 
 posterity, but that it is general in its application. We 
 contend, however, that while Joseph Smith and his pos- 
 terity are not the only ones referred to, they should not be 
 excluded from the application of this general rule. 
 
52 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 It is asserted, however, that this language treats only of 
 the priesthood, and not to offices in the priesthood. It 
 would be difficult for Mr. Roberts and his fellows to estab- 
 lish his exception in the case of the Patriarch upon this 
 reasoning. However, we have shown clearly that Joseph, 
 the Martyr, held his position in the priesthood by virtue of 
 his having obtained the blessings of his progenitors, and 
 that that blessing was to descend to his posterity. We 
 believe that other families are subject to the same rule, 
 contingent upon the same conditions and restrictions. 
 Science has proclaimed a reason for this provision, not 
 considered in former years, which demonstrates its beauty 
 and consistency. The theory of prenatal influences, which 
 provides that the child before birth is influenced in dispo- 
 sition and traits of character by its parentage, is now 
 adopted by the best minds of the age. It follows then that 
 if a man is thoroughly imbued with the spirit of his call- 
 ing, and earnestly and zealously engaged in the execution 
 of the duties of that office, the child born to him under 
 these conditions is likely to possess pre-eminently the quali- 
 ties neccessary to succeed in the position filled by the 
 father; more especially is this true when the mother is 
 also thoroughly in sympathy with the father's work; 
 hence the wisdom of removing the family from their place 
 when the father fails to occupy properly, as declared in the 
 following warning: 
 
 And now verily I say unto Joseph Smith, Jr., you have not 
 kept the commandments, and must needs stand rebuked before 
 the Lord. Your family must needs repent and forsake some 
 things, and give more earnest heed unto your sayings, or be 
 removed out of their place. What I say unto one I say unto 
 all: Pray always, lest that wicked one have power in you, and 
 remove you out of your place. 
 
 My servant Newel K. Whitney, also a bishop of my church, 
 hath need to be chastened, and set in order his family, and see 
 that they are more diligent and concerned at home, and pray 
 always, or they shall be removed out of their place. D. C. 90; 
 8, 9. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 53 
 
 According to this, not only the Smith family and the 
 Whitney family had a place in the church, but all were in 
 the same condition, their place depending upon their faith- 
 fulness. 
 
 The effect of prenatal influences will naturally be more 
 marked and positive where the parent's work is of an 
 inspired spiritual character, than where it is merely of a 
 physical or unaided mental character. 
 
 It is conceded that God can use any man, who is willing, 
 for the accomplishment of his purposes; but we urge that 
 in providing a law or rule of succession he would evidently 
 choose that law or rule most likely to produce the best 
 results. 
 
 For some cause the church in Utah has found it advisa- 
 ble to practically follow this rule in many of the leading 
 offices in their organization. As a result they have in the 
 Presidency, Joseph F. Smith to succeed his father, Hyrum; 
 as presiding Patriarch, John Smith, to succeed his father; 
 in the Quorum of the Twelve, Brigham, the son of Brig- 
 ham Young; John Henry, the son of George A. Smith; 
 Heber J., the son of Jedediah Grant; Francis M., the son 
 of Amasa Lyman; John W., the son of John Taylor; and 
 A. O. Woodruff, son of Wilford Woodruff. The late 
 Abram Cannon, of the same quorum, was, we believe, the 
 son of George Q: Cannon. What then but the ambition of 
 Brigham Young and his successors, real and prospective, 
 has prompted this people to contend so strenuously 
 against the application of the law of lineage to the Presi- 
 dency of the church? 
 
 Mr. Roberts concludes his argument under this head as 
 follows: 
 
 As a conclusion to my argument against the claim of Mr. 
 Smith, that the position of President of the church e his by 
 right of lineage, I quote the words of his illustrious father. In 
 a discourse delivered on the 27th of August, 1843, having for 
 his text the seventh chapter of Hebrews, and explaining the 
 
54 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 phrase in the third verse "without father, without mother, 
 without descent," etc., he said: 
 
 The Melchisedek priesthood holds the right from the eternal 
 God, and not by descent from father and mother; and that priest- 
 hood is eternal as God himself, having neither beginning of 
 days nor end of life. 
 
 In the face of this how can Mr. Smith claim any right, by 
 virtue of lineage, to the Melchisedek priesthood, much less to 
 the highest office in that priesthood? His claim is denied by 
 that very father from whom he claims to have received it by 
 inheritance. It occurs to me here to ask a question: If the 
 office of President of the church does descend by lineage from 
 the fathers, through the line of the eldest sons, how is it that 
 the "law" did not operate on the other side of the prophet 
 Joseph as well as on this side of him? If that "law" had 
 operated so and there is no good reason why it should not so 
 operate, if indeed it be the "law" of the priesthood it would 
 have left out not only the present Mr. Smith but even the 
 prophet Joseph himself. For in that event it would have come 
 first to Joseph Smith, the father of the prophet, who was a 
 noble, righteous man; and then after his death to his eldest 
 living son, Hyrum Smith, than whom there has been no more 
 righteous man among all the sons of God who have lived in 
 this generation; and from him it would have passed on to his 
 eldest son, thus leaving out the prophet Joseph altogether, as 
 well as Mr. Smith. Roberts, pp. 71, 72. 
 
 For this purported quotation from Joseph Smith, upon 
 which Mr. Roberts bases his argument, he cites us to the 
 History of Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, Vol. 22, p. 55. 
 This was published about the year 1860, twenty-six years 
 after the death of Joseph Smith, and when we consider 
 that the genuineness of some publications issued by the 
 Utah Church in those times is doubted, we can attach but 
 little importance to such testimony. As an instance of 
 this unreliability we cite the resolution of August 8, 1844, 
 as quoted by Mr. Roberts from Millennial Star, Vol. 25, 
 compared with the resolution published in the Times <md 
 Seasons. (See p. 13.) 
 
 Besides this Mr. Roberts places a strained construction 
 on the words of Joseph Smith as quoted. Without lengthy 
 comment we simply submit that the views of Joseph Smith 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 65 
 
 on this passage were doubtless in harmony with the ren- 
 dering by himself found in the Inspired Translation, as 
 follows: 
 
 For this Melchisedec was ordained a priest after the order 
 of the Son of God, which order was without father, without 
 mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor 
 end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priest- 
 hood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest 
 continually. Hebrews 7:3. 
 
 This makes the order of the priesthood without father, or 
 mother, or descent, and has no reference to rights of suc- 
 cession to offices in that order. So if Joseph Smith did use 
 the language attributed to him by Mr. Roberts, he evi- 
 dently intended to take the position that the order originated 
 with God, and not by descent, etc. Any other construction 
 would place him in opposition to his own rendering of the 
 passage. 
 
 As for the question which it occurred to Mr. Roberts to 
 ask, all we have to say is this: We have explained and 
 maintained that, though God honors the principle of lineal 
 descent both in priesthood and presidency, yet as God is 
 the sole judge of fitness and availability, none should be 
 elevated to office except by revelation from God. Just 
 why the Lord did not restore this family to the position to 
 which they were entitled because of the blessings of their 
 progenitors a generation or more sooner than he did, is not 
 to our knowledge revealed. The same is true regarding 
 the Lord's reason for passing by Hyrum Smith. It is, 
 however, idle to discuss these questions, for Mr. Roberts 
 and his indorsers concede that the Lord did choose Jiwjt/i 
 Smith; and the issue is: What provision did the Lord 
 make for succession after him? 
 
 That Joseph understood that his posterity was to suc- 
 ceed him in his work is evident from the following extract 
 from a letter written to John C. Calhom, January 2, 
 1844: 
 
56 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 While I have powers of body and mind; while water runs and 
 grass grows, while virtue is lovely .and vice hateful; and while 
 a stone points out a sacred spot where a fragment of American 
 liberty once was; I or my posterity will plead the cause of 
 injured innocence, until Missouri makes atonement for all her 
 sins or sinks disgraced, degraded and damned to hell 'where 
 the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.' Times and 
 Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 395. 
 
 Mr. Roberts proceeds as follows: 
 
 The third claim made in behalf of Mr. Smith is: 
 He ioas called to the position of President of the church by "revela- 
 tion" to himself. 
 
 Of this it is not necessary to say very much. It could only be 
 important if sustained by the other two claims, viz: that he 
 was appointed by his father to succeed to the office of Presi- 
 dent of the church; and secondly, that the office is his by line- 
 age. Since these two claims have been disproven, it renders 
 his third claim of no effect. Roberts, pp. 72, 73. 
 
 Certainly Mr. Roberts is getting reckless! Does he 
 intend to concede that an appointment from Joseph the 
 Seer and the claim of lineage are of such vital importance 
 that where they are wanting a revelation would be insuffi- 
 cient? It seems incredible that Mr. Roberts would give 
 his case away by such a concession; yet this is just what Tie 
 says: The claim that he was called by revelation "could 
 only be important if sustained by the other two." 
 
 Mr. Roberts concedes more than we claim. We hold that 
 if he had never been appointed by his father, and if there 
 had been no such doctrine announced as lineal priesthood, 
 a call from God by revelation would have been important. 
 The first prophet and President of the church was called 
 by revelation through himself, and that too when the doc- 
 trine of lineal descent was unknown, and when he had no 
 immediate predecessor to appoint him, as the following 
 will show: 
 
 Be-hold, 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; being 
 inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 57 
 
 to build it up unto the most holy faith; which church was 
 organized and established, in the year of your Lord eighteen 
 hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day 
 of the month, which is called April. D. C. 19: 1. 
 
 However, we may have misunderstood Mr. Roberts. 
 He may mean that unless Mr. Smith was appointed by bis 
 father, or that it was his right by lineage, his claim to be a 
 revelator would not be valid, and hence his revelations 
 would be of "no effect." If he concedes so much, we thank 
 him. We shall have need for this concession when consid- 
 ering the claims of Brigham Young. 
 
 He then refers to the manifestations received by Presi- 
 dent Smith, and adds: 
 
 These are all the "revelations" spoken of by Mr. Smith in his 
 autobiography, or quoted by his supporters, hence these must 
 be the "revelations" to himself by which he was called to be 
 President of the church! Just where the "call" can be found 
 in them is the thing which the writer of these pages cannot 
 see: and he challenges anybody else to point it out. Roberts, 
 p. 74. 
 
 We accept this challenge and in evidence produce a reve- 
 lation to President Smith quoted by Mr. Roberts from 
 Joseph Smith's autobiography as follows: 
 
 The Saints reorganizing at Zarahemla and other places, is the 
 only organized portion of the Church accepted by me. I have 
 given them my spirit, and will continue to do so while they 
 remain humble and faithful. Roberts, pp. 73, 74. 
 
 Here is a definite and specific acknowledgement of the 
 Reorganization forming at Zarahemla and elsewhere. Now 
 it only remains to show what was the position on this 
 point of the people thus strongly indorsed, and Mr. Rob- 
 erts' challenge is met. It will be remembered that this 
 manifestation to President Smith came in 1859. 
 
 Elder Jason Briggs claimed that as~ early as November 
 18, 1851, he received a revelation containing this state- 
 ment: 
 
 In mine own due time will I call upon the seed of Joseph 
 Smith, and will bring one forth, and he shall be mighty and 
 
68 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 strong, and he shall preside over the high priesthood of my 
 church, etc. The Messenger, Vol. 2, p. 1. 
 
 Elder Z. H. Gurley, Sen., claims that in 1852 a manifes- 
 tation came to him as follows: 
 
 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. Ibid., p. 9. 
 
 Upon this and like information these men and others 
 proceeded to renounce all other leaders and to teach that 
 the right of presidency was vested in Joseph Smith, the 
 son of the prophet. If Mr. Roberts cannot see that the 
 indorsement of the Reorganization received by President 
 Smith in 1859 carried with it the position occupied by the 
 Reorganization on the subject of Presidency, the reader 
 can. 
 
 Again, the indorsement of this position was not confined 
 to these two men, for in June, 1852, the body adopted, 
 among other resolutions, the following: 
 
 Resolved, that the successor of Joseph Smith, Junior, as the 
 Presiding High Priest in the Melchisedec priesthood, must of 
 necessity be of the seed of Joseph Smith, Junior, in fulfillment 
 of the law and promises of God. The Messenger, Vol. 2, p. 9. 
 
 Mr. Roberts' next statement is as follows: 
 
 It should be observed here, perhaps, that "revelations" to a 
 man personally, that he is called to be President of the church, 
 even when clear &nd definite, do not constitute him the Presi- 
 dent. Something else is necessary. As observed elsewhere, 
 not only must a man be called of God, but he muat be accepted 
 by the church "chosen by the body, appointed and ordained 
 to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer 
 of the church." Roberts, p. 74. 
 
 To this we agree, and shall insist in all our controversy 
 that we cannot accept as President of the church any man 
 not filling these requirements. Of course, Mr. Roberts 
 denies in this connection that President Smith was 
 accepted and chosen by the true church; and that he was 
 appointed and ordained by proper authority. But his 
 denial is scarcely worth the space required to notice it. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 59 
 
 However, is it consistent for Mr. Roberts to insist upon 
 these requirements in the case of Mr. Smith while he 
 defends the claims of Messrs. Young, Taylor, Woodruff, 
 and Snow to the Presidency, none of whom was ever 
 ordained by anyone to the office of President of the church? 
 Or, if they were, we have seen no record of it; nor have 
 we been able to get any information on this point from the 
 authorities of the Utah Church. Some time ago we made 
 an effort to obtain data upon this and other points, but the 
 result was very unsatisfactory. 
 
 That the reader may know just what our effort was, and 
 how treated, we here give the correspondence. 
 
 The following letter which explains its own purpose, was 
 addressed to Elder F. D. Richards, their Church Recorder 
 and Historian: 
 
 LAMONI, Iowa, October 2, 1896. 
 F. D. RICHARDS, 
 
 Dear Sir: I believe you are Church Recorder, and so write 
 you for historical information. Will you favor me by stating 
 what the approximate or exact numerical strength of the 
 church was at the time of the death of Joseph and Hyrum 
 Smith. 
 
 I desire this simply to get at correct historical data. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 HEMAN C. SMITH. 
 
 To this we received the following reply: 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Oct. 12, 1896. 
 MR. HEMAN C. SMITH, Lamoni, Iowa. 
 
 Dear Sir: In reply to yours of the 2d inst. as to the numer- 
 ical strength of the church at the time of the death of Joseph 
 and Hyrum Smith. 
 
 The nearest we can approximate the number was about 
 26,000 to 27,000 souls. Respectfully, 
 
 F. D. RICHARDS. 
 
 To this we replied as follows: 
 
 LAMONI, Iowa, Oct. 17, 1896. 
 F. D. RICHARDS, 
 
 Dear Sir: Yours of October 12, 1896, is at hand, stating the 
 approximate numerical strength of the church at the death of 
 
60 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Joseph and Hyrum Smith to have been "about 26,000 to 27,000 
 souls." 
 
 I am surprised at the number being given so small by you. 
 How do you explain the statements of Joseph Smith on this 
 point? In a historical sketch written by him and published by 
 I. Daniel Rupp in 1844 he writes: "There are no correct data 
 by which the exact number of members composing this now 
 extensive, and still extending, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
 Day Saints can be known. Should it be supposed at 150,000 it 
 might still be short of the truth." History of Religious 
 Denominations, p. 409. 
 
 In his reply to Henry Clay, May 13, 1844, he writes: "Why, 
 Great God! to transport 200,000 people through a vast prairie; 
 over the Rocky Mountains, to Oregon, a distance of nearly two 
 thousand miles, would cost more than four millions!" Times 
 and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 547. 
 
 These two statements would closely agree if we include in 
 the latter statement dependents who were not members, but 
 there is a very wide difference between your estimate and his. 
 
 I do not quote these statements by way of argument against 
 your figures, but to get your explanation of the difference. 
 Upon what basis did you make your estimate? Have you the 
 record of names kept at the time? I want to get at the truth of 
 the matter for the sake of historical accuracy. 
 
 I would like to ask another favor of you; namely: to inform 
 me when, where, and by whom were Brigham Young, John Taylor, 
 and Wilford Woodruff ordained Presidents of the High Priest- 
 hood, or Presidents of the church, if so ordained? 
 
 Or if it is the position of your people that they needed no 
 other ordination than that to the Apostleship, will you please 
 so state. 
 
 I am engaged in writing history and do not wish to misrepre- 
 sent you. Respectfully, 
 
 HEMAN 0. SMITH. 
 
 Awaiting until November 19, and receiving no reply to 
 our inquiries, we wrote Mr. Richards as follows: 
 
 LAMONI, Iowa, Nov. 19, 1896. 
 P. D. RICHARDS, 
 
 Dear Sir: On October 17,. I wrote you in reply to yours of 
 October 12. I am very anxious to receive answer to inquiries 
 made. If you have not received it please let me know and I 
 will send you a copy. 
 
 I am, respectfully, 
 
 HEMAN C. SMITH. 
 Still receiving no reply, we awaited until December 16, 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 61 
 
 when we mailed him a copy of our letter of October 17, 
 together with the following note, registering them: 
 
 LAMONI, Iowa, Dec. 16, 1896. 
 F. D. RICHARDS, 
 
 Dear Sir: On October 17 I wrote you in answer to yours of 
 October 12, and made some further inquiries. Waiting until 
 November 19, and receiving no reply I wrote inquiring if you 
 received it. Still I have no reply. 
 
 I now inclose a copy of my letter of October 17, as you may 
 not have received the original. Will you please give it your 
 early attention, as I am anxious to get the information sought. 
 
 I inclose stamp for reply. 
 
 In bonds, 
 
 HEMAN C. SMITH. 
 
 In due course of mail we received the "Registry Return 
 Receipt," signed "F. D. Richards, per John Jaques;" but 
 up to date, November 15, 1898, no answer has been re- 
 ceived. 
 
 When two of their own representatives, J. H. Stout and 
 U. G-. Miller, made the same inquiry they were just as 
 unsuccessful, as the following will show: 
 
 " 'Will you please answer the following through the News: 
 Who ordained President Brigham Young to the office of Presi- 
 dent of the Church, and also the date of the organization ? The 
 Reorganized ministers are making the statement that he never 
 was ordained, and that the people never made the claim that 
 he was. No doubt it will be of use to others of the elders as 
 well as ourselves.' 
 
 "For the information of those who send the inquiry, we will 
 state that the event referred to is carefully recorded in church 
 history, and has been published frequently. President Brig- 
 ham Young was installed as the President of the Church, in the 
 quorum of the First Presidency, by the Council of the Apostles, 
 on December 5, 1847. Not a ceremony necessary to the perform- 
 ance of that solemn duty was omitted everything was done in 
 perfect order, and by the united voice of the Twelve. President 
 Young had been President of the Church in his position asPres - 
 dent of the presidingquorum, the Twelve Apostles, for more than 
 three years previous to the date given, oreversince the martyr- 
 dom of the Prophet Joseph. When, on the date mentioned, 
 President Young had been duly installed as the chief in the First 
 Presidency, he selected Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards 
 as first and second counselors respectively, and they were also 
 
62 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 duly set apart, being sustained by the unanimous vote of the 
 Twelve. In their case, as with President Young, no ceremony 
 was omitted." Daily Deseret News, October 5, 1896. 
 
 Comment is useless; but we still insist upon answers to 
 these inquiries, and until they are received we shall main- 
 tain that the gentlemen named, to whom we now add the 
 name of Mr. Snow, were not at any time ordained to the 
 office of President of the church; and hence according to 
 Mr. Roberts' position stated above, were not properly con- 
 stituted Presidents of the church. 
 
 Again, Brigham Young admits by the strongest kind of 
 inference that he was not ordained to the office of Presi- 
 dent of the church. He says: 
 
 Who ordained me to be First President of this Church on 
 earth? I answer, it is the choice of this people, and that is 
 sufficient. Millennial Star, Vol. 16, p. 442. 
 
 But Mr. Roberts says it is not sufficient, but that he 
 should be ordained. In this Mr. Roberts is right; but how 
 can he sustain Mr. Young who is wrong? 
 
 With President Smith the case was different. He was 
 ordained by what he considered proper authority; a record 
 of that ordination has been made and published, and is 
 open for investigation. We are prepared to defend the 
 authority by which the ordination was performed, when 
 legitimately questioned, but in this connection we pass it 
 by for the reason that Mr. Roberts' objection to the apos- 
 tolic authority exercised upon that occasion is based upon 
 his own affirmation. Hear him: 
 
 Now, I affirm that among all those seven men who were 
 "called" to form the majority of the quorum of the twelve, in 
 the "Reorgani/ation" not one of them held the apostleship; 
 that they could not give what they did not possesss; that there- 
 fore neither the seven men called to be apostles, in April, 1853, 
 received the apostleship, nor any whom they subsequently 
 ordained. Roberts, p. 77. 
 
 The only answer that this deserves is a counter affirma- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 63 
 
 tion ; but we may consider the question of authority more 
 fully in another part of our investigation. 
 
 Mr. Roberts makes a labored effort to show that what- 
 ever authority may have been possessed by Zenos H. 
 Gurley and William Marks prior to the death of Joseph 
 Smith, they lost by indorsing the claims of J. J. Strang' 
 and others. But this is only an assumption. We have 
 the same right to assume that all who followed Brigham 
 Young thereby lost their authority. 
 
 Proceeding upon the basis of his affirmation that those 
 claiming apostolic authority in the Reorganization did not 
 possess it, Mr. Roberts seeks to show a contrast between 
 this organization and the one effected in 1830 by endeavor- 
 ing to show that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others 
 acted in the last-named organization by virtue of apostolic 
 authority. Any position, no matter how sound, could 
 apparently be overthrown if the objector is allowed his 
 own affirmation as a basis from which to argue; but it 
 takes a great amount of assurance and impudence for a 
 man to offer his own assertion as basic evidence. 
 
 The next thing in Mr. Roberts' argument which we deem 
 necessary to notice in this connection is the following: 
 
 Josephites lay much stress upon the following passage in one 
 of the revelations: 
 
 I say unto you that ye have received a commandment fora 
 law unto my church through him whom I have appointed unto 
 you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. 
 And this ye shall know assuredly, that there is none other 
 appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations 
 until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say 
 unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift 
 except it be through him, for if it be taken from him, he shall 
 not have power, except to appoint another in his stead; and 
 this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings 
 of any that shall come before you as revelations and command- 
 ments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, 
 that you may know that they are not of me. For verily I say 
 unto you, that he that is ordained of me, shall come in at the 
 gate and be ordained, as I have told you before, to teach those 
 
64 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 revelations which you have received, and shall receive through 
 him whom I have appointed. 
 
 Josephites insist that this revelation provides that the suc- 
 cessor of the prophet Joseph must be appointed by him. Rob- 
 erts, pp. 82, 83. 
 
 This is quite a fair statement for Mr. Eoberts to make, 
 yet a more careful man would have stated our position 
 more accurately by saying, that we insist that this revela- 
 tion recognizes the authority of the prophet Joseph to 
 appoint his successor, and that if he did so appoint, the 
 appointment is valid. 
 
 After relating some of the circumstances under which 
 the above revelation was given, none of which would in 
 anywise change the import of the language, or modify its 
 meaning, Mr. Roberts proceeds to give his understanding 
 of this passage, in the following language: 
 
 The information thus given officially to the church was cal- 
 culated to preserve the saints from following unauthorized 
 "law-givers." Through it they learned that Joseph, if he 
 remained faithful, would be the law-giver to Israel; if he trans- 
 gressed he should retain sufficient of the power of revelation to 
 designate whom the Lord would have to succeed him; and in 
 that or any other event the man who becomes President must 
 come in at the gate and be ordained as described in one of the 
 laws of the church previously given. There was surely no need 
 after this that any should be deceived. But to argue from 
 what is set down in this revelation that the only possible way 
 for a successor "in any event," to be appointed to the church 
 was through Joseph Smith the prophet, is clearly an error; for 
 the only provision made in this revelation for him to appoint 
 his successor is in the event of his own transgression; and I 
 affirm that Joseph Smith was faithful to God and the church 
 up to the day of his death. Roberts, p. 84. 
 
 We cannot avoid being amused at Mr. Roberts' propen- 
 sity for settling a question with his characteristic "7 
 affirm" It reminds us of a comment made by one of his 
 church associates, but political opponents, to the effect 
 that Mr. Roberts never appeared before the public without 
 saying by his manner, "/ am B. H. Roberts." However, 
 our chief objection is to the following: 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 06 
 
 The only provision made in this revelation for him to appoint 
 his successor is in the event of his own transgression. 
 
 We do not so comprehend the language. The words, 
 "Verily, verily I say unto you, that none else shall be 
 appointed unto this gift except it be through him," admit 
 of no modifications or exceptions. The words following: 
 "for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, 
 except to appoint another in his stead," etc., simply con- 
 vey the impression that this right, vested in him by virtue, 
 of his office, he would retain, even in case of transgression, 
 to avoid confusion and uncertainty. To take the position, 
 as Mr. Roberts does, that Joseph Smith was not authorized 
 to appoint his successor except in the event of his trans- 
 gression, is to make the authority to appoint contingent 
 upon transgression. 
 
 We can readily see the possibility and even advisability, 
 for this specific purpose, of a man retaining a part of his 
 authority, already bestowed, after transgression; but the 
 idea that God would bestow authority not before held, 
 upon a transgressor, which would be denied him if faithful, 
 is absurd. We have long been taught that God bestows 
 authority, honor, and power as a reward for faithfulness; 
 but it remained for this illustrious guardian of the "order 
 of the priesthood of God, and the facts of church history," 
 to inform us that God reserves certain authority for the 
 transgressor alone. 
 
 What to us seems very peculiar is that notwithstanding 
 Mr. Roberts' claim that Joseph Smith had no authority to 
 appoint his successor except in the event of his transgres- 
 sion, and notwithstanding he affirms that Joseph did prove 
 faithful, yet he asserts, on the authority of Brigham 
 Young, that Joseph did appoint his brother Hyrum to suc- 
 ceed him. (See Roberts' book, page 66.) 
 
 Certainly God would provide for succession and the per- 
 
66 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 petuity of his work in case of Joseph's death, as much so 
 as in case of his transgression. 
 
 We af e impressed to close this chapter with these words 
 of Mr. Roberts, which we commend: 
 
 Can it be that God, with whom all things are as present, had 
 not foreseen this fate which overtook his servants Joseph and 
 Hyrum, and failed to provide for such an emergency? O, 
 charge not the Lord with such lack of wisdom, or his church 
 with such imperfection in its organization! Roberts, p. 85. 
 
CHAPTER 7. 
 
 ROBERTS' DISCREPANCIES TWELVE SECOND IN AUTHORITY 
 TEMPLE NOT COMPLETED CHURCH REJECTED PHATT'B 
 REVELATION. 
 
 THOUGH what was done in the case of Sidney Rigdon at 
 Nauvoo is not of special importance to this discussion, we 
 wish briefly to note the discrepancy in Mr. Roberts' own 
 account, and also his clash with his own witnesses. On 
 page 88 of his book Mr. Roberts states of Mr. Rigdon: 
 
 He sought to be appointed Guardian of the church, but was 
 unanimously rejected by the assembled quorums of priesthood 
 and the saints at Nauvoo. 
 
 This agrees with the statement of Elder Woodruff (see 
 p. 13), but unfortunately it conflicts with Mr. Roberts' own 
 statement that no vote was taken on Rigdon's claims. 
 (See p. 12.) This is Roberts versus Roberts. At one time 
 he agrees with the record as published in Times and Sea- 
 sons (see p. 12), and at the other time with Wilford Wood- 
 ruff. It will not do; no man can agree with the record 
 and with Woodruff too. 
 
 In regard to the vote on the sustaining of the Twelve, he 
 is in just as bad as a muddle. He states that the vote 
 was unanimous (see p. 12), and quotes the Millennial Star 
 to the same effect (see pp. 13, 14); but he had previously 
 quoted from the journal of William C. Staines, that the 
 "vote was taken to sustain the Twelve in their office, 
 which with a few dissenting voices, was passed. (See p. 10.) 
 
 Do not forget, reader, that this man Roberts is a zealous 
 defender of the "facts of church history." 
 
 Mr. Roberts enters into a long dissertation to show that 
 
68 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 the Twelve were next in authority after the First Presi- 
 dency, and hence should preside in their absence, and that 
 the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith did not disorganize 
 the church. We agree that the Twelve are next in au- 
 thority to the First Presidency. We have no objection to 
 their presiding at any proper time and place, providing 
 they do so in their own office and calling. We object not 
 to their doing, but to their manner of doing, and to what 
 they did, as will appear before the close of this investiga- 
 tion. Nor do we claim that the church was disorganized 
 by the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The church, 
 we claim, was rejected because of its own acts of trans- 
 gression, and its failure to comply with the commands of 
 God. 
 But Mr. Roberts in speaking of the church asserts: 
 
 There is nothing in all that God has revealed to indicate that 
 he ever contemplated its disorganization; but on the contrary, 
 there is every encouragement to believe that it will go on from 
 grace to grace, from faith to faith, from one victory to another 
 until, like the little stone of Daniel's vision, it shall become a 
 great mountain and fill the whole earth. Roberts, p. 89. 
 
 Mr. Roberts may possibly make some play upon the 
 word ''contemplated," but the careful reader cannot 
 fail to see that God warned the saints that there was dan- 
 ger of the church being rejected by him if they did not per- 
 form the work appointed. In a revelation given January 
 19, 1841, this warning was given in specific and plain lan- 
 guage, as follows: 
 
 And again, verily I say unto you, Let all my saints come 
 from afar; and send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messen- 
 gers, and say unto them, Come ye, with all your gold, and your 
 silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquities; 
 and with all who have knowledge of antiquities, that will 
 come may come, and bring the box .tree, and the fir tree, 
 and the pine tree, together with all the precious trees of 
 the earth; and with iron, with copper, and with brass, and 
 with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth, and 
 build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein; 
 
OHUROH PRESIDENCY. 09 
 
 for there is not a place found on earth that he may come and 
 restore again that which was lost unto you, or, which he hath 
 taken away, even the fullness of the priesthood; for a bap- 
 tismal font there is not upon the earth; that they, my saints, 
 may be baptized for those who are dead; for this ordinance 
 belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only 
 in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a 
 house unto me. But I command you, all ye my saints, to build 
 a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to 
 build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms 
 shall be acceptable unto me. 
 
 But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms 
 for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do 
 not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be 
 rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God. 
 D. C. 107: 10, 11. 
 
 There was then a possibility of the church being 
 rejected, and the conditions under which it would be 
 rejected are plainly set forth. None can misunderstand 
 this. It forcibly teaches that a sufficient time .would be 
 granted to build a temple at Nauvoo, and that if it was not 
 built at the end of that time the church would be rejected. 
 The pertinent inquiry then is, Was the temple built? 
 
 On page 102 Mr. Roberts says: 
 
 The Temple was completed. 
 
 But Mr. Penrose admits that it was not completed, and 
 argues that a completion was not necessary. He says: 
 
 Now it is a matter of history that notwithstanding the oppo- 
 sition of the enemies of the Church, the murder of the Prophet 
 and Patriarch, the threatenings and plots and ragings of mobo- 
 crats, and the scantiness of means for the great work before 
 them, the Saints went to with their might and built that house 
 according to the commandment of the Lord and the pattern 
 revealed to Joseph Smith, which with all the keys and au- 
 thority and power of the Holy Priesthood he had given to the 
 Twelve, and that it was so far completed before the exodus 
 from that city that it was dedicated to the Lord, and baptisms 
 for the dead were performed in the sacred font, and washings, 
 anointings, endowments and other ordinances were solemnized 
 therein, both for the living and for the dead. 
 
 But, it is objected by the "Reorganizes" that the Temple 
 was not fully "completed," and Brigham Young is quoted as 
 saying after his arrival in Utah, that the Saints would attempt 
 
70 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 to build a Temple, and that "This has been attempted several 
 times, but we have never yet had the privilege of completing 
 and enjoying one." Our very technical and disputatious oppo- 
 nents are never tired of repeating in this connection the words 
 "complete" and "completed." But a careful examination of 
 the word of the Lord fails to discover those words or anything 
 equivalent to them. The Lord told his people to build a house 
 to him; they did build and use it for the purposes he designed. 
 They were not permitted to remain and enjoy it. There were, 
 probably, some additions which would have been made to 
 "complete" the edifice in the full sense of the term, if the 
 builders had remained to enjoy it. ... 
 
 It is surprising that sane people, however biased and preju- 
 diced, could entertain the notion that the just and merciful 
 Father and the' tender and loving Christ would reject the peo- 
 ple who had toiled so faithfully to obey the commandment 
 given them to build a Temple, because, before they could per- 
 fectly finish the structure after building it, in consequence of 
 the inroad made upon them by their enemies they were com- 
 pelled to forsake all their possessions for the Gospel's sake! 
 Penrose, pp. 6, 7, 8. 
 
 The evidence shows that Mr. Penrose is right, and Mr. 
 Roberts wrong, so far as the facts are concerned regard- 
 ing the completion of the temple. 
 
 On June 26, 1897, President Joseph Smith made a state- 
 ment on this subject from which we quote the following: 
 
 I knew of the work being done on the temple at that place 
 from the time it began until the building was burned in 1848 
 It was not finished. The basement was fitted for occupation, 
 and the baptismal font was ready for use. The auditorium on 
 the first floor was completed sufficiently to be seated and occu- 
 pied for assembly purposes. The stairway on the south side 
 was completed for use. The -auditorium on second floor, 
 the stairway on north side, nor any other portion of the 
 building except those above-named were completed; though 
 the small rooms above the second floor auditorium were used 
 by President Young and the resident church authorities for 
 various purposes. Church History, Vol. 2, p. 563. 
 
 Patriarch A. H. Smith also made a statement on July 
 2, 1897, a part of which is as follows: 
 
 "The offices in the corner to the left of main entrance on the 
 ground floor were finished, but not furnished. The auditorium 
 or main meeting room was temporarily finished; the seats and 
 pulpit were only temporary. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 71 
 
 "The upper auditorium; the plastering was not done, the 
 floor was only the rough boards, intended only for the lining, 
 was laid, and from this floor upward the stairs, except In the 
 tower, or circular main stairs, were also temporary; the upper 
 floor which was to have been divided into numerous rooms was 
 laid, and partitioned off with cotton factory cloth, and used for 
 some purposes before the saints were driven away. . . . 
 
 "To my knowledge the temple never was finished, and those 
 who have been led to believe it was. have been deceived. I 
 make this statement freely for the benefit of the present and 
 future generations." Church History, Vol. 2, pp. 564, 565. 
 
 Elder Brigham Young is reported to have used the fol- 
 lowing language in St. George Temple, January 1, 1877: 
 
 Joseph located the site for the Temple Block in Jackson 
 County, Missouri, and pointed out the southeast corner of the 
 temple in the year 1831; also laid the corner stone for a temple 
 in Far West, Caldwell County, Missouri. These temples were 
 not built. We built one in Nauvoo. I could pick out several 
 before me now that were there when it was built, and know 
 just how much was finished and what was done. It is true we 
 left brethren there with instructions to finish it, and they got 
 it nearly completed before it was burned; but the saints did 
 not enjoy it. Now we have a temple which will all be finished 
 in a few days, and of which there is enough completed to com- 
 mence work therein, which has not been done since the days of 
 Adam, that we have any knowledge of. Journal qf Di*cour*e*, 
 Vol. 18, p. 304. 
 
 These testimonies are sufficient to show that Mr. Roberts 
 was in error about the temple at Nauvoo being completed. 
 According to the first two statements it lacked very much 
 of being complete; and though Mr. Young is not definite 
 as to just what was done, he expresses the thought as late 
 as January, 1877, that from the days of Adam until then 
 there had not been a temple sufficiently finished to com- 
 mence work in. 
 
 However, Mr. Penrose raises the point that the word 
 "complete" or its equivalent is not found in the revelation, 
 and argues that if they built the house they had complied 
 with the requirements whether they finished it or not. We 
 give Mr. Penrose credit for having discovered this ingen- 
 ious method of defense. It certainly was never thought of 
 
72 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 in early times, by the people to whom the revelation was 
 given. 
 
 The leading men of the church understood it otherwise 
 and were somewhat exercised over the urgent need of com- 
 pleting the temple speedily. In December, 1841, not quite a 
 year after the date of this revelation, an epistle was pub- 
 lished signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson 
 Pratt, William Smith, Lyman Wight, Wilford Woodruff, 
 John Taylor, George A. Smith, and Willard Richards, 
 which begins with these words: 
 
 The building of the Temple of the Lord, in the city of Nau- 
 voo, is occupying the first place in the exertions and prayers of 
 many of the saints at the present time, knowing as they do, 
 that, if this building is not completed, speedily, "we shall be 
 rejected as a church with our dead," for the Lord our God hath 
 spoken it. Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, p 625. 
 
 On October 1, 1842, when Joseph Smith was editor, the 
 Times and Seasons published an editorial under the caption 
 of "The Temple" which commences with these words: 
 
 If there is any subject in which the saints of the Most High 
 are interested more than another, it is in the completion of that 
 edifice, etc. Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, p. 937. 
 
 In the same article occurs the following: 
 
 The word of the Lord is build my house, and until that com- 
 mand is fulfilled we stand responsible to the great Jehovah for 
 the fulfillment of it, and if not done in due time we may have 
 to share the same fate that we have heretofore done in Missouri. 
 Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, p. 939. 
 
 These statements serve to show how this revelation was 
 understood by Joseph Smith and the Twelve. We present 
 them as clear and reliable proof that, 
 
 1. The idea of church rejection did not originate with 
 the Reorganization. 
 
 2. The authorities of the church at the time were con- 
 scious that they were required to complete the temple, and 
 understood the dread consequences of a failure. 
 
 The temple not being completed, the church stood rejected, 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 73 
 
 and neither the false statement of Mr. Roberts nor the 
 specious pleading of Mr. Penrose will avail to cover this 
 serious result from the research of the honest investigator. 
 Mr. Penrose, however, falls back upon that part of the 
 revelation of 1841 which says: 
 
 Verily, verily I say unto you, that when I give a command- 
 ment to any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, 
 and those sons of men go with all their might, and with all 
 they have, to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, 
 and their enemies come upon them, and hinder them perform- 
 ing that work; behold, it behooveth me to require that work no 
 more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their 
 offerings; and the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws 
 and commandments, I will visit upon the heads of those who 
 hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so 
 long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. 
 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those 
 whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my 
 name, in Jackson County, Missouri, and were hindered by their 
 enemies, saith the Lord your God; and I will answer judgment, 
 wrath and indignation, wailing and anguish, and gnashing of 
 teeth, upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, 
 so loner as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your 
 God. D. C. 107: 15. 
 
 This, it will be seen, has a special application to the 
 work .which was to have been done in Jackson County, 
 Missouri. It may also have a general application, and we 
 believe it does; but it will be observed that a release from 
 obligations is based upon their going "with all their might" 
 and ceasing not "their diligence." That the saints at Nauvoo 
 failed to do this may not generally be known ; but that 
 they cannot avail themselves of the provision made, for 
 release from obligations enjoined, is evident from the fol- 
 lowing words in the revelation itself: 
 
 I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me. 
 
 If the Lord, according to this. promise, did grant unto 
 them sufficient time, and they failed to accomplish the work 
 within that time, then it is. evident that they did not use 
 due diligence, and hence must accept the consequences 
 
74 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 of rejection, and of the same fate they shared in Missouri. 
 This latter consequence is too terribly true to be denied, 
 and happy is he who will accept the first-named conse- 
 quence and take proper steps to restore himself to the 
 favor of God. 
 
 William Smith and Lyman Wight, two of the- signers of 
 the above letter, recognized the consequences; viz., of dis- 
 organization, which they, in 1841, were apprehensive of. 
 As proof in the case of William Smith we cite the letter of 
 James Kay, written in November, 1845. (See p. 18.) 
 
 In 1851, Lyman Wight wrote: 
 
 "The church mos'tly went from there [Kirtland, Ohio] to 
 Missouri, where they commenced another house from which 
 they were driven to the State of Illinois, where we were com- 
 manded to build a house or temple to the Most High God. We 
 were to have a sufficient time to build that house, during which 
 time our baptisms for our dead should be acceptable in the 
 river. If we did not build within this time we were to be 
 rejected as a church, we and our dead together. Both the tem- 
 ple and baptizing went very leisurely, till the temple was some- 
 where in building the second story, when Bro. Joseph from the 
 stand announced the alarming declaration that baptism for our 
 dead was no longer acceptable in the river. As much to say 
 the time for building the temple had passed by, and both we 
 and our dead were rejected together. ... 
 
 "The church now stands rejected together with their dead. 
 The church being rejected now stands alienated from her God 
 in every sense of the word." Church History, Vol. 2, p. 790. 
 
 What but blind ambition to rule prevented others of the 
 signers from recognizing the consequence so apparent? 
 
 Again, Parley P. Pratt, though not one of the signers, 
 recognized that the church had been disorganized and that 
 a reorganization was necessary. Elder Pratt relates that 
 as he was returning to Nauvoo after the death of Joseph 
 and Hyrum, while "weighed down as it were unto death," 
 he cried unto the Lord for direction, asking these two 
 questions: 
 
 Shall I tell them to fly to the wilderness and deserts? Or, 
 shall I tell them to stay at home and take care of themselves, 
 and continue to build the temple? 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 75 
 
 The answer was as follows: 
 
 "Lift up your head and rejoice; for behold! it is well with 
 my servants Joseph and Hyrum. My servant Joseph still holds 
 the keys of my kingdom in this dispensation, and he shall stand 
 in due time on the earth, in the flesh, and fulfill that to which 
 he is appointed. Go and say unto my people in Nauvoo, that 
 they shall continue to pursue their daily duties and take care of 
 themselves, and make no movement in church government to 
 reorganize or alter anything until the return of the remainder 
 of the quorum of the Twelve. But exhort them that they con- 
 tinue to build the House of the Lord which I have commanded 
 them to build in Nauvoo." Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 
 p. 371. 
 
 This recognizes the necessity of a reorganization, which 
 carries with it the recognition of a disorganization. 
 
 We regret to notice that Mr. Roberts in quoting the 
 above revelation omits the prefix "re" and makes it to read 
 "organize" (See his book, p. 94.) 
 
 It will be observed that Elder Pratt claims this to be 
 from God. If so, God recognized the necessity of a .Reor- 
 ganization. Further, the answer to the above questions is 
 clear that the people were to remain in Nauvoo and con- 
 tinue to build the temple, instead of flying to the "wilder- 
 ness and deserts." 
 
 It is not necessary in this connection to discuss whether 
 the Twelve had authority to go into Nauvoo and regulate 
 or tiot. We agree that their mission was in all the world 
 and that no part of the world was exempt from their juris- 
 diction; but there was no part of the world where they 
 might become a law unto themselves. Wherever they 
 might be they were required to act in harmony with the 
 law of God and in accordance with the duty of their calling, 
 or their acts would not be valid. The issue between us 
 depends upon what they did, not upon where they did it. 
 
CHAPTER 8. 
 
 KEYS OP AUTHOKITY KEYS AND ORACLES PRATT'S REVELATION 
 ORACLES TO THE TWELVE WILLIAM MARKS ROBERTS' 
 CLIMAX. 
 
 MR. ROBERTS opens his eighth chapter as follows: 
 
 LET us now proceed to the proof that Joseph Smith, the 
 prophet, did not take the keys of authority with him from the 
 church, when he fell a martyr to the truth, but that said keys 
 of authority remained with the church, more especially with 
 the quorum of the Twelve. 
 
 On March 8th, 1833, the Lord said to Joseph Smith: 
 
 Verily, I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never 
 be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the 
 world to come; nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be 
 given unto another; yea, even to the church! 
 
 Joseph and Hyrum, then, did not take with them the 
 "oracles" of God necessary to make the church efficient in 
 accomplishing the work that God designed it to perform. 
 Though the keys given to the prophet were never to be taken 
 from him, either in this world or that which is to come 
 though for ever he is to stand as the President of the great dis- 
 pensation of the fullness of times yet the keys of authority and 
 power committed to his hands may be given to another, "even 
 to the church," not to his posterity, mark you. 
 
 This revelation makes it easy to believe that there was inspi- 
 ration in the declaration of Brigham Young, uttered when he 
 heard for the first time of the martyrdom of Joseph and 
 Hyrum. He was at Peterboro, N. H., when the sad intelligence 
 reached him: 
 
 The first thing that I thought of was whether Joseph had 
 taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth. 
 Brother Orson Pratt sat on my left, we were both leaning back 
 in our chairs. Bringing my hand down on my knee, I said, the 
 keys of the kingdom are right here with the church. Roberts, pp. 
 93, 94. 
 
 Why Mr. Roberts should be anxious to prove the nega- 
 tive of that which we have not affirmed, we do not know; 
 but we have not affirmed that Joseph took the keys of 
 authority with him from the church. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 77 
 
 Mr. Roberts' explanation of the above quotation is not 
 very clear, but he evidently confounds the words "keys" 
 and "oracles," making them to have the same meaning. 
 This is evidently erroneous. We give the definitions of 
 the two words as defined by Webster: 
 
 Key: 
 
 1. An instrument by means of which the bolt of a lock is shot 
 or drawn; usually, a removable metal instrument fitted to the 
 mechanism of a particular lock and operated by turning in its 
 place. 
 
 2. An instrument which is turned like a key in fastening or 
 adjusting any mechanism; as, a watch key; a bed key, etc. 
 
 3. That part of an instrument or machine which serves as 
 the means of operating it; as, a telegraph key; the keys of a 
 pianoforte, or of a typewriter. 
 
 4. A position or condition which affords entrance, control, or 
 possession, etc.; as, the key of a line of defense; the key of a 
 country; the key of a political situation. Hence, that which 
 serves to unlock, open, discover, or solve something unknown 
 or difficult; as, the key to a riddle; the key to a problem. 
 
 Those who are accustomed to reason have got the true key of 
 books. Locke. 
 
 Who keeps the keys of all the creeds. Tennyson. 
 
 5. That part of a mechanism which serves to lock up, make 
 fast, or adjust to position. 
 
 Power of the keys (Eccl.}, the authority claimed by the min- 
 istry in some Christian churches to administer the discipline of 
 the church, and to grant or withhold its privileges; so called 
 from the declaration of Christ, "I will give unto thee the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven." Matt. xvi. 19. 
 
 Oracle: 
 
 1. The answer of a god, or some person reputed to be a god, 
 to an inquiry respecting some affair or future event, as the suc- 
 cess of an enterprise or battle. 
 
 Whatso'er she saith, for oracles must stand. Drayton. 
 
 2. Hence: The deity who was supposed to give the answer; 
 also, the place where it was given. 
 
 The oracles are dumb; 
 No voice or hideous hum 
 Runs through the arched roof in words deceiving. Milton. 
 
 3. The communications, revelations, or messages delivered 
 by God to the prophets; also, the entire sacred Scriptures 
 usually in the plural. 
 
78 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 The first principles of the oracles of God. Heb. v. 12. 
 
 4. (Jewish Antiq.) The sanctuary, or Most Holy place in the 
 temple; also, the temple itself. 1 Kings vi. 19. . 
 
 Siloa's brook, that flow'd 
 Fast by the oracle of God. Milton. 
 
 5. One who communicates a divine command; an angel; a 
 prophet. 
 
 God hath now sent his living oracle 
 
 Into the world to teach his final will. Milton. 
 
 6. Any person reputed uncommonly wise; one whose deci- 
 sions are regarded as of great authority; as, a literary oracle. 
 "Oracles of mode." Tennyson. 
 
 The country rectors . . . thought him an oracle on points of 
 learning. Macaulay. 
 
 7. A wise sentence or decision of great authority. 
 
 A careful inspection will convince the reader that no 
 amount of straining will under any circumstances give 
 them an equivalent meaning. A key is an instrument by 
 which a person unlocks, while an oracle is that which is 
 obtained by the unlocking; or in "some cases may be 
 applied to the person who uses the key. The above pas- 
 sage being figurative, the "keys" evidently represent the 
 authority, while the "oracles" mean the revelations of 
 God received by him who holds the keys, and is to be 
 understood in the same sense as the following: 
 
 I give unto you my servant Joseph, to be a presiding elder 
 over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and 
 prophet. I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney 
 Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may consti- 
 tute a quorum and first presidency, to receive the oracles for 
 the whole church. Doc. and Cov. 107:39. 
 
 The evident meaning, then, of the passage in question is 
 that Joseph held the authority to receive revelation and 
 that through him the revelations thus received were to be 
 given to the church. However, if we grant that the word 
 1 'oracles" in this passage is to be applied to the persons 
 who deliver the revelations of God to the people, then it 
 follows from the language, ' 'through you shall the oracles be 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 79 
 
 given to another; yea, even unto the church" that Joseph 
 Smith was to appoint his successor and through him his 
 successor was to be presented to the church, thus sustain- 
 ing our contention that Joseph Smith was to appoint his 
 successor. 
 
 Further, if we were to admit Mr. Roberts' claim, illog- 
 ical and untenable as it is, that "oracles" and "keys" are 
 synonymous, and that the word "oracles" in this revela- 
 tion refers to the keys of authority delivered to the 
 Twelve, still the issue between us is not settled; for that 
 part of the paragraph which Mr. Roberts does not quote 
 administers a solemn warning unto those who "receive the 
 oracles of God." It reads as follows: 
 
 And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware 
 how they hold them, lest they are accounted as a light thing, 
 and are brought under condemnation thereby; and stumble and 
 fall, when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the 
 rains descend, and beat upon their house. Doc. and Cov. 87:2. 
 
 Then, whatever the "oracles" may be, God's approval of 
 those receiving them depends upon how they hold them. 
 So that in any event, and upon the basis of any interpreta- 
 tion, the issue still rests upon what was done, and how it was 
 done. We propose to hold these gentlemen to this issue 
 and to demand that they answer for their acts. 
 
 Mr. Roberts next introduces the revelation of P. P. 
 Pratt, which we have noticed on page 75; but there is 
 nothing in it to help his case. As we have shown, there 
 are two points in it that are against the people he repre- 
 sents; viz.: the necessity of reorganization, and the dis- 
 couragement plainly given to fleeing into the wilderness 
 and desert. The only comfort he can possibly get out of 
 it is that the Twelve are recognized, and the reorganiza- 
 tion was to be postponed until they returned. This we do 
 not object to. We think they should have been respected 
 and their proper authority recognized, and that it would 
 have been decidedly improper to take any steps towards a 
 
80 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 reorganization before their return; but tfyis does not carry 
 with it the approval of what they did after their return. 
 
 After some immaterial wanderings Mr. Roberts ap- 
 proaches the point as follows: 
 
 It now remains for me to prove that the prophet Joseph did 
 give the "oracles to another" and that they remained with 
 the church. 
 
 On the 7th of August, 1844, at a meeting of the Twelve Apos- 
 tles, high council of the Nauvoo stake, and high priests, held 
 in the Seventies' Hall, in a speech following one made by Sid- 
 ney Iligdon, Brigham Young, speaking of the Twelve, said: 
 
 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 or set of men can get between 
 Joseph and the Twelve in this world or 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 shoul- 
 ders the kingdom rests." 
 
 Upon this statement of Brigham Young, quoted from 
 the doubtful authority of Millennial Star, volume 25, and 
 supposedly supported by the testimony of others, Mr. 
 Roberts bases his case that Joseph Smith conferred all the 
 keys held by himself upon the Twelve. If such an occur- 
 rence ever transpired it is impossible to determine by the 
 testimony of the witnesses just what Joseph did say on the 
 occasion. Evidently they do not remember, as no two of 
 them give the same words, and where any one of them 
 speaks twice he fails to reproduce the same language. 
 
 That the reader may compare them we reproduce such 
 of them as we have at hand. We have one above from 
 Brigham Young; here is another: 
 
 Joseph told the Twelve, the year before he died, "there is 
 not one key or power to be bestowed on this church to lead the 
 people into the celestial gate but I have given you, showed you, 
 and talked it over to you; the kingdom is set up, and you have 
 the perfect pattern, and you can go and build up the kingdom, 
 and go in at the celestial gate, taking your train with you." 
 Millennial Star, Vol. 10, p. 115. 
 
 Parley P. Pratt renders it as follows: 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 81 
 
 "I know not why; but for some reason I am constrained to 
 hasten my preparations, and to confer upon the Twelve all the 
 ordinances, keys, covenants, endowments, and sealing ordi- 
 nances of the priesthood, and so set before them a pattern in 
 all things pertaining: to the sanctuary and the endowment 
 therein." Millennial Star, Vol. 5, p. 151. 
 
 Orson Hyde's version is as follows: 
 
 Brother Joseph said some time before he was murdered, "If I 
 am taken away, upon you, the Twelve, will rest the responsi- 
 bility of leading this people, and do not be bluffed off by any 
 man. Go forward in the path of your duty though you walk 
 into death. If you will be bold and maintain your ground the 
 great God will sustain you." Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 650. 
 
 Wilford Woodruff has spoken of this several times, but 
 not using the same language twice. Here are some of his 
 statements: 
 
 Or has the Prophet Joseph found Elder Rigdon in his coun- 
 cils when he organized the quorum of the Twelve, a few 
 months before his death, to prepare them for the endowment? 
 And when they received their endowment, and actually 
 received the keys of the kingdom of God, and oracles of God, 
 keys of revelation, and the pattern of heavenly things; and 
 thus addressing the Twelve, exclaimed, "Upon your shoulders 
 the kingdom rests, and you must round up your shoulders, and 
 bear it; for I have had to do it until now. But now the respon- 
 sibility rests upon you. It mattereth not what becomes of 
 me." Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 098. 
 
 This was in 1844, but the language was not strong 
 enough to answer the purpose in 1892, so Mr. Woodruff 
 gives it as follows: 
 
 I remember the last speech that he ever gave us before his 
 death. It was before we started upon our mission to the East. 
 He stood upon his feet some three hours. The room was filled as 
 with consuming fire, his face was as clear as amber, and he was 
 clothed upon by the power of God. He laid before us our duty. 
 He laid before us the fullness of this great work of God; and in 
 his remarks to us he said: "I have had sealed upon my head 
 every key, every power, every principle of life and salvation 
 that God has ever given to any man who ever lived upon the 
 face of the earth. And these principles and this Priesthood 
 and power belong to this great and last dispensation which the 
 God of Heaven has set His hand to establish in the earth." 
 "Now," said he addressing the Twelve, "I have sealed upon 
 
82 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 your heads every key, every power, and every principle which 
 the Lord has sealed upon my head." Continuing, he said, "I 
 have lived so Ion? up to the present time I have been in the 
 midst of this people, and in the great work and labor of redemp- 
 tion. I have desired to live to see this Temple [at Nauvoo] 
 built. But I shall never live to see it completed; but you will." 
 . . . [If he said this the prophecy failed. Not one of the then 
 Twelve lived to see it completed. H. C. S.] 
 
 After addressing us in this manner he said: "I tell you the 
 burden of this kingdom now rests upon your shoulders; you have 
 got to bear it off in all the world, and if you don't do it you 
 will be damned." Roberts, pp. 118, 119. 
 
 In April, 1898, Mr. Woodruff is reported as quoting 
 Joseph Smith, as follows: 
 
 You Apostles of the Lamb of God have been chosen to carry 
 out the purposes of the Lord upon the earth. Now, I have 
 received, as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, standing at the 
 head of this dispensation, every key, every ordinance, every 
 principle and every Priesthood that belongs to the last dispensa- 
 tion and fulness of times. And I have sealed all these things 
 upon your heads. Now, you Apostles, if you do not rise up 
 and bear off this kingom, as I have given it to you, you will be 
 damned. Penrose, p. 23. 
 
 Examine these several statements carefully, and one 
 thing will be very evident; viz., that we are not sure that 
 we have the words of Joseph Smith, for the language is 
 not given twice alike. If we have his words, tell us in 
 which statement they are, that we may consider it. 
 Another point we notice; that is, that the further we get 
 from the time spoken of the stronger is the language used. 
 This looks suspicious, manifesting as it does a exposition 
 upon the part of the witnesses to exaggerate, which grew 
 upon them with time. Brigham Young first speaks of 
 that which was bestowed being the keys of the "apostle- 
 ship" Later he mentions it as the keys to lead into the 
 celestial gate. 
 
 Elder Pratt says nothing of keys or leadership. 
 
 Elder Hyde is a little more modest than Brigham; he 
 does not say a word about keys, but simply that the 
 responsibility to lead was upon them. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 83 
 
 In 1844 Elder Woodruff speaks freely of keys in his pre- 
 lude, but does not quote Joseph as using the word, but 
 simply that the responsibility of the kingdom rests upon 
 the shoulders of the Twelve. 
 
 None of these testimonies is inconsistent with our posi- 
 tion. But when this growing tendency to exaggerate 
 manifested itself in 1892, how was it? Then it was made 
 to appear that Joseph bestowed upon the Twelve every 
 key, power, and principle which he (Joseph) had held. 
 Yet this is too indefinite for the purpose, in 1898, and 
 hence it is stated that every key, ordinance, principle, and 
 priesthood belonging to the last dispensation, and which 
 Joseph Smith held as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, was 
 bestowed upon the Twelve. This story has not lost any- 
 thing; but if any man can tell what Joseph Smith said 
 upon that occasion, let him come forward with it and we 
 will give it respectful consideration. 
 
 In the meantime we will concede the probability that 
 Joseph Smith told the Twelve that the responsibility of 
 the work would rest upon them, and that by the legitimate 
 exercise of the authority vested in them the people could 
 be led into the celestial gates; but if so it would not justify 
 them in assuming to act outside the duty of their calling 
 as defined in the law. 
 
 Further, if in addition to the duty of the Twelve, as 
 defined in the law, Joseph bestowed upon them as a quorum 
 all the priesthood, power, and authority of the First Presi- 
 dency, what need had they for a First Presidency? And 
 what advantage was gained to the church by the forming 
 of a First Presidency in 1847, and upon three different 
 occasions since? 
 
 Mr. Roberts then introduces a statement from William 
 Marks to the effect that he had been convinced that "the 
 Twelve were the proper persons to lead the church." Sup- 
 pose he did so state. He may have been mistaken. 
 
84 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Again, his indorsement of their being the proper ones was 
 not an indorsement of their subsequent acts as leaders. 
 
 We do not affirm that Elder William Marks never erred; 
 according to the prediction made of him by Joseph Smith, 
 published by the Utah people themselves, the enemy was 
 seemingly to gain some advantage over him, but he was 
 finally to overcome because the hand of the Lord would be 
 on his behalf. Here is the passage: 
 
 I would just say to brother Marks, that I saw in a vision 
 while on the road, that whereas he was closely pursued by an 
 innumerable concourse of enemies, and as they pressed upon 
 him hard, as if they were about to devour him, and had seem- 
 ingly obtained some degree of advantage over him, but about 
 this time a chariot of fire came, and near the place, even the 
 Angel of the Lord put forth his hand unto brother Marks, and 
 said unto him, "Thou art my son, come here," and immediately 
 he was caught up in the chariot, and rode away triumphantly 
 out of their midst. And again the Lord said, I will raise thee 
 up for a blessing unto many people. Now the particulars of 
 this whole matter cannot be written at this time, but the vision 
 was evidently given to me that I might know that the hand of 
 the Lord would be on his behalf. Millennial Star, Vol. 16, p. 
 131. 
 
 Will our opponents explain from their standpoint in 
 what way God raised up William Marks to become "a 
 blessing unto many people"? 
 
 Mr. Roberts exclaims as a climax: 
 
 Since the church has never been disorganized, any organiza- 
 tion claiming to be the "Reorganized church of Jesus Christ of 
 Latter-day Saints" is a counterfeit, and writes fraud in the 
 very title of it. Roberts, p. 99. 
 
 To this we simply reply by a counter assertion, for 
 which we have laid the foundation, and say: Since the 
 church has been disorganized, any Latter Day Saint 
 organization not "claiming to be the 'Reorganized Church 
 of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' is a counterfeit, and 
 writes fraud in the very title of it." 
 
CHAPTER 9. 
 
 THE TWELVE NECESSITY FOB A REORGANIZATION CHURCH 
 HELD TOGETHER BUILDING OF NAUVOO, ETC. DRIVEN TO 
 ROCKY MOUNTAINS JOSEPH'S PROPHECY PRATT'S STATEMENT 
 ISAIAH'S PROPHECY THE EXODUS SEVENTIES BAPTISM 
 FOR THE DEAD TEMPLE BUILDING PERSECUTION. 
 
 ME. ROBERTS opens his ninth chapter with the following 
 declaration: 
 
 THERE is yet another line of evidence to be adduced in 
 support of the great truth that the church has never been 
 disorganized in this dispensation, and therefore has never stood 
 in need of a "reorganization." That evidence is based upon 
 the favor and blessing of God which has followed the church of 
 Christ led by the Twelve Apostles from Nauvoo, and their suc- 
 cessors in the leadership of the church. Roberts, p. 100. 
 
 This opens the real issue, and most cheerfully do we meet 
 it. By way of preliminary, however, we suggest that Mr. 
 Roberts is unfortunate in having to represent a people on 
 this issue who have conceded the necessity of a reorganiza- 
 tion. This we have already shown from the purported 
 revelation of Parley P. Pratt. (See p. 75.) 
 
 In addition to that we present a statement from a Gen- 
 eral Epistle of the Quorum of Twelve, written at Winter 
 Quarters, Omaha Nation, December 23, 1847, and signed 
 by Brigham Young, President, and Willard Richards, 
 Clerk, as follows: 
 
 Since the murder of President Joseph Smith, many false 
 prophets and false teachers have arisen, and tried to deceive 
 many, during which time we have mostly tarried with the body 
 of the Church, or been seeking a new location, leaving those 
 prophets and teachers to run their race undisturbed, who have 
 died natural deaths, or committed suicides; and we now, hav- 
 ing it in contemplation soon to reorganize the Church accord- 
 ing to the original pattern, with a First Presidency and 
 
86 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Patriarch, feel that it will be the privilege of the Twelve, eie 
 long, to spread abroad among the nations, not to hinder the 
 gathering, but to preach the gospel, and push the people, the 
 honest in heart, together from the four quarters of the earth. 
 Millennial Star, Vol. 10, p. 86. 
 
 Mr. Roberts tries to dispose of this by asserting that it 
 was the First Presidency that was to be reorganized, and 
 not the church. 
 
 We can afford to leave this with simply placing the exact 
 language upon record. The language cannot possibly be 
 distorted to make the reorganization apply to the First 
 Presidency alone; but it is clear and explicit, "reorganize 
 the Church according to the original pattern, with a First 
 Presidency and Patriarch." 
 
 Again, according to Mr. Roberts' own interpretation 
 how can he escape connecting the Patriarch with the First 
 Presidency, instead of limiting it to the Presidency? 
 
 But that we may not seem to misrepresent Mr. Roberts 
 we append his comment, that the readers may see him and 
 his methods in their true light: 
 
 Josephites try to make it appear from a statement in the gen- 
 eral epistle of the Twelve issued in 1847, to the effect that they 
 were about to "reorganize" the church with a President and 
 two counselors, that President Brigham Young and his associ- 
 ates considered the church disorganized, (see discourse by 
 Alexander H. Smith, The Saints' Herald supplement of June 
 24th, 1893.) But it will be observed that the reorganization 
 contemplated in the epistle of the Twelve is limited to reor- 
 ganizing the First Presidency, the only quorum that was disor- 
 ganized. Footnote, p. 100. 
 
 We are now ready to consider in their order Mr. Rob- 
 erts' specifications in support of his theory that God's 
 favor and blessing have followed the church which he rep- 
 resents. He says: 
 
 The first thing to be considered as indicating the favor of 
 God which attended the church under the Presidency of the 
 Twelve Apostles, is the .fact that the church was held together 
 through that trying period immediately following the martyr- 
 dom of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 87 
 
 If this were true it would not be sufficient proof of God's 
 approval, as many corrupt organizations are held together 
 under trying circumstances. But let us inquire how much 
 truth there is in the assertion that the church was held 
 together. We do not know just how many held to that 
 organization, but they cannot claim more than their - 
 Church Historian and Recorder, Mr. Richards', estimate 
 of the entire number of the church at the time, less the 
 thousands who followed Rigdon, Strang, William Smith, 
 and others. He says: 
 
 The nearest we can approximate the number was about 
 26,000 to 27,000 souls. 
 
 (See his letter, p. 59.) 
 
 In making his estimate Mr. Richards would add to the 
 number they had with them a fair estimate for those who 
 followed other leaders; so their number must have been 
 several thousand less than the above figures. To be 
 exceedingly liberal we will say they had twenty thousand. 
 What proportion was that of the whole? Joseph Smith's 
 estimate in 1844 was 150,000. (See answer to Richards, 
 p. 60.) 
 
 Wilford Woodruff, in April, 1845, reported the number 
 of saints in America alone to be above one hundred thousand. 
 This estimate would not be far from Joseph Smith's, who 
 included the whole church. The following is the report of 
 Mr. Woodruff: 
 
 Elder Wilford Woodruff then rose to represent his confer- 
 ence, to which he had pledged himself at an early part of the 
 day. He said that he represented about twenty-eight states of 
 the American Union, above one hundred thousand saints, a 
 quorum of twelve apostles, the various quorums in the stakes 
 of Zion, fifteo quorums of the seventies, a conference with two 
 temples of the Lord, one long ago completed, and one fast has- 
 tening to its completion. Millennial Star, Vol. 5, pp. 170, 171. 
 
 So they held together about two fifteenths of the entire 
 church. And we are asked to accept this as an evidence 
 of God's favorl 
 
88 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 His next reason for adopting his conclusion he gives in 
 the following: 
 
 Thus trusted by the saints the Twelve went on building upon 
 the foundation laid by the prophet Joseph. They took steps to 
 push the building up of Nauvoo, but their chief interest and 
 their most strenuous efforts centered in completing the Temple 
 and Nauvoo House. Roberts, p. 101. 
 
 In all this they failed, neither building Nauvoo, nor the 
 Temple, nor the Nauvoo House to completion, as we have 
 shown. Surely this is not an evidence of God's favor. 
 
 After making the assertion regarding the temple, which 
 we have before noticed, Mr. Roberts continues: 
 
 This accomplished, and mobocracy again raising its horrid 
 front, to plague the church, the Twelve turned their faces 
 towards the west; for they remembered that Joseph himself had 
 prophesied that the saints would yet be driven to the Rocky 
 Mountains, and there become a mighty people. Roberts, 
 p. 102. 
 
 In connection with this he explains in a footnote as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Under date of August 6th, 1842, Joseph writes in his history: 
 "I prophesied that the saints would continue to sutfer much 
 affliction, and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many 
 would apostatize, others would be put to death by our perse- 
 cutors, or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, 
 and some of you will live to go and assist in making settle- 
 ments and build cities, and see them become a mighty people 
 in the midst of the Rocky Mountains." 
 
 Mr. Roberts gives us no citation to aid us in finding a 
 record of this purported revelation. For years they have 
 been referring to such a prediction, but those using it 
 either did not know or would not tell where it could be 
 found. We have repeatedly asked that they produce it, 
 but the only version of that prophecy that we have seen is 
 found in the Biography of Anson Call published in the 
 "History of Northern Utah and Southern Idaho," Vol. 
 2, by Tullidge. It is a little lengthy, but as so much has 
 been said about this purported prediction we quote it in 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 89 
 
 full as given by Mr. Call, an accredited minister of the 
 church which Mr. Roberts represents. The Historian 
 says: 
 
 On the 14th of July, 1843, with quite a number of his breth 
 ren, he crossed the Mississippi River to the town of Montrose, 
 to be present at the installment of the masonic lodge of the 
 "Rising Sun." A block school house had been prepared with 
 shade in front, under which was a barrel of ice water. Judge 
 George Adams was the highest masonic authority in the state 
 of Illinois and had been sent there to organize this lodge. He, 
 Hyrum Smith and J. C. Bennett, being high Masons, went into 
 the house to perform some ceremonies which the others were 
 not entitled to witness. These, including Joseph Smith re- 
 mained under the bowery. Joseph, as he was tasting the cold 
 water, warned the brethren not to be too free with it. With 
 the tumbler still in his hand he prophesied that the Saints 
 would yet go to the Rocky Mountains; and, said he, this water 
 tastes much like that of the crystal streams that are running 
 from the snow capped mountains. We will let Mr. Call 
 describe this prophetic scene: "I had before seen him in a 
 vision and now saw while he was talking his countenance 
 change to white; not the deadly white of a bloodless face, but a 
 living brilliant white. He seemed absorbed in gazing at some- 
 thing at a great distance and said I am gazing upon the valleys 
 of those mountains." This was followed by a vivid description 
 of the scenery of these mountains as I have since become 
 acquainted with it. Pointing to Shadrach Roundy and others, 
 he said, "There are some men here who shall do a great work 
 in that land." Pointing to me he said, "There is Anson, he 
 shall go and shall assist in building cities from one end of the 
 country to the other, and you," rather extending the idea to all 
 those he had spoken of, "shall perform as great a work as has 
 been done by man, so that the nations of the earth shall be 
 astonished and many of them will be gathered in that land and 
 assist in building cities and temples, and Israel shall be made 
 to rejoice." 
 
 "It is impossible to represent in words this scene which is 
 still vivid in my mind, of the grandeur of Joseph's appearance, 
 his beautiful 'descriptions of this land, and his wonderful pro- 
 phetic utterances as they emanated from the glorious inspira- 
 tions that overshadowed him. There was a force and power 
 in his exclamations of which the following is but a faint echo. 
 'Oh the beauty of those snow capped mountains. The cool 
 refreshing streams that are running down through those moun- 
 tain gorges." Then gazing in another direction, as if there 
 was a change and locality: "Oh the scenes that this people 
 
00 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 will pass through! The dead that will lay between here and 
 there." Then, turning in another direction as if the scene 
 had again changed; "Oh the apostasy that will take place 
 before my brethren reach that land!" But he continued, "The 
 priesthood shall prevail over all its enemies, triumph over the 
 devil and be established upon the earth never more to be 
 thrown down." He then charged us with great force and 
 power, to be faithful in those things that had been and should 
 be committed to our charge, with the promise of all the bless- 
 ings that the priesthood could bestow. "Remember these 
 things and treasure them up, Amen." Biographical Supple- 
 ment, pp. 271, 272. 
 
 It will be observed that the date given by Mr. Roberts 
 and that given in this sketch do not agree, but evidently 
 the same prediction is referred to. There is not a material 
 point in this prediction that conflicts with our position. 
 We concede that they went to the Rocky Mountains and 
 did a great work in that land; that Mr. Roundy and Mr. 
 Call assisted in that work; that the nations of the earth 
 were astonished, and from the nations of the earth men 
 gathered there to assist; and we have urged and do urge 
 that there was a great apostasy before they reached that 
 land. We believe that the priesthood will prevail over its 
 enemies and triumph over the Devil; and that Joseph's 
 exhortation to be faithful was timely and appropriate. 
 The fulfillment of this prediction, if prediction it was, is 
 to the credit of the Prophet, but no credit attaches to 
 those who fulfilled the prophecy; for there is not a word in 
 it to indicate that God had any more to do with their going 
 to the Rocky Mountains, or with the work they did there, 
 than he had with the apostasy that took place before they 
 reached there. 
 
 Further, whether Joseph Smith predicted that they 
 would go or not, it is evident that he did not approve of 
 their going, or at least had not appointed that the church 
 should locate in the West, for on June 23, 1844, four days 
 before his death he wrote his wife: 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 91 
 
 I do not know where I shall go or what I shall do, but shall if 
 possible endeavor to get to the city of Washington. Church 
 History, Vol. 2, p. 770. 
 
 According to the purported revelation through Parley 
 P. Pratt, God's instruction was for them not to fly to the 
 wilderness and* desert, but to stay in Nauvoo. (See p. 75.) 
 Evidence can be produced in abundance that it was the 
 intention of the leaders after the death of Joseph to remain 
 and build up Nauvoo; but one statement from Elder 
 Parley P. Pratt will be sufficient for the purpose of this 
 work. In an epistle addressed "To the Saints in the 
 Eastern States, ' ' and dated July 20, 1846, over two years 
 after the death of the Prophet, Elder Pratt writes: 
 
 Yes, my friends, think it not strange, if before ten years roll 
 round, Nauvoo is the largest and most wealthy city in America, 
 diffusing wealth, comfort, peace and knowledge through all 
 parts of the West, and more or less to the whole world. 
 
 Think it not strange if a million of industrious Saints are 
 congregated in that and the neighbouring cities, all acting in 
 union, with one heart and mind, while every market in the 
 world is supplied more or less with the productions of their 
 skill and industry. 
 
 Think it not strange if kings, princes, nobles and great men 
 come there with their rich presents in the name of the Lord, 
 and to his sanctuary to seek knowledge, and to receive endow- 
 ment and salvation, for themselves and their dead. Millennial 
 Star, Vol. 6, p. 92. 
 
 Had it been decreed before Joseph's death that the body 
 of the church should be removed to a location in the Rocky 
 Mountains, would Mr. Pratt have written thus, more than 
 two years afterward? 
 
 Certainly not. Then we cannot accept the fact of their 
 being "driven to the Rocky Mountains," even though 
 Joseph predicted it, as an evidence of God's approval. 
 They had been warned through the Prophet that if they 
 did not build the temple in due time they might share the 
 same fate that had befallen them in Missouri (see p. 72); 
 and now when the truth of that warning has been realized 
 
92 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 we are asked to accept it as an evidence of God's approval. 
 Strange philosophy! 
 
 In support of his interpretation of the above prophecy 
 Mr. Roberts introduces the following: 
 
 Isaiah, too, long centuries before this time, had declared that 
 it should come to pass 
 
 In the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall 
 be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted 
 above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. Roberts, p. 
 102. 
 
 Mr. Roberts is careful not to comment much upon this 
 passage; but to make it apply as his context indicates he 
 must give it a strained interpretation. He must make the 
 word "mountain" to mean the church or kingdom of God; 
 but its plural "mountains" to mean literal elevations of the 
 earth's surface. If the word "mountain" means kingdom 
 then the word "mountains" means kingdoms, and the plain, 
 simple, and we believe correct rendering of the passage 
 would be that God would establish his kingdom among the 
 kingdoms of the world. 
 
 But if Mr. Roberts insists on interpreting the word 
 "mountains" in the passage to mean literal mountains, to 
 be consistent he should interpret "mountain" to be literal 
 ' and have God raising a mountain of earth and stone upon 
 the top of the Rocky Mountains. Perhaps we can assist 
 Mr. Roberts a little here. We suggest that a more con- 
 sistent interpretation than his would be to apply the word 
 "mountain" to those piles of rock which the Mormons 
 erected on the Rocky Mountains to push down on the 
 United States army as it passed. 
 
 But, seriously, this passage does not in its main features 
 apply to the American Continent. The verse preceding 
 the one which Mr. Roberts quotes reads: 
 
 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah 
 and Jerusalem. Isaiah 2: 1. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 93 
 
 Well may Mr. Roberts exclaim in the language of Bishop 
 Warburton, 
 
 Orthodoxy, my lord, is my doxy; and heterodoxy is some 
 other man's doxy! Roberts, p. 75. 
 
 Mr. Roberts next with great nourish points out how 
 that people were led in the face of difficulties across the 
 plains to the Rocky Mountains; the forming of colonies in 
 Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado; the estab- 
 lishing of stakes of Zion; relief societies; improvement 
 associations; Sunday schools; etc. 
 
 Though he has doubtless overdrawn the picture and 
 painted its leading features in more brilliant hues than the 
 facts would justify, we will not follow him, for all this is 
 immaterial in establishing his claim that God's favor has 
 followed that people, unless it is shown that the works 
 cited were performed either by the direction or the 
 approval of God. 
 
 Mr. Roberts next comes forward with the following: 
 
 Among the first acts of the Twelve after the martyrdom of 
 Joseph and Hyrum was one to greatly increase the numbers of 
 the seventies the quorums of the priesthood which more espe- 
 cially constitute the foreign ministry of the church. At the 
 October conference in 1844 the quorums of seventies were 
 increased from two to ten. Since that time the seventies have 
 been increased, until now they number one hundred and seven 
 quorums, comprising a body of seven thousand men, whose 
 special calling it is to preach the gospel abroad. Josephites 
 complain against the church for thus increasing the number of 
 quorums of seventy; and mark it down as a violation of the 
 order of the church, and quote as proof the following from the 
 Doctrine and Covenants: 
 
 And these seven presidents are to choose other seventies, 
 besides the first seventy, to whom they belong, and are to pre- 
 side over them; and also other seventy, until seven times 
 seventy, if the labor in the vineyard of necessity requires it. 
 
 This they say limits the number of quorums to seven, and 
 therefore no more than seven ought to be chosen. The prophet 
 Joseph, however, when the first quorums of seventy were being 
 organized said: 
 
 If the first Seventy are all employed, and there is a call for 
 more laborers, it will be the duty of the seven Presidents of the 
 
94 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 first Seventy to call and ordain other seventy and send them 
 forth to labor in the vineyard, until if needs be, they set apart 
 seven times seventy, and even until there are one hundred and 
 forty and four thousand thus set apart for the ministry. Rob- 
 erts, pp. 105, 106. 
 
 Yes, the Twelve did at that time increase the number of 
 seventies, not only to ten, but to eleven full quorums, and 
 about forty of the twelfth quorum. (See Times and Sea- 
 sons, Vol. 5, p. 696.) And truly it was the Twelve that did 
 it. The law providing that the Seven Presidents of Sev- 
 enty should choose was ignored, as the following extracts 
 from the minutes of the conference will show: 
 
 Elder G. A. Smith moved that all in the elders' quorum 
 under the age of thirty-five should be ordained into the seven- 
 ties, if they are in good standing, and worthy, and will accept 
 it. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Times 
 and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 695. 
 
 He [Brigham Young] also selected a number more to go into 
 the seventies, after which the remainder of the morning was 
 spent in calling out the several quorums of seventies, and giv- 
 ing charges to the several presidents. Times and Seasons, Vol. 
 5, p. 696. 
 
 This indiscriminate ordaining of men without regard to 
 the law or a calling from God is one of the things we com- 
 plain of. 
 
 One thing is certain; there is no provision in the law 
 for more than seven quorums of seventy. If Joseph Smith 
 did say what Mr. Roberts quotes him as saying, his 
 unsupported word is not law; especially when he is out of 
 harmony with the law. Again, there have been so many 
 things written into his history since his death that we are 
 slow to believe him guilty of writing that not warranted 
 in the law, until we have more proof than can be found in 
 doubtful publications. 
 
 Mr. Roberts quotes this purported statement of Joseph 
 Smith from the Millennial Star, volume 15, which was 
 published in 1853. This is especially suspicious when we 
 consider that nine years before its publication they had 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 05 
 
 transcended the bounds of the law in an irregular and 
 indiscriminate way; and something of this kind was 
 needed to bolster up their past acts. 
 
 Then, while we do not accept Joseph Smith's word in 
 preference to the law, we refuse, upon such testimony, to 
 place the responsibility of this departure at his door. 
 
 Mr. Roberts proceeds to enumerate the countries where 
 they have done missionary work and the periodicals and 
 books they have published, all of which could have been 
 done without God's approval, hence it is irrelevant. 
 
 After an introduction on the necessity for and the great 
 benefit of the doctrine of baptism for the dead, Mr. Roberts 
 gives us a tabulated statement of the number receiving 
 this ordinance in the temples of St. -George, Logan, Manti, 
 and Salt Lake, as an evidence of the great work done by 
 the people of Utah; but in addition to this he gives a 
 statement of the number of ' 'Ordinations to the priesthood 
 for the dead;" "Endowments for the dead;" "Sealings 
 (husbands and wives) for the dead;" "Sealings (children to 
 parents) for the dead;" none of which is contemplated in 
 the law of God; nor does Mr. Roberts attempt to show any 
 justification for these additions. 
 
 Baptism for the dead is only legal and acceptable when 
 performed either in Zion, or her stakes, or in Jerusalem, 
 and in a house dedicated to and accepted by God, as the 
 following will show: 
 
 For, verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient 
 time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptiz- 
 ing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was insti- 
 tuted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms 
 for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me; for therein are the 
 keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive 
 honor and glory. And after this time, your baptisms for the 
 dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable 
 unto me, saith the Lord; for it is ordained that in Zion, and in 
 her stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have 
 appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for 
 your dead. 
 
96 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 And again, verily I say unto you, How shall your washings be 
 acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which 
 you have built to my name? For, for this cause I commanded 
 Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear 
 it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land 
 of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had 
 been hid from before the world was; therefore, verily I say 
 unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your 
 baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your 
 memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and for 
 3'our oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive con- 
 versations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning 
 of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, 
 honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by 
 the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always 
 commanded to build unto my holy name. Doc. and Cov. 107: 
 11, 12. 
 
 Therefore, before introducing this line of evidence Mr. 
 Roberts should have laid the foundation for it by showing 
 that St. George, Logan, Manti, and Salt Lake City were in 
 Zion, or her stakes, or in Jerusalem. This he has made no 
 attempt to do, and we might leave it here, as it has not 
 properly come before us, hence is not entitled to consider- 
 ation. However, we will make a few references which will 
 aid the reader in getting at the true status of their tem- 
 ples and temple building, of which they boast so much. 
 
 The clause in the above quotation concerning the house 
 of God "which my people are always commanded to build," 
 is interpreted to mean a standing commandment, always 
 in force, to build a house unto the Lord. Mr. Penrose 
 says of this: 
 
 That was a commandment which the Lord says is always 
 given to his people. Penrose, p. 5. 
 
 The Lord says no such thing. There is a difference 
 between a commandment "always given," and the words of 
 the book "always commanded" "Always commanded," 
 evidently means that they are not authorized to build 
 without a command. That it is to be so understood is evi- 
 dent from the fact that in each case a separate and dis- 
 
CHtfRCH PRESIDENCY. 97 
 
 tinct command was given regarding the building of the 
 temples at Kirtland, Independence, and Nauvoo. The 
 circumstances attendant and instruction attending the 
 attempted temple building at Far West are also very plain 
 upon this point, as the following extracts will show: 
 
 The same day, August 5th, the Presidency, High Council, 
 and all the authorities of the Church in Missouri, assembled in 
 council at Far West, and unanimously resolved to go oh mod- 
 erately and build a house unto the name of the Lord in Far 
 West, as they had means, and appointed Edward Partridge 
 treasurer, to receive all the donations and subscriptions for the 
 erection of the House of the Lord; Isaac Morley to be his sec- 
 retary. Millennial Star, Vol. 16, p. 54. 
 
 Here was an attempt to build a temple without revela- 
 tion. How did it terminate? Read the following: 
 
 Also voted unanimously, that it is the opinion of this council, 
 that there is sufficient room in this country, for the churches 
 to continue gathering from abroad; also that the building of 
 the House of the Lord be postponed, till the Lord shall reveal 
 it to be his will to be commenced. Millennial Star , Vol. 16, p. 89. 
 
 Mr. Andrew Jenson, a voluminous writer of the Utah 
 Church, says of this: 
 
 When Joseph arrived there he counseled that the building of 
 that house should be postponed until the Lord should reveal it 
 to be his will to have it commenced. Historical Record, Vol. 
 7, p. 434. 
 
 In the above we see the counsel of Joseph Smith on 
 temple building, which plainly controverts the erroneous 
 idea that a commandment to build is given in perpetuity, 
 justifying the building at any time without special direc- 
 tion. Compare with this the utterances of Brigham Young 
 on February 14, 1853, when the ground was consecrated 
 for the temple in Salt Lake City: 
 
 Some might query whether a revelation had been given to 
 build a house to the Lord, but he is a wicked and slothful serv- 
 ant who doeth nothing but what his Lord commandeth, when 
 he knoweth his master's will. I know a Temple is needed, and 
 so do you; and when we know a thing, why do we need a reve- 
 lation to compel us to do that thing? If the Lord and all the 
 
98 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 people want a revelation, I can give one concerning this 
 Temple. 
 
 In a few days I shall be able to give a plan of the Temple on 
 paper, and then if all heaven, or any good man on the earth 
 will suggest any improvements, we will receive and adopt 
 them. Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 391. 
 
 Brigham Young not only proceeded then without revela- 
 tion, but boastfully and blasphemously notified the Lord 
 that if he wished a revelation Brigham could give one. 
 Brigham was first to give his plan, and then if heaven or 
 any good man would suggest any improvements they were 
 to be adopted. And we are asked to accept such work as 
 an evidence of the "favor and blessing of God" upon a peo- 
 ple, and to believe that the house builded under such cir- 
 cumstances is the temple of the Most High. 
 
 Nor are we given any assurance that the edifices called 
 temples at St. George, Manti, and Logan are built by any 
 better authority. 
 
 To-day the title to the Kirtland Temple, the only one 
 now standing in the world which was built by the com- 
 mand of God, is in the Reorganization, and we hold our- 
 selves in readiness to build, or assist to build, any other 
 house when directed to do so by the command of God; but 
 our souls revolt at the thought of accepting as God's house 
 a building the plan of which was devised by Brigham 
 Young and announced to the church in such boastful and 
 disrespectful language. We can scarcely conceal our in- 
 dignation at the impudence that asks us to accept works 
 done in such places as evidence of the "favor and blessing 
 of God." 
 
 Mr. Roberts next seeks to make a point by claiming that 
 the people of God were to be persecuted, and quoting 
 passages of scripture to that effect, and then adding: 
 
 Since the death of the prophet Joseph, the same Powers 
 which pursued him and the work he established have contin- 
 ued their hostilities against the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat- 
 ter-day Saints. It is the elders of that church, not the elders of 
 
CfctfROEf 
 
 the Reorganized church, who have been hunted by mobs, and 
 beaten for no other crime than calling men to repentance. It 
 is the blood of the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat- 
 ter-day Saints, not of the "Reorganized church," which today 
 unavenged crimsons the soil of the states of Georgia, Tennessee 
 and Mississippi. 
 
 It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the 
 "Reorganized church" which has been constantly assailed, 
 despoiled of its property, its members driven into exile, hun- 
 dreds thrust into prison, whole communities terrorized and all 
 this through the administrators of the government acting 
 under a mistaken zeal created by the persistent misrepresenta- 
 tions of sectarian priests and religious bigots some of our 
 "friends" of high standing in the "Reorganization" joining in 
 the hue and cry against the saints of God and aiding in the 
 work of misrepresentation. Roberts, p. 111. 
 
 This is partly true and partly untrue. More than once 
 has the writer of these lines faced lawless mobs; several of 
 his brethren have done the same. We "have been hunted 
 by mobs, and beaten for no other crime than calling men 
 to repentance." But, thank God, the opposition we have 
 met, like that which was encountered by our fathers in the 
 days of the martyr Joseph, has been lawless opposition. 
 We have not been convicted of crime by courts of justice; 
 nor are the leading offices of the Reorganization filled by 
 ex-convicts from the penitentiary. If there is any glory in 
 a criminal record, Mr. Roberts and his associates are wel- 
 come to it; but we prefer the sentiment of the apostle 
 Peter: 
 
 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for 
 well doing, than for evil doing. 1 Peter 3: 17. 
 
 That since the early days of persecution we have gained 
 some favor where we are best known, is true; but we have 
 done so in harmony with and in fulfillment of the following 
 promise of the Lord given in 1834: 
 
 And let all my people who dwell in the regions round about, 
 be very faithful, and prayerful, and humble before me, and 
 reveal not the things which I have revealed unto them, until it 
 is wisdom in me that they should be revealed. Talk not judg- 
 ment, neither boast of faith, nor of mighty works; but carefully 
 
100 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 gather together, as much in one region as can be consistently 
 with the feelings of the people: and, behold, I will give unto 
 you favor and grace in their eyes, that you may rest in peace 
 and safety, while you are saying unto the people, Execute judg- 
 ment and justice for us according to law, and redress us of our 
 wrongs. D. C. 102: 7. 
 
 The Reorganization has by action of the body, as well as 
 through its committees and representatives, favored 
 wholesome legislation against the crimes of polygamy and 
 unlawful cohabitation; but we challenge the proof that we 
 have aided "in the work of misrepresentation." 
 
 Having now followed Mr. Roberts to the close of his 
 attack, and considered every material point, we submit 
 our answer to the careful consideration of the reader, and 
 pay our respects to Mr. Penrose, after which we will treat 
 the subject from a more direct standpoint. 
 
CHAPTER 10. 
 
 PENROSE LEADING SPIRITS WOODRUFF'S TESTIMONY DISCI- 
 PLINESPENCER INTERVIEW. 
 
 Now COMES Mr. Charles W. Penrose with his "Priest- 
 hood and Presidency;" but our reply to him will be brief, 
 as in replying to Mr. Roberts, and in incidental mention of 
 Mr. Penrose's work, we have considered the most of his 
 material points. 
 
 Mr. Penrose, like Mr. Roberts, whom he apes, generally 
 contents himself in assertions for which he offers no proof. 
 We have in these pages so frequently called attention to 
 this method that it is only necessary here to ask the reader 
 to carefully discriminate between that which is asserted 
 and that for which proof is offered. We shall therefore 
 not reply to many of his unsupported assertions. Here is 
 one, however, which we wish to notice. Speaking of the 
 Reorganization he says: 
 
 Its leading spirits are chiefly persons who have been excom- 
 municated from the Church of Christ for apostasy and other 
 offenses. Penrose, p. 3. 
 
 We suppose that by the ' 'Church of Christ" Mr. Penrose 
 means the church he represents; but, like Mr. Roberts, he 
 assumes without proof that it is the Church of Christ. 
 
 If, with this explanation, his assertion is true, according 
 to Mr. Roberts' philosophy (see p. 34) the Reorganization 
 is a stream flowing chiefly from the church in Utah, and 
 partaking of its nature and characteristics. Of what then 
 can Mr. Penrose complain? However, his assertion is not 
 true. Of the fifteen composing the First Presidency and the 
 Quorum of Twelve Apostles, but one was ever connected 
 with the church in Utah; and he was never expelled for 
 
102 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 any criminal offenses, if indeed he was ever expelled at all. 
 Just how many Mr. Penrose would include as leading spir- 
 its, we do not know; but an examination will disclose, we 
 think, about the same proportion; viz., that no more than 
 one in fifteen, in the other quorums, have communed with 
 the church Mr. Penrose represents. We challenge the 
 proof that any of these few were ever legally expelled or 
 ever regularly charged with criminal conduct; or that any 
 action was ever taken against them by this so-called 
 Church of Christ prior to their having united with the 
 Reorganization. 
 
 Mr. Roberts has us all Strangites and William Smith- 
 ites, and Mr. Penrose has us all Brighamites; and yet they 
 have the audacity to say that we are not persecuted! 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Woodruff, as quoted by Mr. Pen- 
 rose, on page 23 of his pamphlet, is faulty, and would not 
 be accepted in a court of justice. He says: 
 
 Joseph Smith never ordained his son Joseph, never blessed 
 him nor set him apart to lead this church and kingdom on the 
 face of the earth. When he or any other man says he did, they 
 state that which is false before high heaven. 
 
 Mr. Woodruff could not possibly know what he here 
 affirms. To suppose that he did is to suppose that he was 
 constantly with Joseph Smith, and especially so at the 
 times and places where it is claimed that the blessing was 
 pronounced. At the time Joseph Smith was in Liberty 
 Jail Mr. Woodruff was not there, nor was he in the State 
 of Missouri at all during the perilous times of 1837 and 
 1838, according to Brighamite publications. Further, he 
 was not always present in Nauvoo, and hence could not 
 know whereof he affirms. We feel a profound sympathy 
 for Mr. Woodruff, and we are sorry that Mr. Penrose has 
 had so little respect for this old man in his dotage as to 
 drag him before the public by quoting his childish utter- 
 ances. 
 
OHUROH PRESIDENCY. 103 
 
 Mr. Penrose says: 
 
 In the true church there are order and discipline under com- 
 petent authority; in the "Josephite" society there are disorder, 
 confusion and continual contention, which Christ says is of the 
 devil (III Nephi xi: 29). Penrose, p. 29. 
 
 In this connection allow us to produce two statements 
 from leading men in the Utah Church, and we could pro- 
 duce much more of the same sort. 
 
 Here is what B. H. Roberts says of Governor Wells: 
 
 "When the sow that has been washed returns to her wallow- 
 ing in the mire, we smile at it. 
 
 "When the dog turns to his vomit, we sicken at it. 
 
 "When the bird fouls its own nest, we are filled with disgust. 
 
 "But when a man and that man a Governor of a State dis- 
 credits the marriage system which gave him birth, stamps the 
 brand of dishonor on his own parents, and assumes an attitude 
 that carried to its legitimate conclusions, would put his own 
 sisters beyond the pale of the law and mark them as outcasts, 
 then there is no comparison that can express one's contempt 
 and disgust for such a craven. 
 
 "I knew Gov. Wells's father. An honorable man he was, pos- 
 sessed of broad views and statesmanlike qualities. When I 
 think of this noble character, I can only wonder that he begot 
 so unworthy and craven a son." 8aU Lake Semi- Weekly Tribune. 
 Nov. 8, 1898. 
 
 And here is Wells on Roberts: 
 
 Aside from the trouble his election would create, a man 
 whose character is marked by every act that may define a 
 demagogue and who seems to be in constant need of a guardian 
 to keep him in his party and in his church, is scarcely worthy 
 the suffrage of his people. Ibid. 
 
 Until Mr. Penrose can point to something among us 
 approximating to this, he should cease to draw compari- 
 sons and to boast of pacific conditions. The above are 
 only fair specimens of many of the kind that have attended 
 their career from 1844 until the present. 
 
 As all material points in the body of Mr. Penrose's work 
 are answered in the foregoing pages, we leave it; but we 
 wish to give brief notice to his appendix, which purports 
 to contain an account of an interview that S. Q-. Spencer et 
 
104 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 al. had with President Joseph Smith at Independence, Mis- 
 souri, March 18, 1896. On page 33 Mr. Penrose makes Mr. 
 Spencer to say: 
 
 All the foregoing questions were formulated and written, 
 with space left for answers, before we called on Joseph Smith; 
 and the answers, although in one or two instances necessarily 
 abbreviated (when they were long, and insufficient space had 
 been left), are word for word as answered, finally, by him. 
 
 On page 35 he makes Spencer et al. to say: 
 
 We declare in words of soberness, knowing full well that no 
 "liar" shall inherit the kingdom of God, that the answers are 
 complete to the questions asked in said interview, entirely free 
 from any misleading feature. 
 
 There is something wrong here. These answers cannot 
 be both ''abbreviated" and "complete." 
 In Mr. Penrose's closing remarks he says: 
 
 The unbiased reader will perceive that Mr. Smith does not 
 make any specific denial or refutation of the statements fur- 
 nished to the News by the four Elders who conversed with him. 
 Penrose, p. 36. 
 
 Had Mr. Penrose given President Smith's version of 
 that interview, the unbiased reader would see quite differ- 
 ently. We here give his statement that the "unbiased" 
 reader may compare: 
 
 STATEMENT OF INTERVIEW. 
 
 "LAMONI, Iowa, May 19, 1896. 
 "BRO. J. M. STUBBART, 
 
 "Octavia, Nebraska. 
 
 "Yours of 15th received. In reply, Messrs. S. G. Spencer, E. 
 S. Hart, A. G. Young, and W. E. Criddle, were at Bro. Joseph 
 Luff's house, and Mr. Spencer did the talking. He asked me 
 several questions; the form of which I do not remember. If he 
 had them written, I did not see them; but he certainly has not 
 given the answers as I gave them. He had asked me for an 
 interview, and I granted it. He brought the others with him 
 at his own motion, and without consulting me. I had no 
 thought he would misrepresent me. If he had the questions 
 numbered and set down, I did not see them; nor were his min- 
 utes of what I said submitted tome for correction. I hoped 
 that neither he, nor either of them, would go away and lie 
 about me. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 105 
 
 "1. Do you claim to be a prophet of God? 
 
 "Ans. I claim to occupy the position and office my father 
 did. 
 
 "2. Did your father ordain you to be a prophet to lead the 
 church? 
 
 "A. Not in the sense of installing me in the leadership, for 
 he was living and occupying. But in the sense of conferring 
 on me by his blessing and the laying on of his hands whatever 
 appertained to me as his son and his successor, he did, using 
 the word 'ordain' to mean blessing, conferring and confirming 
 upon me whatever he held that could descend to me as his son 
 by right of lineage. He did this in Liberty Jail, in Missouri; 
 and again at Nauvoo, some time before his death, after I was 
 baptized, in the Brick Store and in the presence of witnesses, 
 of whom James Whitehead, now of Lamoni, was one. Whether 
 he used the word 'ordain' I do not know. He again laid hands 
 upon me and blessed me to the same blessing, just before he 
 left Nauvoo for Carthage, in the north room of the Mansion, at 
 which time a number were present. Whether this may be 
 considered an ordination or not; it was a setting apart by bless- 
 ing; and I have so considered it. 
 
 "3. You say a voice told you to join the Reorganized Church. 
 Is it not possible that the voice was from a seducing spirit a 
 transformed devil instead of from broa? 
 
 "To this question, though I believe the latter part respecting 
 a transformed devil has been added since, I replied in sub- 
 stance: 
 
 " 'That is not a fair question, Elder Spencer, and is asked 
 with a view to make capital out of a possible answer. I went 
 to God, earnestly asking for direction, as my father did. The 
 conditions were similar; and I believed that if there was a man 
 on earth who had the right to believe that God would deal 
 fairly with him, I was that man. I believe that now. I asked 
 in sincerity, "Where shall I go?" And I was told as plainly as 
 I can hear you speak to-day, to "join the Reorganized Church." 
 I am not prepared to admit, in any sense, that I was deceived; 
 or that the voice was that of a seducing or evil spirit. I am 
 not prepared to say or to believe that God would either deceive 
 me or suffer any evil or lying spirit to deceive me. To admit 
 that would be to throw doubt on every manifestation said to 
 have been received during the rise of the church. It would 
 subject the statements of Joseph Smith, David Whitmer, and 
 others who said they saw angels, and heard them, to grave dis- 
 credit. No, sir; I do not admit that there was, or could have 
 been, any deception or deceiving spirit in the case.' 
 
 "Mr. Spencer tried in several ways to get me to admit that 
 it might have been a deception; but I did not at any time make 
 such admission. He has given in two lines what f did not say: 
 
106 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 except that I told him I 'heard a voice.' That much is true. 
 I would not and did not say that it could be, or was deceptive. 
 I fully believed it to be true and from God, in answer to my 
 prayer. 
 
 "He asked me if I claimed to be an apostle, and I told him 
 'Yes;' that as my father and O. Cowdery were apostles, after 
 the ordination that made them the first and second elders of the 
 church in 1830, so was I an apostle. 
 
 "4. Who ordained you? (The word 'apostle' was not used in 
 this question at that time.) 
 
 "A. William Marks, who was president of the High Council 
 at Nauvoo, and president of the stake at Father's death; Wil- 
 liam Blair, and Zenas H. Gurley. Elder Gurley was a seventy 
 in Father's lifetime. Elder Blair had been baptized by my 
 Uncle William, who was one of the Twelve at Father's death; 
 these men ordained me to be an high priest; I was then chosen 
 to be president of the church, and set apart to the office. 
 
 "I furthermore told him that neither Marks nor Gurley had 
 ever been divested of the authority they held in Father's time. 
 
 "5. Did they hold the office of apostle? 
 
 "A. Marks was not an apostle, in the sense of being one of 
 the Twelve; Blair and Gurley had been chosen to the apos- 
 tleship. 
 
 "6. If not, how could he give something he never had? 
 
 "A. Anyone holding the Melchisedec priesthood, could, at 
 the command of God, ordain to any office in the church; and 
 could in case the necessity required it, perform any duty that 
 the apostle might under the same conditions. It is provided 
 for in the revelation on priesthood, section 104, of our book. 
 Don't know what section in yours. 
 
 "7. Question and answer about correct. 
 
 "8. Have you ever seen an angel or heavenly personage? 
 
 "A.- I have seen personages that I believe to have been 
 angels. I then cited to some instances, among them the one 
 referred to; but not in reference to 'getting a doctor.' It was in 
 regard to my administering to those who being sick employed a 
 doctor. I had about concluded not to do so; when I received 
 the visitation referred to. I believed it to be a messenger sent 
 by the good powers above, to show me my duty. It had no 
 more reference to my sending for a doctor than it had to 
 whether I should hire a horse, or buy a dog. I would not say 
 whether this was an angel, as the word 'angel' is sometimes 
 used; but it was certainly a messenger, and not a human per- 
 sonage, such as a living man in the flesh, like you and me. 
 This was in substance the answer I gave in my talk on the sub- 
 ject. I referred him to the men who appeared to Abram as he 
 sat in his tent at the close of the day. 
 
 "9. I think in this question Spencer used the words 'prac- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 107 
 
 ticed polygamy.' To this I replied as stated, adding, *8he 
 always denied it; not only to me but to others.' 
 
 "10. Did she, Emma Smith, ever deny to you that he ever 
 had the revelation on spiritual marriage? 
 
 "A. She said that so far as her knowledge went he never had 
 that revelation. That she believed that he did not have it, or 
 give it to the church. That she never saw it, never heard it 
 read, never burned it, or had it burned, and never had anything 
 to do with it whatever. Personally, I do not believe that he 
 did give such revelation; though I do not know. 
 
 "11 and 12. There was nothing said about the practice of 
 polygamy in the millennium. The question had reference to 
 the 'resurrection;' and I replied that I knew nothing about the 
 laws that would govern in the resurrection. That I accepted 
 what Jesus said that in the resurrection there was neither mar- 
 rying nor giving in marriage. That I knew of no authentic 
 teaching that defined what the conditions there would be in 
 detail; but that personally I was contented to accept the condi- 
 tions of the laws ordained of God to govern there when I got 
 there. That I had lost one wife and had another, and that I 
 was not troubled about whether I should have one, both, or 
 none at all over on the other side. The revelation referred to 
 by Bro. Luff was that in answer to prayer upon the question of 
 plural marriage, or polygamy, I was commanded to 'have noth- 
 ing to do with it, only to oppose it.' And I stated that I had 
 kept the commandment to the best of my ability. 
 
 "13. Do you believe that you will assist us in building this 
 temple the one to be built here in Independence? 
 
 "(Here Bro. Luff suggested, 'Had you not better ask whether 
 you will assist us? We claim to be the church in succession.') 
 
 "There was no question whether I thought we would unite 
 with the organized church in Utah; except in the idea of as- 
 sisting to build the temple in Independence. 
 
 "I replied: 'As to the question of who will build or assist to 
 build the temple here (at Independence), I have no opinion to 
 express. I am quite willing that the people indicated by God 
 as his people shall build it. If I and my brethren with me 
 shall be thought worthy of building, or even assisting to build 
 it, all right; I shall be satisfied for the will of God to prevail in 
 the matter.' 
 
 "14. The question of authority in Utah came up, but I do not 
 believe the question was in the form of number 14. I think it 
 was simply, 'Do you believe the church in Utah has authority 
 to administer in the ordinances?' 
 
 "I replied; that we of the Reorganized Church had always 
 held that there were those in the church that went to Utah and 
 affiliated with that body who held priesthood derived from the 
 church in Father's time. That undoubtedly there were some 
 
108 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 there still who had not forfeited their priesthood by transgres- 
 sion, and had the right to act for Christ; but that this did not 
 attach to them as a body; only as individuals. 
 
 "Elder Spencer here interjected, 'President Woodruff, for 
 instance?' 
 
 "I continued: 'Excuse me; I do not care to answer the 
 question as to the individuals by name. Each case must be 
 determined by the conditions when the questions as to indi- 
 viduals may arise for consideration; if such contingency 
 occurs.' 
 
 "16. 'Do you say [I think the word "hold" was used] that 
 you have authority to administer in the ordinances of the gos- 
 pel?' 
 
 "J.. Yes sir. I fully believe that I have such authority. 
 And the evidences of the Lord's acceptance and indorsement of 
 my ministry during the last thirty years are quite numerous. 
 I then related some of them. 
 
 "17. In reply to the question of who would lead the Reorgan- 
 ized Church in case of my death, I told Mr. Spencer; that the 
 care of the church would devolve upon the Twelve as a quo- 
 rum, until my successor was pointed out by revelation. That 
 the same rights that I held as the son of my father would 
 descend to my sons. But that the calling of anyone de- 
 pended on worthiness, as well as lineage, or birthright. That 
 the question of the succession of a son to what his father held 
 would turn on the question of worth, other things being equal. 
 But that the Lord by his Spirit would determine the call. 
 
 "18. I have no recollection of any such question as No. 18; 
 certainly, not in that form. It was evidently a forcing of the 
 text referring to the turning of the hearts of the fathers to the 
 sons, and of the sons to the fathers, etc., and the delay referred 
 to was in reference to the baptism for the dead, etc. I had 
 nothing to say why the Lord had not given a permissive com- 
 mand since the stoppage in such ministration mentioned in the 
 revelation of 1841; and I so told Mr. Spencer. 
 
 "19. Mr. Spencer's question about endowments and baptisms 
 for the dead was answered by me in this way: 'I know of noth- 
 ing in the books, nor published teachings of Joseph Smith and 
 his fellow ministers teaching or authorizing endowments. Nor 
 do I know whether any endowments were given in Nauvoo dur- 
 ing my father's lifetime.' I knew of none, I did know that 
 there were some baptisms for the dead in tht river at Nauvoo 
 for I saw them performed. I did not tell him that there were 
 endowments, for I knew of none. My answer as he gives it 
 makes me to say there were endowments as well as baptisms 
 for the dead; which is not true. 
 
 "20. Have you ever inhabited the Nauvoo House? 
 
 "A. I have not lived in the house as a residence. My step- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 109 
 
 father finished a part of it, and my mother lived there with 
 him for several years, and died in it in April, 1879. I cannot 
 say what my posterity may do. Personally, I do not expect to 
 live in the Nauvoo House, in its present condition and owner- 
 ship. It is now occupied and owned by the widow and son of 
 my stepfather, Lewis Bidamon. My stepfather tore down a 
 part of the building and built up another. 
 
 "22. I do not think this question was framed in this way. I 
 think the question was fixed up after the men left me. The 
 question was, 'If what is promised, that is, a residence in the 
 Nauvoo House, has failed to be fulfilled, might it not be possi- 
 ble that any other promise made in the same revelation may 
 fail also?' 
 
 "To this I replied: 'Yes, it is possible that any promise made 
 to man may fail so far as he is personally concerned; for the 
 reason that all the promises of God to man are conditional, and 
 worthiness or unworthiness has much to do with such things. 
 But I am not aware that the loss of any priesthood right I may 
 have been entitled to as the son of the prophet is involved in 
 the loss of a residence in the Nauvoo House.' 
 
 "23. There was no question asked me in regard to my father 
 leaving the keys with me. The question was, 'Did not your 
 father take the keys of his priesthood with him; as the revela- 
 tion says they shall not be taken from him?' I answered that 
 the revelation stated that the keys of this kingdom shculd not 
 be taken from him, neither here, nor in the world to come. 
 That unless he transgressed, what was his and what accrued to 
 him because of his faithful work, should be continued his. 
 But that this did not affect the fact of his. place being made 
 vacant, nor the right of myself, or another to occupy, if God so 
 willed it. And that the oracles were to be given through him 
 to the church. That men, whether apostles or prophets, were 
 not oracles in the sense of the term used in the revelations. 
 That the oracles there named were the commandments of God 
 contained in the books, or the books themselves for that mat- 
 ter; and the revelations of God to the church. That the reve- 
 lations and commandments of God were given to the church as 
 a whole, and not to the Twelve alone; and that was one of our 
 reasons for the course we had taken. That, in our judgment, 
 those oracles had been treated as a light thing, and condemna- 
 tion had resulted, as the revelation stated. 
 
 "Mr. Spencer then asked me whether the apostles were not 
 the leading quorum after the Presidency, as the Savior said, 
 'first, apostles,' etc. 
 
 "To this I answered, 'Yes.' I then added: 'I have always 
 held that, had the Twelve, as a quorum, taken the lead at the 
 death of Father and Uncle Hyrum, and carried on the work 
 righteously, and in accordance with the gospel as given to 
 
110 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Joseph Smith by the angel, continuing in their places as mis- 
 sionaries to the world, until the Lord had revealed, or called on 
 the one he chose to lead, or become president in its time, there 
 would never have occurred such a scene of apostasy as took 
 place. Nor would there have been a doctrine so evil introduced 
 as we believed had been forced upon the church. That the 
 Twelve, as a quorum, should have taken such steps as guarded 
 the church from imposition, until such time as the one chosen 
 of God to lead had been called, as that quorum was next in 
 authority; but that the Twelve in authority of decision was 
 only one of three, which were equal, as the section on priest- 
 hood clearly stated the Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy.' 
 (See Sec. 104.) 
 
 "It was in this connection that I said the Twelve were the 
 proper ones to lead after Father's death; and I qualified it as I 
 here have stated. I did not, at any time nor in any way indorse 
 the idea, nor the fact that the right to lead the church, at the 
 death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, devolved unqualifiedly on 
 the Twelve; though Bro. Luff stated after they were gone that 
 Spencer would so report me. 
 
 "I know of no revelation to me on the relation to married 
 people, as asked of in question 12, other than the ones referred 
 to by me in my biography, in which I was told that po- 
 lygamy was not of God. And I stated to Mr. Spencer, that as 
 I had asked the Lord which church I should join; so had I 
 asked in regard to polygamy, and had been as clearly and posi- 
 tively told that polygamy was not of God. I recollect of no 
 other revelation. If Bro. Luff referred to any other I know 
 nothing of what it was he referred to. 
 
 "This interview lasted from about 9 a. m. to nearly half past 
 11. Mr. Spencer was the talker; the rest scarcely joining in 
 the chat. The talk was long and apparently friendly. I made 
 no statements and took no positions that were either untrue in 
 themselves, or if understood were damaging. That Mr. Spen- 
 cer and his men may distort and twist what I did say appears 
 to be possible. Mr. Spencer expressed the hope that there 
 might be a unity of the two, 'you and us,' as he expressed it. 
 To this both Bro. Luff and I expressed assent, if it could be done 
 on the lines laid down of the Lord in the works of the church 
 his word and his will. 
 
 "I do not take the position that both the Utah Church and 
 the Reorganized Church are baptizing into the same body of 
 Christ. I took no such grounds with Mr. Spencer. Both Bro. 
 Luff and I gave them to understand that we claimed to be the 
 church in succession. That we had nothing to conceal; and 
 were willing what we had done to be investigated. 
 
 "I believe the 'set time' referred to, cannot be properly 
 applied to the practice of endowments and baptisms for the 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. Ill 
 
 dead. I know of no endowments being practiced in Father's 
 time. There were baptisms for the dead for awhile in the river 
 until stopped, as referred to in section 107, revelation of 1841. I 
 am satisfied that the endowments practiced in Utah were not 
 had in Father's time; they may have been in Nauvoo after he 
 died; though personally I know of none then. 
 
 "I never lived in the 'Nauvoo House.' I did live in the Nau- 
 voo Mansion. It would be possible to build the Nauvoo House, 
 and me live in it yet if God so ordered it to be done. 
 
 "I did not say the leadership vested in the apostles; I did say 
 that had they remained in their places, and iniquity kept out 
 of the church, the great confusion and wrong that resulted 
 would not have been possible. The conversation on the leader- 
 ship question was quite long; and some of the answers as sent 
 by you are not only not full, but are absolutely incorrect; as in 
 question 23, which has three in one; and the answer to one, 
 'Yes,' referring to the keys being taken by Father, etc., is 
 right; but wrong to each of the others. My answers were full, 
 and plain; at the same time, guarded from incorrectness, espe- 
 cially so in regard to the priesthood and lineal right. They 
 have cooked both questions and answers. 
 
 "You are at liberty to withstand Elder Griddle or any of 
 them, all over Kansas, so far as I am concerned. Bro. J. R. 
 Lambert is in charge and will give help if needed. But they 
 will not meet you. Those men are not at liberty to use or mis- 
 use an interview with me which Mr. Spencer said was for their 
 own private benefit. Besides this, the elders are not bound by 
 any absurd answer of mine to baffling questions, contrary to the 
 books of the church. Yours in bonds, 
 
 "JOSEPH SMITH." 
 
 The foregoing, in connection with Mr. Spencer's version, 
 is published in tract form, and can be obtained at the Her- 
 ald Office, Lamoni, Iowa. 
 
 The following letter from the pen of Elder Joseph Luff, 
 who was present at the interview, is important: 
 
 STONINGTON, Me., Sept. 4, 1898. 
 ELDER ROBT. J. PARKER, Springville, Utah; 
 
 Dear Bro.: Upon my arrival here this morning, yours of the 
 16th of August was found awaiting me, having been forwarded 
 from home. It finds me with somewhat improved health, for 
 which I feel thankful to God. 
 
 Regarding the statement which you say is being circulated 
 there, to the effect that I would not deny the correctness of the 
 
112 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 report published in the Deseret News regarding the interview 
 had in my house and in my presence, between President Joseph 
 Smith and Elder Spencer* and three other elders of the Utah 
 Church, I have only this to say and I put it plainly: IT is FALSE. 
 I have denied its correctness more than fifty times, and many of 
 the Utah elders whom I have met in various places know that 
 I have denied it with emphasis to them and pointed out some 
 of its almost self-evident falsities. It is a garbled thing in 
 some of its parts. It is disarranged as to the order of the real 
 interview, and in other instances it states the very opposite of 
 what President Smith said. When the thing was first shown to 
 me I denounced it as a vicious misrepresentation of the inter- 
 view and wrote to President Smith to that effect. I pointed 
 out several of its bad features to different parties. 
 
 The statement afterwards published by President Smith rela- 
 tive to the interview is correct, and a copy of it can be had at 
 Herald Office. Surely those people who account President 
 Smith to be a knave will not pretend to believe him to be a fool; 
 yet such he must needs be if in that interview he said what those 
 elders published over their names, for it sets forth a direct con- 
 tradiction of his public and private utterances and all his writ- 
 ings on the subjects involved, as can be easily discovered by 
 reference to said writings. If Elder Spencer intended to hon- 
 estly represent President Smith, he ought to have pursued a 
 different course from that which he followed. He pretended 
 to have some questions down in writing and would ask one at a 
 time, then begin writing when an answer was given, and, that 
 too without hearing the answers in full. He never showed us a 
 line he had written nor read a line of it in our hearing. As 
 these men left my house door I turned to President Smith and 
 said: "The next time you hear from that interview you will 
 scarcely be able to identify it," and the sequel proved that I 
 was correct. It was a scandalous piece of work and far beneath 
 the dignity of men, to say nothing of elders of a church, and you 
 are perfectly at liberty to use this statement from me wherever 
 and however and whenever you please, and to let everybody 
 know that I brand the Deseret News' published report of said 
 interview as an unprincipled thing and as bearing the indica- 
 tions that characterize the work of unscrupulous men. 
 
 Experience of several years among men who have been seek- 
 ing to bolster up Utah Mormonism has confirmed me in the 
 belief that I was slow to accept, at first; viz., that it would 
 require more than an ordinary lifetime to follow up and expose 
 the malicious misrepresentations of the Reorganization that 
 have been created and peddled by advocates of the Utah 
 Church philosophy. It may be possible that in Utah, Elder 
 Spencer's word may be taken in preference to ours; but the 
 all-seeing God of truth knows who are publishing the naked 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 113 
 
 facts, and to him my testimony is committed, awaiting the 
 judgment hour. Yours for truth, 
 
 JOSEPH LUFF. 
 Saints' Herald, Sept. 14, 1898. 
 
 In the Deseret News for October 15, 1898, Mr. Spencer 
 seeks to find a conflict between President Smith and Elder 
 Luff, by quoting President Smith as stating, 
 
 "The questions were not written in my presence, nor did 
 I see them if written; neither were the answers shown me, 
 nor written in my presence to my knowledge." 
 
 He then quotes Elder Luff as writing the following: 
 
 "He pretended to have some questions down in writing and 
 would ask one at a time, then begin writing when an answer 
 was given, and, that, too, without hearing the answer in full!" 
 
 To make out his case of conflict Mr. Spencer construes 
 President Smith's words, as given above, to mean that 
 President Smith did not remember that Spencer wrote in 
 his presence, while Elder Luff admits that he did write. 
 It will be observed that President Smith does not say 
 whether he did or did not write, but he states that the 
 answers given in the interview were not written in his presence to 
 his knowledge. 
 
 We leave these statements without further comment that 
 "the unbiased reader" may read and compare. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 BRIGHAM YOUNG His CAREER WHEREABOUTS OF AUTHORI- 
 TIES AUTHORITIES NOT IN HARMONY TWELVE SUSTAINED- 
 SEASONABLE NOTICE PROMISED GROWTH OF PRESIDING 
 IDEA REBAPTISM REORDINATION REORGANIZATION PROM- 
 ISE OF SEASONABLE NOTICE VIOLATED CHANGES MADE- 
 WRITTEN WORD DISCARDED ADAM-GOD VULGAR TEACH- 
 ING CONCERNING DEBTS EXPERT SCOUNDRELS BLOOD 
 ATONEMENT POLYGAMY. 
 
 IT may be well now to tracs the leading events of the 
 movement under Elder Brigham Young and his associates 
 after June 27, 1844, the date of the death of Joseph and 
 Hyrum Smith. 
 
 At that time Sidney Bigdon, the only remaining member 
 of the Presidency, was in Pennsylvania; Brigham Young, 
 H. C. Kimball, William Smith, Orson Pratt, Wilford 
 Woodruff, Orson Hyde, and Lyman Wight, of the Twelve, 
 were in the Eastern States; P. P. Pratt was near Utica, 
 New York; J. E. Page was at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; 
 and G-. A. Smith was in Michigan; John Taylor and Willard 
 Richards being the only members of the Twelve at Nauvoo. 
 
 The anxiety was great, as the people were unprepared 
 for such an event, and so with much trust did they look 
 forward to the return of these officers, anticipating that 
 they would be able to lead them out of their dilemma. 
 
 Parley P. Pratt was, we believe, the first of these absent 
 officers to appear upon the scene. His attitude can be 
 understood from the communication which he claimed to 
 have received, quoted on page 75. 
 
 In a few weeks, however, Elder Rigdon and several of 
 the Twelve were in Nauvoo. but the anxiously waiting 
 saints found no union among their officers. Elder Rigdon 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 115 
 
 made certain claims, not necessary to define here. Elder 
 Brigham Young and others disputed these claims, and a 
 bitter rivalry ensued. Elder Rigdon with the consent of 
 local authorities appointed a meeting for August 8, 1844, 
 to present his ciaims. The time came and Elder Brigham 
 Young assumed control of the meeting. This meeting 
 resulted in a vote to support the "Twelve in their calling." 
 (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 638.) This seemed innocent 
 enough, and, of course, the majority of the people voted 
 for it, and Rigdon's claims were not placed before the 
 assembly for their vote. 
 
 However, in the issue of the Times and Seasons for Sep- 
 tember 2, the very paper in which the minutes of the 
 above meeting were published, the Editor, who was John 
 Taylor, of the Twelve, made a statement in which he does 
 not pretend to quote the language of the resolution, but 
 relates the incident in rather stronger language than the 
 minutes justify. We give the notice here both for present 
 use and future reference: 
 
 Great excitement prevails throughout the world to know 
 "who shall be the successor of Joseph Smith?" 
 
 In reply, we say, be patient, be patient a little, till the proper 
 time comes, and we will tell you all. "Great wheels move 
 slow." At present, we can say that a special conference of the 
 church was held in Nauvoo on the 8th ult., and it was carried 
 without a dissenting voice, that the "Twelve" should preside over 
 the whole church, and when any alteration in the presidency 
 shall be required, seasonable notice will be given; and the 
 elders abroad, will best exhibit their wisdom to all men, by 
 remaining silent on those things they are ignorant of. Bishops 
 Whitney and Miller have been appointed trustees, to manage 
 the financial concerns of the church, and will soon enter on the 
 duties of their calling. Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 632. 
 
 Not forgetting this promise of "seasonable notice," let 
 us see how this idea of presiding grew, and how gradually 
 it was introduced to the notice of the people. As we have 
 seen, the Twelve were first sustained "in their calling." 
 Two months later, at the October conference, the Twelve 
 
116 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 were presented and sustained separately. In the case of 
 Brigham Young he was sustained as the "President of the 
 Quorum of the Twelve, as one of the Twelve and First 
 Presidency of the church." (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p, 
 692.) 
 
 At the General Conference of April, 1845, they ventured 
 a little further, and ' 'Elder Phelps moved that this confer- 
 ence accept the Twelve as the First Presidency and lead-" 
 ers of this church. Carried unanimously." (Times and 
 Seasons, Vol. 6, p. 869.) 
 
 At the October conference of 1845, "Father John Smith, 
 the President of the Stake, then arose and presented the 
 Twelve as the Presidents of the whole church; which was 
 seconded and carried unanimously." (Times and Seasons, 
 Vol. 6, p. 1008.) 
 
 Thus step by step did they proceed, claiming more and 
 more, until by a succession of events, not necessary to 
 mention here, they found themselves in the Salt Lake Val- 
 ley, in August, 1847, when strange events took place. 
 
 Tullidge, in his "Life of Brigham Young," quotes Mr. 
 Woodruff as follows: 
 
 "On the 6th of August, the Twelve were rebaptized. This we 
 considered a privilege and a duty. As we had come into a glori- 
 ous valley to locate and build up Zion, we felt like renewing our 
 covenants before the Lord and each other. We soon repaired to 
 the water, and President Young went down into the water and 
 baptized all his brethren of the Twelve present. He then con- 
 firmed us, and sealed upon us our apostleship, and all the keys, 
 powers, and blessings belonging to that office. Brother Heber 
 C. Kimball baptized and confirmed President Brigham Young. 
 The following were the names and order of those present: 
 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Willard Rich- 
 ards, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, and Amasa Lyman. 
 Ezra T. Benson had been dispatched several days before to 
 meet the companies on the road. 
 
 "In the afternoon of the next day, the Twelve went to the 
 Temple block to select their inheritances. . . . 
 
 "During the same evening the Twelve went to City Creek, 
 and Heber C. Kimball baptized fifty-five members of the camp, 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 117 
 
 for the remission of their sins; and they were confirmed under 
 the hands of President Young, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, 
 George A. Smith, and Amasa Lyman; President Young being 
 mouth. 
 
 "On the next day (Sunday, August 8), the whole camp of 
 Israel renewed their covenants before the Lord by baptism. 
 There were two hundred and twenty-four baptized this morn- 
 ing, making two hundred and eighty-eight rebaptized in the 
 last three days." Life of Brigham Young, pp. 180-182. 
 
 Why should these men who years before had made a 
 covenant with God in baptism and whose hands had bap- 
 tized hundreds of others be rebaptized? Did they not feel 
 in their own souls that they had broken their covenant? 
 Was not this effort the result of a conviction that they had 
 lost favor with God and a desire to regain his approbation? 
 Mr. Woodruff says: ''This we considered a privilege and a 
 duty" "We felt like renewing our covenants before the Lord 
 and each other. " 
 
 Under what circumstances is the renewal of a covenant 
 in baptism necessary? We will let Orson Hyde, of their 
 own number, answer: 
 
 When members of our church have become cold and indiffer- 
 ent by the neglect of duty, and have fallen into a lukewarm 
 state, but afterwards cherish a desire to be rebaptized, and cove- 
 nant anew to keep the commandments of God, it is their right 
 ard privilege to confess their sins, humble themselves before 
 God, and do their first work by being immersed in water, and thus 
 their second baptism is no less for the remission or forgiveness of 
 sins than their first; yet to break a solemn covenant by becom- 
 ing cold, indifferent, or lukewarm, so as to render rebaptism 
 often necessary, is certainly dangerous, for repeated neglect of 
 duty, and the frequent breaking of your covenant, will render 
 you unworthy the protection of God's Spirit, and you will find 
 yourselves caught in the snare of the Devil in some unexpected 
 moment. Millennial Star, Vol. 8, p. 136. 
 
 If Mr. Hyde was right, these men had broken their cove- 
 nant. His warning was timely; and, as subsequent events 
 proved, the dire consequences which he pointed out were 
 realized. Subsequently they not only extended the privi- 
 lege of rebaptism, but enjoined it upon all who came there, 
 
118 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 as many can testify, and as the following counsel from 
 Brigham Young, given on October 23, 1853, indicates: 
 
 I will refer again to the brethren and sisters who have lately 
 come over the plains. My counsel to them to-day is, as it has 
 been on former occasions to all who have come into these val- 
 leys, Go and be baptized for the remission of sins, repenting of 
 all your wanderings from the path of righteousness, believing 
 firmly, in the name of Jesus Christ, that all your sins will be 
 washed away. If any of you inquire what is the necessity of 
 your being baptized, as you have not committed any sins, I 
 answer, it is necessary to fulfill all righteousness. Journal of 
 Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 89. 
 
 If, as Mr. Hyde affirms, the breaking of the covenant 
 necessitates rebaptism, and as Mr. Young affirms, all who 
 came "into these valleys" needed rebaptism, then it fol- 
 lows that in the act of going there and indorsing that insti- 
 tution the covenant made in baptism before going there 
 was broken. 
 
 Right here permit us to inform the reader that in the 
 Reorganization baptisms administered by proper authority 
 in the days of Joseph Smith are considered legal and suffi- 
 cient. In Utah one having only this baptism would be 
 asked to renew it, thus either throwing discredit upon the 
 former baptism or acknowledging that the former cove- 
 nant had been broken by their act of accepting the Utah 
 church. Why, then, should we be censured for accepting 
 the logical conclusions of their own teachings; viz., that 
 they are a rejected and covenant-breaking church? 
 
 Returning to the strange acts of this band of pioneers 
 in August, 1847, we learn that they not only renewed their 
 baptismal covenant, but that the apostleship conferred 
 upon them under the administration of Joseph Smith was 
 considered inadequate, and the keys and powers by Joseph 
 conferred, of which they now boast so much, were consid- 
 ered insufficient for their purpose. Mr. Woodruff says: 
 "He [Brigham] then confirmed us, and sealed upon us our 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 119 
 
 apostleship, and all the keys, powers, and blessings be- 
 longing to that office." 
 
 If anything more is needed to convince one that these 
 men had turned from the church over which Joseph the 
 Martyr presided, follow them back to Winter Quarters 
 on the Missouri River where they arrived October 31, 1847. 
 
 Note the following: 
 
 On the 3d of December a conference was held on the east side 
 of the river; but, after having resolved to build immediately 
 a large tabernacle for the congregation, it adjourned for three 
 weeks. 
 
 There was a feast and a grand council, December 5, at the 
 house of Elder Hyde, who had been in charge at Winter Quar- 
 ters during the absence of the pioneers. 
 
 In this council of the Twelve Apostles, their President first 
 expressed his views concerning the reorganization of the Quo- 
 rum of the First Presidency, and wished those present to do 
 the same in their order, when Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, 
 Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, George A. Smith, Amasa 
 Lyman, and Ezra T. Benson, spoke to the question. President 
 Young closed. 
 
 Orson Hyde then moved that Brigham Young be President of 
 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that he 
 nominate his two councilors to form the First Presidency. 
 Wilford Woodruff seconded the motion, and it was then carried 
 unanimously. 
 
 President Young then nominated Heber 0. Kimball as his 
 first councilor, and Willard Richards as his second councilor, 
 which was seconded and carried unanimously. Life of Brig- 
 ham Young, p. 188. 
 
 In this council of the Twelve, December 5, 1847, Brig- 
 ham Young first expressed his views on this movement, 
 then immediately, without further consideration or notice, 
 this council proceeded to elevate three of their number to 
 the Presidency. In this council there were only seven of 
 those who composed the quorum at the death of Joseph 
 Smith; viz., Brigham Young, H. C. Kimball, Willard Rich- 
 ards, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, Wilford Woodruff, and G. 
 A. Smith. It is well known that William Smith, Lyman 
 Wight, and John E. Page, had not acted with them for 
 
120 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 some time, and were never at Winter Quarters. John 
 Taylor and P. P. Pratt were in Salt Lake Valley. These 
 five were not only absent, but could have known nothing 
 of such a thing being contemplated. So that to get a 
 majority vote of the Twelve, as left by Joseph, to elevate 
 Brigham Young, he must vote for himself. Yes, more; his 
 election depended upon his own vote. 
 
 Then, too, what becomes of the solemn promise made 
 just after the death of Joseph, when the saints were bid- 
 den, "Be patient, be patient," under the assurance that 
 "when any alteration in the Presidency shall be required, 
 seasonable notice will be given"? (See page 115.) 
 
 Nor was this seasonable notice given before this action 
 was presented to and indorsed by the body on December 
 24, 1847. The only possible time for notice was the nine- 
 teen days between December 5 and December 24. So 
 when we consider that this took place on the frontier, 
 where there were neither railroads nor telegraphs within 
 hundreds of miles of the scene of action, we must conclude 
 that the great mass of the church knew nothing of such a 
 move being anticipated. 
 
 They claim that there were one thousand present. Sup- 
 pose there were that many, which is very doubtful, that 
 was about one out of every one hundred and fifty compos- 
 ing the church in 1844 one representing one hundred and 
 forty-nine others, without the knowledge or consent of 
 those represented, and that too when no intimation had 
 been given of the business to be done. Thus did Brigham 
 Young and his colleagues "reorganize the church" as he 
 (Brigham) terms it (see p. 85); and yet Mr. Roberts comes 
 forward and asserts that, "Any organization claiming to 
 be the 'Reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
 Saints' is a counterfeit and writes fraud in the very title 
 of it." (Seep. 84.) 
 
 Again, while Mr. Roberts indorses the above proceed- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 121 
 
 ings he files a complaint against the Amboy Conference of 
 1860, alleging insufficient notice and small attendance (see 
 Roberts, p. 74-5), though the Amboy Conference had six 
 months' notice, the October conference of 1859 having 
 1 'adjourned to meet at Amboy, Illinois, April 6, 1860" (see 
 Saints' Herald, Vol. 1, p. 27), and that too when means of 
 communication were ample to spread the news to every 
 part of the world where saints were found. Surely Mr. 
 Roberts must be thoroughly imbued with the theory that 
 "Orthodoxy, my lord, is my doxy; and heterodoxy is some 
 other man's doxy!" 
 
 But how did Mr. Young procure the indorsement of so 
 many of the leading men? After that transformation pro- 
 cedure, spoken of in the first chapter of this work, when 
 he found himself in the favor of a large number, and when 
 those whom he could not lead had manifested their inde- 
 pendence, he began gradually to remove from office and 
 places of influence all whom he had any reason to fear 
 would oppose him. First, Sidney Rigdon, of the First 
 Presidency, was disposed of; then William Smith, John E. 
 Page, and Lyman Wight, of the Twelve, were either 
 expelled or placed under censure to destroy their influence. 
 
 To supply their places Amasa Lyman was presented, 
 together with Sidney Rigdon, as a counselor in the Presi- 
 dency, and offered the same position to the Twelve. (Times 
 and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 638.) Lyman accepted; Rigdon 
 objected. Rigdon was expelled; Lyman was received as 
 one of the Twelve. (Ibid., p. 692.) 
 
 Later (July 6, 1846), Ezra T. Benson was received into 
 the Twelve, but just how he was designated for the posi- 
 tion we have not learned. 
 
 George Miller, who was called of God to succeed Edward 
 Partridge as Presiding Bishop (Doctrine and Covenants 
 107: 8), was relegated to second place and N. K. Whitney 
 placed over him. (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 693.) 
 
122 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 * 
 
 William Marks was removed from his position as Presi- 
 dent of the Stake of Nauvoo, and John Smith installed in 
 his place. (Ibid., p. 692.) Elder Marks was also removed 
 as President of the High Council, and was succeeded by 
 Samuel Bent. (Times and Seasons, Vol. 6, p. 870.) 
 
 Josiah Butterfield, of the Presidents of Seventy, was cut 
 off the church (no reason stated for the act) and Jedediah 
 M. Grant chosen to succeed him. (Times and Seasons, Vol. 
 
 5, p. 693.) 
 
 Lyman Wight and John Snider were removed from the 
 Nauvoo House building committee, and Amasa Lyman and 
 George A. Smith put in their places. (Millennial Star, Vol. 
 
 6, p. 91.) 
 
 Several changes were made in the High Council. 
 
 Nine extra quorums of Seventy were created; a part of 
 them at least were the nominees of Brigham Young. (See 
 p. 94.) 
 
 Several were expelled from the church without trial, and 
 without a statement of the cause being given. (Times and 
 Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 687.) Some were suspended without 
 rabor or trial for voting for Elder Bigdon, and some even 
 suspended on anticipated acts of displeasure. (Ibid., p. 686.) 
 
 These and other changes too numerous to mention reveal 
 that the tendency was to place men in positions of trust 
 who could be relied upon to obey counsel regardless of the 
 teaching of the law. 
 
 As early as September, 1844, when Elder William Marks 
 in his defense of Elder Bigdon appealed to the written 
 word, Elder Brigham Young replied and in that reply 
 said: 
 
 If this people have no evidence but the written word, it is 
 quite time to go to the river and be baptized, etc. Times and 
 Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 666. 
 
 As to a person not knowing more than the written word, let 
 me tell you that there are keys that the written word never 
 spoke of, nor never will. Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 667. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 128 
 
 This was early paving the way to teach that which the 
 word of God did not contain. 
 
 In harmony with this thought Elder Brigham Young 
 said on April 6, 1845: 
 
 Joseph in his lifetime did not receive everything connected 
 with the doctrine of redemption, but he has left the key with 
 those who understand how to obtain and teach to this great 
 people all that is necessary for their salvation and exaltation in 
 the celestial kingdom of our God. Times and Seasons, Vol. 6, 
 p. 955. 
 
 This was preparing the way for the introduction of 
 principles which Joseph had not taught. Many like 
 passages can be produced from their record all through 
 the years until now, of teachings which had a tendency, if 
 believed, to train the people to obey counsel and follow 
 their leaders without asking whether Joseph taught 
 it or not, or whether it was taught in the word of God. 
 This led to the condition of things described by Brigham 
 Young on September 11, 1853: 
 
 If I have any knowledge touching the condition of this peo- 
 ple at the present time, and the way they are taught, led, coun- 
 seled, and dictated by those who go before them to open up the 
 way, it is directly opposite of that we saw in the days of Joseph 
 the Prophet. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 78. 
 
 Mr. Young may have intended that these words should 
 have a very limited application, but the tendency of his 
 teaching was to bring about a general condition of depar- 
 ture from original principles. This made it easy for him 
 to introduce doctrines and principles not taught under 
 Joseph Smith's administration, nor in the word of God. 
 Some of these departures we will notice briefly, as the 
 space designed for this work will not admit of an extended 
 examination. 
 
 Nowhere in the standard books of the church or in the 
 teachings of Joseph Smith can anything like the following 
 from Brigham Young be found: 
 
 Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, 
 
124 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the gar- 
 den of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought 
 Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organ- 
 ize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF 
 DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken HE it 
 our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to 
 do. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 50. 
 
 Here is another illustration of where a departure from 
 the written word led Mr. Young and those who sustained 
 him: 
 
 I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but 
 a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from 
 this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten 
 by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in 
 conversation with a certain learned professor upon this sub- 
 ject, when I replied, to this idea "if the Son was begotten 
 by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and 
 confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he 
 should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the 
 people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties. Journal of 
 Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 51. 
 
 We feel to apologize to our readers for even quoting that 
 which approaches so nearly upon the vulgar and obscene; 
 but the depths of degradation and shame to Which this 
 departure from God's word led this man can only be real- 
 ized by letting him speak for himself. 
 
 Contrast the above with the word of God: 
 
 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his 
 mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came 
 together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 
 1:18. 
 
 Eeader, will you follow the leadership of a man who 
 holds the keys by which such filthy and disgusting things 
 are revealed, and thus place yourself in opposition to the 
 word of God? 
 
 Here is another rich treasure brought to light by this 
 holder of special keys: 
 
 I wish to impress another thing upon your minds. An Elder, 
 who is willing to preach the Gospel, borrows a hundred or a 
 thousand dollars from you, and you never breathe the first com- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 125 
 
 plaint against him, until you came home to this valley, but 
 after you have been here for a few days, you follow me round 
 and fill my ears with complaints against this brother, and ask 
 me what he has done with your money? I say, "I do not 
 know." Thus you are distressed and in misery, all the day 
 long, to get it back again. If an Elder has borrowed from you, 
 and you find he is going to apostatize, then you may tighten 
 the screws upon him; but if he is willing to preach the Gos- 
 pel, without purse or scrip, it is none of your business what he 
 does with the money he has borrowed from you. Journal of 
 Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 340. 
 
 Surely there is nothing in the written word nor in the 
 teachings of Joseph Smith like this. 
 Another specimen: 
 
 I have many a time, in this stand, dared the world to produce 
 as mean devils as we can. We can beat them at anything. 
 We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the cun- 
 ningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character 
 that you can mention. 
 
 We can pick out elders in Israel right here who can beat the 
 world at gambling; who can handle the cards; can cut and 
 shuffle them with the smartest rogue on God's footstool. I can 
 produce elders here who can shave their smartest shavers, and 
 take their money from them. We can beat the world at any 
 game. Deseret News, Vol. 6, p. 291; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, 
 p. 77. 
 
 We can hardly believe that Mr. Young intended to 
 indorse all this rascality and corruption, and yet the rea- 
 son which he assigns for this deplorable state of affairs 
 seems to commit him to an indorsement. 
 
 Here it is: 
 
 We can beat them because we have men here that live in the 
 light of the Lord; that have the holy priesthood, and hold the keys 
 of the kingdom of God. But you may go through all the sec- 
 tarian world, and you cannot find a man capable of opening the 
 door of the kingdom of God to admit others in. We can do 
 that. We can pray the best, preach the best, and sing the 
 best. We are the best looking and finest set of people on the 
 face of the earth; and they can begin any game they please, 
 and we are on hand, and can beat them at anything they have 
 a mind to begin. They may make sharp tbeir two-edged 
 swords, and I will turn out the elders of^Israel with greased 
 feathers, and whip them to death. We are not to be beat. We 
 
126 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 expect to be a stumbling block to the whole world, and a rock 
 of offence to them. JDeseret News, Vol. 6, p. 291; Journal of Dis- 
 courses, Vol. 4, p. 77. 
 
 It would be idle to dispute the claim of Brigham Young 
 that he held "keys that the written word never spoke of, 
 nor never will." But whence came they? From heaven, 
 or from beneath from God, or from Satan? 
 
 Let Moroni answer: 
 
 Wherefore, all things which are good, cometh of God; and 
 that which is evil, cometh of the devil; for the devil is an 
 enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and in- 
 viteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continu- 
 ally. But behold, that which is of God, inviteth and enticeth 
 to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth 
 and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is 
 inspired of God. Wherefore take heed, my beloved brethren, 
 that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that 
 which is good and of God, to be of the devil. For behold, my 
 brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good 
 from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know 
 with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark 
 night. For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, 
 that they may know good from evil; wherefore I shew unto you 
 the way to judge: for every thing which inviteth to do good, 
 and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power 
 and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect 
 knowledge, it is of God; but whatsoever thing persuadeth men 
 to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve 
 not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of 
 the devil, for after this manner doth the devil work, for he 
 persuadeth no man to do good, no not one; neither doth his 
 angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. 
 Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:2. 
 
 Let us apply the above test to some other items of the 
 teaching of Elder Young and his colleagues. Here is some- 
 thing that, had it been reported of them by their enemies, 
 we could not have given credence to; but it is found in 
 their own publications: 
 
 All mankind love themselves; and let these principles be 
 known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood 
 shed. That would be loving themselves even unto an eternal 
 exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters, likewise, 
 when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for with- 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 127 
 
 outthe shedding of blood? Will you love that man or woman well 
 enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. 
 He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their 
 wickedness. He never intended any such thing. ... I have 
 known a great many men who have left this church, for whom 
 there is no chance whatever for exaltation; but if their blood 
 had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The 
 wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle 
 being in full force; but the time will come when the law of God 
 will be in full force. 
 
 This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, 
 help him; and if he wants salvation, and it is necessary to spill 
 his blood upon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill 
 it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if 
 you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except 
 the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your 
 blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you 
 desire. That is the way to love mankind. Journal of Dis- 
 courses, Vol. 4, pr 220; Deseret News, Vol. 6, p. 397. 
 
 The above is the language of Brigham Young; the fol- 
 lowing the language of Jedediah M. Grant, his coun- 
 selor: 
 
 I say there are men and women here that I would advise to 
 go to the president immediately, and ask him to appoint a 
 committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be 
 selected, and let that committee shed their blood. Deseret 
 News, Vol. 6, p. 235. 
 
 Efforts have been made of late years to explain this lan- 
 guage away by making it appear that it only had reference 
 to those who should be executed for crime by the laws of 
 the land. If this is what Brigham intended, what did he 
 mean by "The wickedness and ignorance of the nations 
 forbid this principle being in full force," etc.? Surely he 
 had reference to something which now the law of the land 
 forbids. What did Jedediah M. Grant mean by advising 
 that certain parties "go to the president immediately, and 
 ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case"? 
 
 To occupy more space upon this point is unnecessary. 
 The reader can readily see that this language cannot be 
 explained away; and that Messrs. Young and Grant 
 intended to justify individuals in taking the lives of others, 
 
128 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 thus encouraging murder; and that too in the name of God 
 and religion. We do not wonder that the advocates of the 
 Utah system blush with shame to meet this, and would 
 gladly close their eyes to the purport of these words of 
 their leaders so full of darkness and horror. Oh, had the 
 keys that unlocked these things been lost, in how much 
 better condition would latter-day Israel be to-day! Oh, 
 tell us not that the anointed successor of Joseph the Seer 
 should have been ordained under such hands, and by such 
 polluted lips! 
 
 Much more of this character could be produced from 
 their own records, but we will invite attention to but one 
 more principle into which the people of Utah were led by 
 the deceptive theory that their leaders possessed keys to 
 unlock things never known to Joseph or the written word. 
 
 On August 29, 1852, at a Special Conference held in Salt 
 Lake City, Utah, the doctrine of polygamy or plurality of 
 wives was first introduced to the church for indorsement. 
 That it had been practiced to some extent prior to this is 
 evident. By whom, or how many, is immaterial; for our 
 conduct should not be governed by the acts of men, but by 
 the principles of truth. The existence of this practice had 
 been both admitted and denied by those who were in a 
 position to know, until it is very difficult to locate the 
 responsibility for this departure from the law of God; nor 
 is this the purpose of this treatise. 
 
 But one point is admitted by all; viz.: that the church 
 as a body was never asked to indorse plural marriage 
 before August 29, 1852. The responsibility of the body 
 began with that date, and Brigham Young was the respon- 
 sible party for its introduction. No matter who may or 
 who may not have practiced it privately, it is legitimate to 
 hold Mr. Young responsible for introducing it to the pub- 
 lic as a tenet of faith. 
 
 It is not our purpose in this work to discuss polygamy. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 129 
 
 It is well known that the Reorganization is and ever has 
 been uncompromisingly opposed to it; and the ministry 
 everywhere is well prepared to meet the advocates of this 
 pernicious innovation. We present it here as another 
 item of doctrine given to the church by these boastful 
 key holders, and which was not presented to the church in 
 the days of Joseph Smith. 
 
 As evidence of this we cite the following from their own 
 men: 
 
 G. Q. Cannon, in a sermon, June 11, 1871, Journal of Dis- 
 courses, Vol. 14, pp. 165, 166, says: 
 
 "A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us 
 owes its origin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of 
 wives. . . . Joseph and Hyrum Smith were slain in Carthage 
 jail, and hundreds of persons were persecuted to death previous 
 to the church having any knowledge of this doctrine.'* 
 
 H. B. Clawson says of the time they were driven from Nau- 
 voo: 
 
 "Polygamy at that time was unknown among those of the 
 Mormon faith. . . . The doctrine of polygamy was not pro- 
 mulgated until they got to Salt Lake; not, in fact, until some 
 little time after they arrived there." (See Salt Lake Herald, 
 February 9, 1882.) 
 
 Being interviewed by United States Senator Trumbull, in 
 1869, Brigham Young said: 
 
 "As to our institutions, we know we are right, and polygamy, 
 which you object to, was not originally a part of our system, 
 but was adopted by us as a necessity, after we came here." 
 Alta Californian. 
 
 The Deseret News of December 11, 1881, or December 7, 1882, 
 says: 
 
 "The 'Mormon' church existed for many years without 
 polygamy. Indeed, correctly speaking, polygamy is not now 
 and never has been even a tenet of the 'Mormon' faith." 
 "Books and Utah Mormonism in Contrast," pp. 22, 33. 
 
 We present further that the prophecy uttered by Brig- 
 ham Young in August, 1852, has utterly failed. 
 Here is what he said: 
 
 You heard Brother Pratt state, this morning, that a Revela- 
 tion would be read this afternoon, which was given previous to 
 Joseph's death. It contains a doctrine, a small portion of the 
 
130 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 world is opposed to; but I can deliver a prophecy upon it. 
 Though that doctrine has not been practiced by the Elders, 
 this people have believed in it for years. . . . 
 
 The Revelation will be read to you. The principle spoken 
 upon by Brother Pratt, this morning, we believe in. And I 
 tell you for I know it it will sail over, and ride triumphantly 
 above all the prejudice and priestcraft of the day; it will be 
 fostered and believed in by the more intelligent portions of the 
 world, as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any peo- 
 ple. Your hearts need not beat; you need not think that a 
 mob is coming here to tread upon the sacred liberty which the 
 Constitution of our country guarantees unto us, for it will not 
 be. Supplement to Millennial Star, 1853 (Vol. 15), p. 31. 
 
 The people who accepted this principle, and the senti- 
 ment expressed above, maintained their position for years 
 as best they could against an overwhelming and ever 
 increasing conviction and sentiment against it. Instead 
 of its riding "triumphantly above all the prejudice," etc., 
 it was evident from the first, to all but the Brighamites, 
 that its doom was sealed, and that the failure of those who 
 advocated it was but a question of time. Laws were 
 enacted against it, men were fined, imprisoned, disfran- 
 chised, and exiled; and yet they held out, contending that 
 it was a part of their faith and that they could not aban- 
 don it without renouncing that faith. As late as the 15th 
 of April, 1889, Mr. George Teasdale, then as now one of 
 their Twelve Apostles, published editorially the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 The assault against the church is made on the line of the 
 marriage question because it seems to offer at present the 
 greatest prospect for the success of hostile effort. The saints 
 in general are less firmly united on this principle than on many 
 others belonging to the gospel, and it is hoped by our enemies 
 that this circumstance will conduce largely, if not successfully, 
 to bring about its renunciation by the people in a church 
 capacity. Such an act would be tantamount to an apostasy, and 
 the consequent destruction of the power and authority of the 
 priesthood would be consummated. This is the great object 
 aimed at. Millennial* Star, Vol 51, pp. 232, 233. 
 
 The very next year, 1890, President Woodruff issued a 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 131 
 
 manifesto forbidding the solemnization of any more plural 
 marriages. This was adopted in "church capacity," and 
 so according to Mr. Teasdale they committed an act tanta- 
 mount to apostasy and the destruction of the power and 
 authority of their priesthood was consummated. And that 
 is the way it triumphed! 
 
 Mr. Young has been proved a false prophet; and the 
 institution he founded is tottering to its fall. In the 
 language of Mr. Roberts, "It is only a question of time 
 with regard to its failure. MENE, MENE, TEKEL, is written 
 upon its walls God hath numbered thy kingdom weighed 
 in the balances found wanting!" 
 
 In rejecting the family which God has chosen, the follow- 
 ers of Elder Young have repeated the mistake of ancient 
 Israel, and they might with great profit read and be 
 admonished by the following: 
 
 Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, 
 and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be 
 day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be 
 broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son 
 to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my 
 ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither 
 the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of 
 David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. 
 Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, Con- 
 siderest thou not what this people have spoken, saying; The 
 two families which the Lord hath chosen, he hath even cast 
 them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should 
 be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the Lord; If my 
 covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed 
 the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I cast away the 
 seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take 
 any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have 
 mercy on them. Jeremiah 33:20-26 
 
CHAPTER 12. 
 
 POINTS ESTABLISHED RELEVANT QUESTION ACKNOWLEDGED 
 PEOPLE OF GOD AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE AND ORDAIN TEACH- 
 ING OF JOSEPH SMITH'S SUCCESSOR CONCLUSION. 
 
 IN the foregoing pages we have established the following 
 points: 
 
 1. That the blessing of Joseph Smith the Prophet be- 
 longs to his posterity, according to the law of lineage. 
 
 2. That this blessing includes the right to the keys of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 3. That these keys belong always to the Presidency of 
 the High Priesthood; hence the posterity of Joseph should 
 preside over the high priesthood. 
 
 4. That Joseph, the eldest son of Joseph the Seer, was 
 blessed, set apart, and appointed by his father to succeed 
 him. 
 
 5. That the authority to appoint his successor was 
 vested in Joseph Smith by virtue of the position he held. 
 
 The only relevant question remaining to be solved is 
 this: Did Joseph Smith, the son of the Prophet, pursue 
 the proper course in proceeding to occupy in the sacred 
 office to which he had been called and appointed? 
 
 1. Were the people with whom he identified himself the 
 acknowledged people of God? 
 
 2. Did they have authority to choose and ordain him? 
 
 3. Has his subsequent teaching given evidence that he is 
 the true successor of Joseph Smith his father? 
 
 On the first question, Were the people with whom Tie identi- 
 fied himself the acknowledged people of God? We present as 
 evidence that when he the anointed and appointed of God 
 went humbly to the Lord, he was directed to the "saints 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 133 
 
 reorganizing at Zarahemla and other places." (See p. 57.) 
 We invite attention also to the position occupied by that 
 people; viz. : They recognized the true situation that the 
 church had been rejected, and that a reorganization was 
 essential; they took a position in harmony with the law 
 and the promises of God in regard to succession, as we 
 have clearly shown in these pages. 
 
 Further, they adhered to the law of God as found in the 
 written word, and were not led into abominable and immoral 
 practices by the delusive theory that God had bestowed 
 upon men "keys that the written word never spoke of." 
 
 The following is a part of their declaration as adopted 
 by the June conference of 1852: 
 
 Resolved, that as the office of First President of the Church 
 grows out of the authority of the Presiding High Priest in the 
 high priesthood, no person can legally lay claim to the office 
 of First President of the Church, without a previous ordination 
 to the Presidency of the High Priesthood. 
 
 Resolved, that we recognize the validity of all legal ordina- 
 tions in this church, and will fellowship all such as have thus 
 been ordained, while acting within the purview of such 
 authority. 
 
 Resolved, that we believe that the Church of Christ, organ- 
 ized on the 6th day of April, A. D. 1830, exists as on that day 
 wherever six or more saints are organized according to the pat- 
 tern in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. 
 
 Resolved, that the whole law of the Church of Jesus Christ is 
 contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Book of Doctrine 
 and Covenants. The Messenger, Vol. 2, p. 9. 
 
 This last resolution harmonizes with the law which 
 says: 
 
 Hearken and hear, O ye my people, saith the Lord and your 
 God, ye whom I delight to bless with the greatest blessings; ye 
 that hear me: and ye that hear me not will I curse, that have 
 professed my name, with the heaviest of all cursings. Hearken, 
 O ye elders of .my church whom I have called: behold, 1 give 
 unto you a commandment, that ye shall assemble yourselves 
 together to agree upon my word, and by the prayer of your 
 faith ye shall receive my law, that ye may know how to govern 
 my church, and have all things right before me. 
 
 And I will be your Ruler when I come; and, behold, I come 
 
134 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 quickly; and ye shall see that my law is kept. He that receiv- 
 eth my law and doeth it the same is my disciple; and he that 
 saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disci- 
 ple, and shall be cast out from among you; for it is not meet 
 that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom, 
 should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the 
 pearls to be cast before swine. 
 
 . . . These words are given unto you, and they are pure 
 before me; wherefore, beware how you hold them, for they are 
 to be answered upon your souls in the day of judgment. Even 
 so. Amen. D. C. 41: 1, 2, 3. 
 
 Section 42 indicates that they had assembled together 
 and that the promised law by which they were "to govern 
 my church and have all things right before me [God]," 
 was to be given them. 
 
 A part of that law reads as follows: 
 
 And again, the elders, priests, and teachers of this church 
 shall teach the principles of my gospel which are in the Bible 
 and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the 
 gospel; and they shall observe the covenants and church arti- 
 cles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall 
 be directed by the Spirit; and the Spirit shall be given unto 
 you by the prayer of faith, and if ye receive not the Spirit ye 
 shall not teach. And all this ye shall observe to do as I have 
 commanded concerning your teaching, until the fullness of my 
 scriptures are given. And as ye shall lift up your voices by the 
 Comforter, ye shall speak and prophesy as seemeth me good; 
 for, behold, the Comforter knoweth all things, and beareth rec- 
 ord of the Father and of the Son. D. C. 42:5. 
 
 To this the Reorganization committed itself. The Utah 
 people were induced by their leaders to adopt strange and 
 questionable things not taught by Joseph nor found in the 
 written word, under the delusive impression that their 
 boasted keyholders were unlocking the treasure-house and 
 handing out celestial gems. 
 
 Again, the instruction given to Jason W. Briggs on 
 November 18, 1851, which was one of the influences leading 
 to the Reorganization, was in harmony with the foregoing. 
 The following is an extract therefrom: 
 
 Therefore, let the Elders whom I have ordained by the hand 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 135 
 
 of my servant Joseph, or by the hand of those ordained by him, 
 resist not this authority, nor faint in the discharge of duty, 
 which is to preach my gospel as revealed in the record of the 
 Jews, and the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and 
 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 mine own due time will I call 
 upon the seed of Joseph Smith, and 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 reinhab- 
 ited, as I said unto my servant Joseph Smith; after many days 
 shall all these things be accomplished, saith the Spirit. The 
 Messenger, Vol. 2, p. 1. 
 
 This leads us to something else. The reinhabiting of 
 Zion and the words of the Lord to Joseph Smith in connec- 
 tion therewith are referred to "After many days shall all 
 these things be accomplished." Where in the revelations 
 to Joseph Smith do we find this sentiment? In a revela- 
 tion given December, 1833. 
 
 It is important. We quote as follows: 
 
 And now, I will show unto you a parable that you may know 
 my will concerning the redemption of Zion. A certain noble- 
 man had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his serv- 
 ants, Go ye into my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece 
 of land, and plant twelve olive trees; and set watchmen 
 round about them and build a tower, that one may overlook 
 the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower; that 
 mine olive trees may not be broken down, when the enemy 
 shall come to spoil and take unto themselves the fruit of my 
 vineyard. Now the servants of the nobleman went and did as 
 their lord commanded them; and planted the olive trees, and 
 built a hedge round about, and set watchmen, and began to 
 build a tower. And while they were yet laying the foundation 
 thereof, they began to say among themselves, And what need 
 hath my lord of this tower? and consulted for a long time, say- 
 ing among themselves, What need hath my lord of this tower, 
 seeing this is a time of peace? Might not this money be given 
 to the exchangers? for there is no need of these things! And 
 while they were at variance one with another they became very 
 slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of 
 their lord, and the enemy came by night and broke down the 
 hedge, and the servants of the nobleman arose, and were 
 affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works and 
 broke down the olive trees. 
 
136 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called 
 upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause 
 of this great evil? ought ye not to have done even as I com- 
 manded you? and after ye had planted the vineyard, and built 
 the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls 
 thereof, built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the 
 tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen 
 asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you? and, behold, the 
 watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he 
 was yet afar off, and then you could have made ready and kept 
 the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved 
 my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer. And the lord of 
 the vineyard said unto one of his servants, Go and gather 
 together the residue of my servants; and take all the strength 
 of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and 
 they that are of middle age also, among all my servants, who 
 are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have 
 appointed to tarry; and go ye straightway unto the land of my 
 vineyard, and redeem my vineyard, for it is mine, I have 
 bought it with money. Therefore, get ye straightway unto my 
 land; break down the walls of mine enemies, throw down their 
 tower, and scatter their watchmen; and inasmuch as they 
 gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies; that 
 by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and 
 possess the land. 
 
 And the servant said unto his lord, When shall these things 
 be? And he said unto his servant, When I will: go ye straight- 
 way: and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and 
 this shall be my seal and blessing upon you; a faithful and wise 
 steward in the midst of mine house; a ruler in my kingdom. 
 And his servant went straightway, and did all things whatso- 
 ever his lord commanded him, and after many days all things 
 were fulfilled. Doc. and Cov. 98: 6-8. 
 
 Without occupying space to discuss all the minor points 
 in the above parable we invite attention to the following 
 leading points: 
 
 1. The subject of the parable is the redemption of Zion. 
 
 2. The servants of the nobleman (the people of God) 
 were to be directed to occupy a choice piece of land. 
 
 3. They were to do as they were commanded. 
 
 4. While they were yet laying the foundation they were 
 to get at variance one with another and become slothful. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 137 
 
 5. As a result of this unfaithfulness their enemies were 
 to come upon them and destroy their works. 
 
 6. They were to become affrighted and flee. 
 
 7. The nobleman (G-od) was to remonstrate with them 
 for their unfaithfulness and to hold them responsible for 
 allowing his vineyard to be destroyed. 
 
 8. Then he was to call upon one of his servants to gather 
 together the residue of his servants (not the body which had 
 fled). 
 
 9. This servant at the head of this residue was to go 
 straightway into the vineyard and redeem it, break down 
 the walls of the enemy, throw down their tower, scatter 
 their watchmen, etc. 
 
 10. This servant was to inquire when these things 
 should be, but was simply to be told, "When I will." 
 
 11. He was told that if he performed his part he should 
 be a faithful and wise steward and a ruler in the kingdom. 
 
 12. He was to do whatsoever he was commanded and 
 after many days all things (concerning the redemption of 
 Zion) were to be fulfilled. 
 
 The revelation to Elder Briggs connects this latter point 
 with the work of the Reorganization. 
 
 We are aware that it has been understood that this reve- 
 lation of December, 1833, applied to the work of "Zion's 
 Camp" which went up the next year to Missouri to relieve 
 their brethren. That the participants in that movement 
 should hope and expect to fulfill it, is quite natural; and 
 that it may in a sense have had reference to that move- 
 ment, we admit. But it did not have a complete fulfill- 
 ment then. The Camp of Zion was not composed of the 
 residue left after the church fled from Jackson County, in 
 1833. Zion's Camp did not scatter the enemy, but were 
 themselves disbanded ere they reached the land whence 
 their brethren had been driven. However, there came a 
 time, as has been made apparent in the preceding pages, 
 
138 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 when the church became slothful and failed to do the work 
 commanded within the time appointed; when their enemies 
 came upon them and they became affrighted and fled, not 
 simply to another part of the choice vineyard, as in the 
 case of former moves, but entirely outside of the appointed 
 Zion. Since the body has fled, one of God's servants has 
 been sent to gather together the "residue," or remnants 
 left behind; and they have gone straightway into the 
 waste places of Zion and are redeeming them; are breaking 
 down the wall, throwing down the tower, and scattering 
 the watchmen of the enemy; not by use of carnal weapons, 
 but by fearlessly defending the faith against opposition; 
 by consistent honorable lives, and square dealing; and by 
 adhering to "the code of good morals," taught in the Bible, 
 the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants, and 
 to which President Smith pledged himself on that memora- 
 ble April day of 1860. 
 
 This has disarmed the enemy, and the Reorganization is 
 realizing, in a measure, the fulfillment of the promise that 
 the church should find "favor and grace" in the eyes of the 
 people. (See pp. 99, 100.) 
 
 Mark it well, this servant who was to be sent to lead 
 this movement was not only to be "a faithful and wise 
 steward" in the midst of God's house, but he was to be "a 
 ruler in my [God's] kingdom." 
 
 In this connection observe the fitness of the following 
 words of this servant of God as he called upon Latter Day 
 Israel to renew their allegiance: 
 
 In the name of the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, I 
 now call upon all the scattered saints, upon all the broad earth, 
 to arise and shake off the sleep that hath bound them these many 
 years, take on the armor of the just, calling on the name of the 
 Lord for help, and unite once more for the emancipation of the 
 honest in heart from the power of false doctrines and the 
 shackles of sin. 
 
 In the name of bleeding Zion, I call upon all those who have 
 been wandering in by and forbidden paths, and have been led 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 139 
 
 astray by wicked and designing men, to turn from their scenes 
 of wickedness and sins of convenience to turn from their 
 servitude to Satan, in all his seductive devices; from vice in 
 every phase, and from the labor of sin, the wages whereof are 
 ever death unto their true and delightsome allegiance to the 
 principles of the gospel of peace to the paths of wisdom to 
 the homage of that God that brought the children of Israel out 
 of bondage; to turn and remember the new covenant, even the 
 Book of Mormon; to lay hold anew upon the rod of iron which 
 surely leads to the tree of life; to remember that those who live 
 to the Lord keep his commandments, and that the promises are 
 unto the faithful, and the reward unto those that endure unto 
 the end. 
 
 And in the name of the Lord of Hosts, I call upon all the 
 inhabitants of the earth to repent, believe and be baptized, for 
 the time cometh when the judgments of God are to be poured 
 out upon all nations, and the besom of God's wrath shall smoke 
 through the land; when men shall know that there is a God in 
 Israel, and he is mighty to punish or to save; that the prayers 
 of those under the altar have been heard, and a swift retribu- 
 tion is to come, when the despoiler will be despoiled; when 
 those who denied justice shall be judged, and the measure 
 meted unto others shall be meted unto them; when the pris- 
 oner shall go free, the oppressed be redeemed, and all Israel 
 shall cry, "Glory to God in the highest be given, for he that is 
 longsuffering and slow to anger, has arisen, and shall bring 
 again Zion." Amen and amen. 
 
 JOSEPH SMITH, President, 
 Of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 
 
 NAUVOO, Illinois, July 19, 1861. 
 
 Saints' Herald, Vol. 2, pp. 123, 124. 
 
 As further evidence that God has accepted the Reorgani- 
 zation, we invite attention to God's promise concerning 
 the Holy Scriptures as translated and corrected by Joseph 
 Smith the Prophet. 
 
 Thou shalt ask, and my scriptures shall be given as I have 
 appointed, and they shall be preserved in safety; and it is expe- 
 dient that thou shouldst hold thy peace concerning them, and 
 not teach them until ye have received them in full. And I 
 give unto you a commandment, that then ye shall teach them 
 unto all men; for they shall be taught unto all nations, kin- 
 dreds, tongues, and people. D. C. 42: 15. 
 
 The manuscript of the Holy Scriptures was carefully 
 preserved in the hands of Emma Smith, whom the Brig- 
 
140 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 hamites brand as an apostate, and was by her delivered 
 into the hands of the Reorganization, whose exclusive 
 property it is to-day. Then according to God's decree the 
 place of safety for that which he would preserve is with the 
 Reorganized Church, and not with the church in Utah. 
 
 Then indeed were the people with whom the son of the 
 Prophet identified himself the acknowledged people of 
 God. 
 
 Second: Did they have authority to choose and ordain him? 
 
 So far as the choosing is concerned, the foregoing 
 evidence that this people were accepted of God as his 
 church, is sufficient; but on the subject of ordination, 
 and the question as to whether there was authority among 
 those composing the Reorganization to ordain, we offer a 
 few observations. 
 
 We agree with Mr. Roberts that an ordination was 
 necessary. Then to whom should this man, called and 
 appointed of God, go to receive his ordination? To a 
 rebaptized, a reordained apostleship? To men who 
 claimed to lead the church by virtue of "keys that the 
 written word never spoke of, nor never will" ? To men who 
 were led by such keys into the idolatrous doctrine of wor- 
 shiping Adam as God, and denying the Scriptures concern- 
 ing the birth of Jesus Christ? To men who taught the 
 repudiation of honest debts, justified and advised murder, 
 and taught that the priesthood of God gave power to men 
 to become expert thieves, gamblers, and rogues? To men 
 who had themselves usurped the authority to preside with- 
 out an ordination of any kind to that position? To men 
 who by deceit and fraud had fastened the practice of 
 polygamy upon the credulous? To men who were the ac- 
 knowledged representatives of a rejected and covenant 
 breaking people? O no! certainly not. God would not 
 send his chosen prophet to receive ordination from such 
 a source. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 141 
 
 Then to whom should he go? When, because of apos- 
 tasy and spiritual darkness, God had rejected the once 
 Christian Church, and he desired to again establish his 
 church on earth, he gave direction how to organize, and 
 provided among other things for the selection of a Quorum 
 of Twelve Apostles. What provision did he make for this? 
 A committee was appointed by revelation, consisting of 
 Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer (D. C. 16: 6), to which 
 Martin Harris was subsequently added, and to them the 
 Lord gave authority to select the Twelve according to 
 specific instruction given. In 1835 the Twelve were 
 selected by these men. Neither of the three, though they 
 were in a general sense Apostles, were ever members of the 
 Quorum of Twelve; and though they did not then nor 
 thereafter hold any office equal to it, yet they ordained 
 these men Apostles of the Quorum of Twelve and gave 
 them their charge. 
 
 To this Quorum of Twelve thus chosen and ordained God 
 delegated the authority "to ordain and set in order all the 
 other officers of the church." (D. C. 104: 30.) 
 
 When the quorum thus appointed so far departed from 
 the law of God as to suffer themselves to be rebaptized and 
 reordained by one who was openly acting by the authority 
 of "keys that the written word never spoke of, nor never 
 will," and by the authority and dictation of this same man 
 were led into the abominations we have referred to, thus 
 proving themselves unworthy to act in the sacred office to 
 which they had been previously called, when they no 
 longer represented a people governed by the word of God, 
 but a rejected and covenant-breaking people, how would 
 we expect God to renew the apostolic authority, how reor- 
 ganize the apostolic quorum, and restore the authority to 
 ordain and set in order? We would, of course, expect him 
 to be consistent with himself, and another quorum would 
 be chosen in like manner as the first was chosen. 
 
142 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 In this the instruction given to the Reorganization was 
 consistent. It was as follows: 
 
 Verily, thus saith the Lord, as I said unto my servant Moses, 
 see thou do all things according to the pattern, so say I 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 a majority of the twelve apostles; for 
 it is my will that that quorum should not be filled up at pres- 
 ent. The Messenger, Vol. 2, p. 21. 
 
 Members of this quorum were chosen exactly as were 
 the quorum installed in 1835, and were ordained by those 
 holding authority in the days of Joseph Smith, and who 
 occupied positions in the priesthood as high as did Oliver 
 Cowdery, David Whitmer, or Martin Harris. Men from 
 this quorum thus chosen and ordained according to the 
 pattern, officiated at the ordination of President Joseph 
 Smith in April, 1860. 
 
 No wonder that Mr. Roberts could find no valid objec- 
 tion to this authority, but could only say in a bombastic 
 manner: 
 
 Now, I affirm that among all those seven men who were 
 "called" to form the majority of the quorum of the twelve, in 
 the "Reorganization" not one of them held the apostleship; 
 that they could not give what they did not possess; that there- 
 fore neither the seven men called to be apostles, in April, 1853, 
 received the apostleship, nor any whom they subsequently 
 ordained. Roberts, p. 77. 
 
 Then, as if to make assurance doubly sure, Elder William 
 Marks who was President of the High Council at the seat 
 of the Presidency, and President of the Nauvoo stake at 
 the time of Joseph's death, and whom the Lord had said he 
 would raise up as a "blessing unto many people" (see 
 p. 84), assisted in that ordination. 
 
 In this connection it will be well to remember that Wil- 
 liam Marks as a high priest held the same authority that 
 was held by those who ordained Joseph the Martyr as 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 143 
 
 
 
 President of the High Priesthood, as the following will 
 show: 
 
 "On the 26th I called a general council of the church, and 
 was acknowledged as the president of the high priesthood, 
 according to a previous ordination at a conference of high 
 priests, elders, and members, held at Amherst, Ohio, on the 
 twenty-fifth of January, 1832. The right hand of fellowship 
 was given to me by the bishop, Edward Partridge, in behalf of 
 the church. The scene was solemn, impressive, and delightful. 
 During the intermission, a difficulty or hardness which had 
 existed between Bishop Partridge and Elder Rigdon was amica- 
 bly settled, and when we came together in the afternoon, all 
 hearts seemed to rejoice." Church History, Vol. 1, p. 244; 
 Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, p. 624. 
 
 This was before there was a Quorum of Twelve Apostles. 
 
 Thus does it appear that President Joseph Smith and 
 his father were ordained by the same authority; viz.: by 
 those holding the office of high priest; and in addition to 
 this, President Smith's ordination was participated in by 
 those who were regularly called and ordained to the office 
 of apostle. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, Messrs. Roberts, Penrose, and 
 their associates will scoff at the authority of this ordina- 
 tion; while they indorse the presidency of Brigham Young, 
 John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow, not 
 one of whom have ever claimed an ordination of any kind 
 or by any authority to the office of President of the High 
 Priesthood. 
 
 "O consistency thou art a jewel;" but thy home is not 
 in Utah. 
 
 In answer to this conclusive presentation of the case 
 they can only call William Marks hard names, and affirm 
 that the apostles of the Reorganization had no authority. 
 
 While there are general rules for the church to be gov- 
 erned by, yet so far as authority is concerned, the com- 
 mand of God is authority for anything. By virtue of his 
 command authority is bestowed; yet we expect him to act 
 
144 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 % 
 
 consistently with himself, as in the selection of the Quo- 
 rum of Twelve in 1835, and in the Reorganization. 
 
 But our friends say that the lesser ordaining the greater 
 is "contrary to the order and contrary to nature a 
 stream cannot rise above its source." 
 
 If their reasoning was good it would condemn the apos- 
 tolic ordinations performed in 1835; the ordination of 
 Joseph the Martyr by high priests in 1832; and, strange to 
 say, that what they condemn they ask "young Joseph" to 
 accept, claiming that he should 'have had his ordination to 
 a position in the first quorum (the First Presidency) under 
 the hands of those whom they claim retained their au- 
 thority as members of the second quorum (the Twelve). 
 
 That a stream cannot rise above its fountain or source, 
 is true; but it is also true that a stream cannot sink so low 
 that it may not rise again to any height not exceeding that 
 of its source. Those who employ this analogy and com- 
 pare the priesthood to a stream of water, make the mis- 
 take of locating the source of the stream of priesthood in 
 the man who ordains, or in the office that he holds. 
 
 This is manifestly wrong. The source of the priesthood 
 is in God; and so long as the source retains its strength, 
 though the stream may flow through lower channels at 
 times, such stream may rise to any height not exceeding 
 that of its source God himself. The danger lies not in 
 the channel being low, but in its becoming unclean and 
 unworthy to contain the pure waters of life. In such a 
 case the Intelligent Source of the stream of priesthood 
 would withdraw the waters and leave the channel dry, or 
 but a refuge for filth and uncleanness. 
 
 The language of Joseph Smith and his companions in 
 bonds, written from Liberty Jail, Missouri, in 1839, is sig- 
 nificant, and in this connection we commend their words 
 to careful consideration: 
 There are many called but few are chosen, and why are they 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 145 
 
 not chosen? Because their hearts are set upon the things of 
 the world, and are aspiring to the honors of men; they do not 
 learn the lesson that the rights of the priesthood are insepara- 
 bly connected with the powers of heaven; and that the powers 
 of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled, only upon the 
 principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon 
 us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, to 
 gratify our pride, vain ambition, or to exercise dominion or 
 compulsion over the souls of the children of men, in any degree 
 of unrighteousness; behold the heavens withdraw themselves, 
 the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, then amen to the priesthood, 
 or to the authority of that man; behold ere he is aware, he is 
 left to kick against the pricks; to persecute the saints, and to 
 fight against God. Times and Seasons, Vol. 1, pp. 131, 132. 
 
 This is a serious consideration. Too often men have 
 been lifted up in pride and boasted of their high preroga- 
 tives, while they have paid too little attention to purity of 
 life and meekness of spirit. That is indeed a sad condition 
 of things when men high in authority use that authority as 
 a license for uncleanness, or as a cloak to cover corruption. 
 And when men boast of acting by virtue of keys or 
 authority that the "written word never spoke of, nor 
 never will," they are like a vessel at sea without a rudder; 
 they will drift upon the rocks and be wrecked. Adam- 
 God, blood atonement, polygamy, and other theories and 
 crimes, fostered and encouraged by Brigham Young and 
 others, are but the legitimate results of this peculiar key 
 doctrine, and of considering the office a man holds of more 
 importance than the purity and righteousness of his life. 
 
 Christ in his extreme trial appealed to what was written. 
 Should his servants fail to <Jo so, they will not represent 
 him, but misrepresent him. 
 
 Those who use the stream as illustrative of the priest- 
 hood in the manner referred to above have not considered 
 it. We doubt if there could be found a man, even in Utah, 
 who would claim that the fountain of the priesthood was in 
 the man who ordains, or in the office he holds. If there 
 should be such an one, he has obtained his information by 
 
146 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 the use of "keys that the written word never spoke of, nor 
 never will. " 
 
 Those who will examine the subject carefully wi!l, we 
 are sure, be able to discern that no man- is this dispensa- 
 tion has been ordained by authority more defensible than 
 was Joseph Smith, the son of the Prophet. By virtue of 
 birthright; by virtue of calling, blessing, and appoint- 
 ment; by virtue of being chosen by the Church of God; by 
 virtue of a regular and authoritative ordination, he is Presi- 
 dent of the High Priesthood and of the Church of Jesus 
 Christ of Latter Day Saints. 
 
 Third: Has his subsequent teaching given evidence that he is 
 the true successor of Joseph Smith, his father f 
 
 An appeal to the revelations of God will settle this 
 point. The Lord as early as February, 1831, informed the 
 church what the work of the successor of Joseph Smith 
 would be. He says: 
 
 But verily, verily I say unto you, that none else shall be 
 appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be 
 taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint 
 another in his stead; and this shall be a law unto you, that ye 
 receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as 
 revelations, or commandments; and this I give unto you, that 
 you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of 
 me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me, 
 shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you 
 before, to teach those revelations which you have received, and 
 shall receive through him whom I have appointed. Doc. and 
 Cov. 43: 2. 
 
 This suggests that there would be danger of being 
 deceived by purported revelations that would be presented 
 after the removal of Joseph Smith, and the Lord gives a 
 key whereby they could be detected and by which the 
 church could know they were not of him. The test was 
 this: that the one chosen of God to succeed Joseph was to 
 come in at the gate, be ordained according to God's 
 instruction, and he was "to teach those revelations which 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 14? 
 
 you have received, and shall receive" etc. Then the revela- 
 tions that were to be received after this one must agree with 
 those that had been received before, or the successor of 
 Joseph Smith could not teach both. The church was 
 warned to "receive not the teachings of any that shall 
 come before you as revelations, or commandments; and 
 this I give unto you, that you may not be deceived, that 
 you may know they are not of me." If any reliance can be 
 placed in this language, then can we know that the revela- 
 tion introduced in August, 1852, was not of God, and that 
 the teachings of those who then came before the church 
 with revelations and commandments were not to be 
 received. The son of the Prophet should not be blamed 
 for rejecting the doctrine of plurality of wives, for one of 
 the conditions of his appointment was that he was to teach 
 the former and the latter revelations. He could not accept 
 polygamy and still teach: "Thou shalt love thy wife with 
 all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else," 
 etc. (D. C. 42: 7); "There shall not any man among you 
 have save it be one wife: and concubines he shall have 
 none," etc. (Book of Mormon, Jacob 2: 6.) 
 
 Others may feel at liberty to believe and advocate that 
 God has abrogated this law and commanded a departure 
 from it, but the successor of Joseph Smith cannot. Upon 
 him the obligation is laid "to teach those revelations which 
 you have received [before the one contained in Doctrine and 
 Covenants section 43] and shall receive." 
 
 The son of the Prophet took the only course open to him, 
 as his father's successor, in rejecting that which was 
 opposed to the former commandments. Not only is this 
 true regarding polygamy, but on all points of doctrine and 
 church government he has appealed for authority to the 
 revelations of God, in harmony with the cojnmandment 
 which says: "And these shall be their teachings, as they 
 shall be directed by the Spirit." (D. C. 42: 5.) 
 
148 . TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Then his teaching has given evidence that he is the true 
 successor of Joseph Smith, his father. 
 
 Our task is done. This treatise is not an exhaustive 
 one, for much more might' be said upon the several points 
 treated upon. We have been especially moderate in quot- 
 ing the abominable teachings of the Utah authorities, hav- 
 ing chosen but few of the many passages so shocking to 
 the moral sense of honest people, and relating none of the 
 many reports (some of which are well authenticated) of 
 their practicing as they taught. Upon this as upon other 
 points we have only used what we considered sufficient 
 material to meet the issue. The investigation has con- 
 vinced us more thoroughly than before that the Utah 
 Church is a rejected church, and that the Reorganization 
 stands upon an impregnable rock of defense. 
 
 Humbly we send forth our conclusions, and our reasons 
 therefor, praying that they may prove encouraging and 
 confirming to the faithful, and warning and convincing to 
 the erring. 
 
 Though we expect to give an account for our teaching as 
 well as our conduct at the bar of God, we do not hesitate 
 to present to the reader the Reorganized Church of Jesus 
 Christ of Latter Day Saints as the Church of Jesus Christ, 
 and Joseph Smith the son of the Martyr as its Prophet and 
 President. 
 
CHAPTER 13. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS OF LONG OF DESERET NEWS OF 
 C. W. PENROSE OF CLARK -OF RICHARDS POSITION OF RICH- 
 ARDS AND PENROSE OF REORGANIZATION PRESIDENCY 
 APOSTLESHIP PRESIDENCY OF HIGH PRIESTHOOD JOSEPHITE 
 CONTENTION SUSTAINED PENROSE DILEMMA CONCLUSION. 
 
 SINCE concluding the foregoing chapters the following 
 correspondence has come into our possession, and as ques- 
 tions are answered therein which we had vainly attempted 
 to have answered before, we will present it. We give the 
 correspondence in full that these men and their methods 
 may be presented to the reader in their own words. 
 
 It appears that Mr. Long was under the impression that 
 Mr. Penrose was Editor of the Deseret News, and so ad- 
 dressed him. The News answered the first two communi- 
 cations without the knowledge of Mr. Penrose. The last 
 letter Mr. Penrose received and answered in person. This 
 will account for the misunderstanding. Mr. Richards is 
 the official Historian of the Utah Church, and Mr. Penrose 
 is connected with the same department, hence their state- 
 ments on historical points will doubtless be considered 
 official. 
 
 The letters read as follows: 
 
 HIGDON, Ala., Nov. 19, 1897. 
 To the Editor Deseret Evening News, Salt Lake City, Utah; 
 
 Dear Sir: I write you as an investigator, seeking to know 
 the truth. I am a member of the Baptist Church, but I am 
 interested in what is called by your people and others, the lat- 
 ter-day work. 
 
 I have kept and cared for elders of the church under the 
 presidency of Wilford Woodruff, commonly called "Brigham- 
 ites." I have also kept and cared for elders (or an elder) of the 
 church under the presidency of Joseph Smith, of Lamoni, 
 
150 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 Iowa, commonly called "Josephites" or the "Reorganized 
 Church." 
 
 These elders do not agree as to the calling and ordination of 
 Brigham Young as President of the Church after the death of 
 Joseph Smith in 1844. The Josephite elders claim that he 
 never was properly ordained; only elected as President of the 
 Church. 
 
 Will you please tell me if this is true or not? If he was 
 ordained, please state by what authority and who officiated, 
 that I may be able to answer the "Josephites" if it be a false 
 claim. 
 
 By answering the above and giving me any other information 
 you may feel led to give, you will greatly oblige, 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 J. O. LONG. 
 Office of Deseret News Publishing Company. 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Dec. 6, 1897. 
 J. O. LONG, ESQ., Higdon, Ala.; 
 
 Dear Sir: The Mormon Elders have frequently to meet the 
 misrepresentations made by the Josephite Elders, and in order 
 to meet this matter fully without entering into private discus- 
 sions, Elder B. H. Roberts has written a book called the "Suc- 
 cession in the Presidency," in which he sets forth all the 
 particulars in relation to the succession of President Brigham 
 Young to President Joseph Smith, and we think he has covered 
 the ground very successfully and has left nothing whatever for 
 our opponents, the Josephites, to base their claims on. We for- 
 ward you to-day a copy of the book, the price of which is 30 
 cents, and we trust you will kindly remit the amount to us by 
 return mail. Yours truly, 
 
 DESERET NEWS PUBLISHING Co. 
 
 Evans, Manager. 
 
 HIGDON, Ala., Jan. 26, 1898. 
 MR. C. W. PENROSE, Editor Deseret News, 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Dear Sir: In reply to yours of December 6, 1897: 
 
 After examining the book "Succession in the Presidency," 
 with some care, I yet find no answer to the question in my 
 former letter of inquiry to you; viz.: "Was Brigham Young 
 properly ordained as President of the Church after Joseph 
 Smith's death, and if so, when and by whom?" which you will 
 please answer if you have the data at hand. 
 
 As before-stated I am not a "Brighamite" or "Josephite," but 
 a Baptist; but I am interested in this question, hence my 
 importunity. 
 
 Enclosed is 30cts. to pay for book and also self-addressed, 
 stamped envelope for your reply to me. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 151 
 
 Trusting my importunity will not weary your patience, and 
 hoping to have an early reply, I am, 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 J. O. LONG. 
 
 "The only answer to this letter was a postal card ac- 
 knowledging the receipt of the 30 cts." 
 
 Office of Deseret News Publishing Company. 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, Feb. 7, 1898. 
 J. O. LONG, Higdon, Ala. 
 
 We have received your favor of Jan. 26, 1898, containing ^ 
 dollars, and the amount of the remittance has been placed to 
 your credit on account. 
 
 Thanking you for past favors, and soliciting your kind pat- 
 ronage, in the future, we remain, 
 
 Yours truly, 
 DESERET NEWS PUBLISHING Co., 
 
 Per Neslen. 
 
 HIGDON, Ala., May 12, 1898. 
 MB. C. W. PENROSE, Ed. Deseret News, Salt Lake City. 
 
 Dear Sir: On November 19, 1897, I wrote you asking for 
 information as to who ordained Brigham Young as President 
 of the Latter Day Saint or Mormon Church. 
 
 My reasons for writing you, as then stated were: I had been 
 a friend to both the elders of your church and those of the 
 Reorganized Church; had lodged and fed them bothi had heard 
 them talk; and as an honest man, wanted to know if the claim 
 made by the "Josephites;" viz.: that Brigham Young was 
 never ordained at all, as President of the Church, was true: and 
 asked you the question, "If he was ordained, where and by 
 whom was it done?" Your answer to my letter was a charge 
 of misrepresentation by you against the "Josephites" and you 
 
 also sent a work entitled by Elder B. H. Roberts, which 
 
 you thought "covered all the grounds." 
 
 The book I carefully read and found no answer to my ques- 
 tion, and wrote you again on the 26th of January, 1898, so 
 informing you, and repeated my question in the following form: 
 "Was Britrham Young properly ordained as President of the 
 Church after Joseph Smith's death, and if so, when and by 
 whom?" 
 
 To this letter you was pleased to make no reply, or at least I 
 received- none, although I sent you self-addressed stamped en- 
 velope. 
 
 I write again, hoping you will reply, and, if you do not, I 
 shall be forced to believe the charge of misrepresentation, so 
 
152 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 far as this point is concerned, should not be lodged against the 
 "Josephites." 
 
 As before-stated, I am a Baptist, but I want to know the truth 
 in all things, and as for this point, I thought one letter from 
 you would settle it; but so far you have evaded the matter, 
 and I must say that the impression you have made on me by 
 this evasion is not for the best for your side, as it leads to the 
 conclusion that the claim of the Josephites is true. 
 
 May I hear from you soon, please? 
 
 Respectfully, J. O. LONG. 
 
 Historian's Office, 60 E. South Temple Street, 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, May 18, 1898. 
 J. O. LONG, Esq., Higdon, Ala. 
 
 Dear Sir: I have this moment received over your signature 
 a very imperative and peremptory letter. My first impulse was 
 to treat it as insulting letters should be treated, but on reading 
 it carefully I regard it as the result of some mistakes on your 
 part, and lest it might be a fact that you are honestly seeking 
 for information, I reply to it without ill-feeling. I am not aware 
 that I have ever received a communication from you before. 
 I am not the editor of the Deseret News. I have not sent to you 
 a work entitled "Succession," nor have I received from you 
 any "self-addressed," stamped envelope; nor have I, as you so 
 bluntly charge, "evaded" any matter which you claim to have 
 presented. And further, I am not aware that I am under any 
 obligation to answer letters addressed to me in the spirit of the 
 communication now before me. So much for that. 
 
 Now my dear sir, to your question: "Was Brigham Young 
 properly ordained as President of the Church after Joseph 
 Smith's death, and if so, when and by whom?" 
 
 In asking that question you are evidently under a misappre- 
 hension as to the order of Priesthood and Presidency in the 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That arises, 
 doubtless, from an idea that has been entertained by persons in 
 the "Reorganized" Church as to the meaning of the revelation 
 given March 28, 1835, Section 107; 21, 22. D. and 0. 
 
 "Of necessity there are Presidents or Presiding offices grow- 
 ing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are 
 ordained to the several offices in these two Priesthoods." 
 
 "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, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church." 
 
 Brigham Young at the death of Joseph was the President of 
 the Twelve Apostles, so designated by revelation. Apostles are 
 Presiding High Priests, appointed and ordained to that office. 
 He having been so appointed and ordained was in due time 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 153 
 
 chosen by the body and upheld by the confidence, faith and 
 prayer of the Church, and with two counselors, each of whom 
 was also a Presiding High Priest, having been appointed and 
 ordained to that office, thus became the First Presidency, 
 according to the revelation. 
 
 No man is ordained President of the Church. He is ordained 
 to that Priesthood which qualifies him for the position of Presi- 
 dent when chosen and sustained by the Church. The question 
 might be asked, when was Joseph the Prophet ordained Presi- 
 dent of the Church? He was ordained an Apostle and thus 
 being a Presiding High Priest was accepted by the Church and 
 sustained in that capacity. 
 
 Priesthood is conferred by ordination; Presidency is another 
 thing. It does not come by ordination, using that term in the 
 same sense as in reference to conferring Priesthood, nor does it 
 come by lineage. It is by choice and appointment and the 
 common consent of the Church; but the person so chosen must 
 have been ordained to the proper Priesthood to be qualified for 
 the position. The word "ordained," however, is sometimes 
 used in another sense, as anything that God appoints or orders 
 or ordains, but in the revelation referred to signifies evidently 
 just what I have stated. If I have not made this sufficiently 
 plain, I shall be willing to- respond to any courteous inquiry. 
 Respectfully yours, etc., 
 
 C. W. PENROSE. 
 
 EULA P. O M Jackson Co., Ala., Feb. 26, 1898. 
 MR. F. D. RICHARDS, 
 
 Dear Sir: You will excuse me for writing to you; I want to 
 ask you a question. Your elders that are doing preaching here 
 or have been doing preaching here seem to be nice men, and we 
 have another kind of preachers that come here; they call them 
 Josephites. They say Brigham Young never was ordained 
 to be President of the Church, therefore your elders haven't 
 got any right to preach nor baptize. 
 
 Now, if you will answer my questions you will oblige. 
 
 Was Brigham Young ordained to be President of the Church? 
 If so, who ordained him when was he ordained and who did it? 
 
 I am asking these questions for information. You will please 
 write and give me the information I so much want. I belong 
 to no church. 
 
 There don't seem to be much difference between your elders 
 and the Josephites in the way they believe, only the President 
 of the Church. 
 
 I hope to hear from you soon and have an answer to my ques- 
 tion. Respectfully, 
 
 JEHU B. CLARK. 
 
 EULA P. O., Jackson County, Alabama. 
 
154 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, March 7, 1898. 
 JEHU B. CLARK, Eula, Alabama. 
 
 My Dear Sir: There are no dissenting branches of the 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is an 
 organization calling itself "The Reorganized Church," but it is 
 in no sense a branch of this Church. It is composed of persons 
 who follow Joseph Smith, son of the deceased Prophet, and 
 who claim that when the latter died, having been martyred for 
 the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Church 
 thereby became disorganized; a palpable absurdity. The 
 Church founded, under God, by Joseph Smith the Prophet has 
 continued without interruption to the present time, with the 
 Apostleship, doctrines, ordinances, gifts and powers as estab- 
 lished and revealed from the Lord. 
 
 In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no one 
 has ever been ordained to be President of the Church. In the 
 beginning the Lord sent Peter, James and John, and they 
 ordained Joseph Smith an Apostle and he was instructed how 
 to organize and build up the Church in this dispensation. 
 When the Prophet and Apostle Joseph Smith was taken from 
 us, Brigham Young, being President of the Twelve Apostles, it 
 devolved upon him to preside over the Church, as the Apostle 
 is the highest office known in the Church of Christ. So also, 
 when the Prophet and Apostle Brigham Young died, John Tay- 
 lor, being President of the Twelve Apostles, it devolved upon 
 him. In the same manner, when he departed, Wilford Wood- 
 ruff, being President of the Twelve Apostles, the Presidency 
 devolved upon him. Neither Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, 
 John Taylor nor Wilford Woodruff were ordained Presidents of 
 the Church. It is not according to the order of the Church to 
 ordain Presidents of the Church, for there is no such order of 
 the Priesthood known in the Church. When the Savior 
 departed, the Presiding Apostle Peter took charge, as it was 
 his right of office, and James and John were his counselors, and 
 that is how they seemed to be pillars in the Church, the same 
 as it is now in the true Church. Offices in the Church are con- 
 ferred by ordination, but offices of position to honor and labor 
 are conferred by calling or appointment, and not by ordina- 
 tion. May the clear light of truth enable you to understand 
 the things of God, and preserve you from being deceived by 
 any other than the true doctrine of Christ. 
 
 Success to you in your prayerful search for the way of the 
 Lord. Yours in the Truth, 
 
 F. D. RICHARDS. 
 
 We are heartily glad that these men have at last taken a 
 position on this point, and we thank Messrs. Long and 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 155 
 
 Clark for having kindly furnished us this important 
 material. 
 
 It will be seen that both Mr. Richards and Mr. Penrose 
 take the position that Presidents are not ordained as such, 
 but chosen from those previously holding office by virtue 
 of which they are eligible to the position chosen, and that 
 they then occupy without further ordination. They apply 
 this rule to the President of the Church, and Mr. Richards 
 affirms that, "In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
 Day Saints, no one has ever been ordained to be President 
 of the Church." 
 
 The Reorganization has taken the position (see p. 133) 
 stated in the following: 
 
 Resolved, that as the office of First President of the Church 
 grows out of the authority of the Presiding High Priest in the 
 high priesthood, no person can legally lay claim to the office 
 of First President of the Church, without a previous ordination 
 to the Presidency of the High Priesthood. 
 
 So the issue is squarely before us, and we are pleased to 
 meet it. 
 
 It will not be necessary for us to enter into an exegesis 
 of the law, which would admit of a difference of opinion. 
 We will simply give a few universally acknowledged his- 
 torical facts which will clearly show that our learned oppo- 
 nents are wrong. On February 15, 1836, at Kirtland, 
 Ohio, Presidents were chosen to the High Priests, Elders, 
 Priests, Teachers, and Deacons quorums, and each of them 
 duly set apart by ordination. The record is as follows: 
 
 After one hour's adjournment of the Council, Elder Don 
 Carlos Smith was nominated and seconded to be ordained to the 
 High Priesthood, also to officiate as President, to preside over 
 that body in Kirtland. The vote of the respective quorums 
 was called in their order, and passed through the whole house 
 by their unanimous voice. 
 
 Elder Alva Beeman was chosen in the same manner, to pre- 
 side over the Elders in Kirtland. 
 
 William Cowdery was nominated and seconded to officiate as 
 
156 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 President over the Priests of the Aaronic Priesthood in Kirt- 
 land. 
 
 The vote of the Assembly was called, beginning at the Bish- 
 op's Council, and passing through the several authorities, until 
 it came to the Presidency of the High Council in Kirtland, and 
 received their sanction, having been carried unanimously, in 
 all the departments below. 
 
 Oliver Olney was unanimously elected to preside over the 
 Teachers in Kirtland. 
 
 Ira Bond was unanimously chosen to preside over the Dea- 
 cons in Kirtland. 
 
 Elders Don Carlos Smith and Alva Beeman were ordained to 
 the offices to which they had been elected, under the hands of 
 Presidents Joseph Smith, Junior, S. Rigdon, and H. Smith, 
 with many blessings. 
 
 Bishop Whitney, of Kirtland, then proceeded to ordain Wil- 
 liam Cowdery, Oliver Olney, and Ira Bond, and pronounced 
 many blessings upon them according to their offices and stand- 
 ing. Millennial Star, Vol. 15, pp. 593-594. 
 
 At Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1841, George Miller was chosen 
 to succeed Don C. Smith as President of the High Priests 
 Quorum, and of this he says: 
 
 And at the fall conference after the death of Don Carlos 
 Smith, I was called and set apart as President of the Quorum of 
 High Priests, with my counselors Noah Packard and Amasa 
 Lyman. Church History, Vol. 2, p. 793. 
 
 In Millennial Star, Vol. 16, p. 342, we find the following: 
 "Stephen Chase was ordained President of the Elders 
 Quorum in Far West." This was on October 6, 1838. 
 
 Again, on March 1, 1835, "Joseph Young and Sylvester 
 Smith were ordained Presidents of the Seventies." (Millen- 
 nial Star, Vol. 15, .p. 230.) 
 
 These are but few of the many instances that we could 
 cite to show that in, the days of Joseph the Martyr Presi- 
 dents were set apart by ordination, hence Mr. Penrose is 
 wrong when in speaking of Presidency he says: "It does 
 not come by ordination," etc. 
 
 Not only were Presidents ordained in the church in the 
 days of the Martyr, but the Utah Church has adopted the 
 practice. Andrew Jensen in his "Historical Record," Vol. 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. 157 
 
 5, pp. 82, 83, speaks of the ordination of Presidents of Sev- 
 enties as follows: Jedediah M. Grant, in 1844; Horace S. 
 Eldredge, October, 1854; Jacob Gates, October, 1862; Wil- 
 liam W. Taylor, 1879; Abraham H. Cannon, October 9, 
 1882; Seymour B. Young, October 16, 1882; Daniel Fjel- 
 sted, April 28, 1884; and John Morgan, October 7, 1884. 
 
 Pages could be filled with instances of ordinations to 
 Presidency, but surely these are sufficient. 
 
 By the above we learn that when the quorums were first 
 set in order under Joseph Smith the Seer, that Presidents 
 were set apart by ordination in the quorums of Seventy, 
 High Priests, Elders, Priests, Teachers and Deacons. 
 Even if ordinations to Presidency were unnecessary in the 
 apostolic quorums of First Presidency and Twelve Apos- 
 tles, our opponents are too extravagant in laying down the 
 rule that Presidency "does not come by ordination.'' 
 They should have admitted the rule and claimed an excep- 
 tion. 
 
 Having disposed of their interpretation of the rule, it 
 might be more in keeping with order to rest here and 
 await the filing of their claim of exception; but as this is 
 our closing argument, we will meet their position by show- 
 ing that it is neither the rule nor the exception. 
 
 Mr. Richards makes the direct claim (to which Mr. Pen- 
 rose by inference agrees) that, "In the beginning the Lord 
 sent Peter, James, and John and they ordained Joseph 
 Smith an Apostle, and he was instructed how to organize 
 and build up the church in this dispensation." 
 
 They then argue that by virtue of the apostleship then 
 conferred, (not later than September, 1830, D. C. 26: 3,) he 
 was President of the Church. Both of these gentlemen 
 either ignorantly or dishonestly ignore the fact that not- 
 withstanding Joseph Smith had been an apostle since 1830, 
 he did, on January 25, 1832, receive an additional ordina- 
 tion, at Amherst, Ohio, to the office of President of the 
 
158 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 High Priesthood, (see this book, p. 143,) and that on April 
 26, 1832, he was received by the church in Missouri in that 
 capacity. 
 
 It is only necessary here to cite the language of the law 
 to show that this was tantamount to an ordination as 
 President of the Church: 
 
 And again, the duty of the president of the office of the high 
 priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like 
 unto Moses. Behold, here is wisdom, yea, to be a seer, a reve- 
 lator, a translator, and a prophet; having all the gifts of God 
 which he bestows upon the head of the church. Doc. and Cov. 
 104: 42. 
 
 The assertion, then, of Mr. Richards, that * 'Neither 
 Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, nor Wilford 
 Woodruff, were ordained Presidents of the Church," in so 
 far as it refers to Joseph Smith, is false. The position of 
 the Reorganization as set forth in the above resolution is 
 in harmony with both law and precedent. The ordination 
 of Joseph, the son of the Martyr, to the office of President 
 of the High Priesthood, was exactly in harmony with the 
 ordination of his illustrious father whom he succeeds. 
 Strange that the Utah authorities question the validity of 
 this ordination, and yet defend the claims of Brigham 
 Young and his successors in office, while they concede that 
 they nor either of them had an ordination of any kind to 
 the office of President of the Church; and Mr. Richards 
 goes so far as to say, "It is not according to the order of 
 the church to ordain Presidents of the church, for there is 
 no such order of the Priesthood known in the church." 
 This is unquestionably true as regards that church repre- 
 sented by Mr. Richards. But this office is provided for in 
 the law given to the church organized by Joseph Smith 
 and others in 1830. The Prophet and his colleagues were 
 in practice in harmony with that law; and the Reorganized 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as the lawful 
 
CHURCH PRESIDENCY. , 159 
 
 continuation of the church organized in 1830 accepts that 
 law and practically carries it into effect. 
 
 If, as Mr. Richards states, Brigham Young was not 
 ordained President of the Church, then the contention of 
 the "Josephites," as set forth in Mr. Long's letter, is sus- 
 tained, and the charge of misrepresentation made by the 
 Deseret News should be retracted. These men are in des- 
 perate straits and their struggles excite in us a mingled 
 feeling of pity and contempt. The floundering of Mr. Pen- 
 rose is especially pitiable. After quoting the law and 
 seeking to construe it to mean what it does not say, he 
 plunges into a self-contradictory tangle from which he can 
 never disengage himself. He says: "Apostles are Presid- 
 ing High Priests, appointed and ordained to that office." 
 Again, he says of Joseph Smith: "He wa* ordained an 
 Apostle and thus being a Presiding High Priest was accepted 
 by the church and sustained in that capacity." After thus 
 affirming that Joseph Smith was a Presiding High Priest 
 by virtue of an ordination, he immediately flops and says 
 Presidency "does not come by ordination." The truth is 
 that these men realize that neither Messrs. Young, Taylor, 
 Woodruff, nor Snow ever had an ordination to the office of 
 President of the High Priesthood; which office, according 
 to law, entitles a man to the right to preside over the 
 whole church (and virtually such ordination makes him the 
 President); and hence they conclude that Presidency "does 
 not come by ordination;" and yet they must find some 
 plausible excuse for Young et al. assuming to preside, and 
 so they say they were ordained Presiding High Priests. The 
 only consistent way out of this dilemma is to resolve that, 
 Whereas, Joseph Smith, though an apostle, was ordained 
 to the office of President of the High Priesthood; there- 
 fore, Brigham Young et al., though apostles, had no right 
 to assume to preside over the whole church without such 
 ordination. 
 
160 TRUE SUCCESSION IN 
 
 When these gentlemen can establish their position that 
 an apostle can preside over the church by virtue of his 
 ordination as a Presiding High Priest, and at the same time 
 sustain their contention that Presidency "does not come 
 by ordination," we would be pleased to hear from them 
 again. 
 
 We sincerely thank Mr. Eichards for his frank acknowl- 
 edgement that the Reorganization "is in no sense a branch 
 of this [their] Church;" and congratulate Messrs. Long 
 and Clark on their success in drawing out of these men a 
 statement of their position where others have failed. 
 
 Again, we conclude by presenting to the reader, with 
 renewed confidence, the Reorganized Church as the 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Its Presi- 
 dent is of the lineage pointed out in the revelations of God 
 as entitled to that position. He was appointed of God 
 through his father according to the direction given in the 
 revelations. He was called of God by revelation according 
 to the law which says: 
 
 The president of the church, who is also the president of the 
 council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged, in his 
 administration, by the voice of the church. D. C. 99: 6. 
 
 He was regularly ordained to the office of President of 
 the High Priesthood, as was his father before him, by vir- 
 tue of which he is entitled "to preside over the whole 
 church, and to be like unto Moses." Not one of these 
 requisites can be claimed by Lorenzo Snow, nor his prede- 
 cessors, Elders Woodruff, Taylor, and Young. 
 
 We exhort and admonish Latter Day Israel everywhere 
 to hear and heed the inspired message of this servant ot 
 God that was addressed to them so many years ago (see 
 pp. 138, 139), and remember that "he that heareth him 
 that is sent, heareth the Lord who sent him." 
 
Appendix to True Succession 
 
 in 
 
 Church Presidency. 
 
 BY ELDER NEMAN C SMITH. 
 
 SINCE the publication of my book entitled True 
 Succession in Church Presidency, which was a reply 
 to the work of Elder B. H. Roberts of the Utah 
 Church, entitled Succession in the Presidency of the 
 Church, Mr. Roberts has published a second, edition 
 of his work in which he has added some new matter, 
 in some points changed the reading of his original 
 publication, and in some minor points undertaken to 
 reply to me. The more important part of my argu- 
 ment and evidence, however, remains unchallenged 
 by Mr. Roberts. Taken as a whole I could have 
 afforded to have let the two books stand before the 
 public without further comment were it not for the 
 new matter introduced which may mislead some who 
 are not acquainted with the history or the circum- 
 stances referred to. However, since it becomes nec- 
 essary to notice the new matter, I will take occasion 
 to briefly refer to some of his so-called replies. 
 Elder Roberts sometimes quotes a part of a passage 
 and leaves out the vital point of the argument. 
 Where he quotes from private journals and writings, 
 leaving us to infer that he has access to them while 
 
164 APPENDIX. 
 
 he knows we have not, we neither admit nor deny the 
 correctness of the quotations. This kind of evidence 
 to a certain extent may be admissible but can not be 
 accepted as conclusive where there is a vital point at 
 issue. One of the most unfair things he does, how- 
 ever, is to insist that every one who is in sympathy 
 with him is a competent witness, while he assumes 
 without a particle of evidence that if a, witness did 
 not agree to the actions of the Twelve at Nauvoo 
 he has lost his honor. If an advocate is permitted to 
 introduce all witnesses without question who are in 
 sympathy with his cause, and all who are not in 
 sympathy are for that reason impeached, he can 
 establish any proposition he may wish. This ought 
 to be apparent even to a Brighamite, but neverthe- 
 less Mr. Roberts insists on conducting the argument 
 on this basis. 
 
 In replying to Mr. Roberts I raised three objections 
 to his basic proposition, viz., that Brigham Young 
 had prophesied that "All that want to draw away 
 a party from the Church after them, let them do it if 
 they can, but they will not prosper." First, that the 
 statement is not significant, as we must first deter- 
 mine where the Church is before we can judge of its 
 fulfillment. Second, that the evidence of its fulfill- 
 ment is not complete even from Mr. Roberts' stand- 
 point, as there is yet a flourishing organization 
 opposed to what he calls the Church. And third, 
 that the evidence that Mr. Young ever made this 
 statement is not clear. 
 
 The first two objections he entirely ignores, thus 
 virtually conceding their strength. With these two 
 
APPENDIX. 165 
 
 points conceded, we care not whether Mr. Young 
 made the remark or not. 
 
 But he meets the third objection by simply claim- 
 ing that the minutes of the meeting as published in the 
 Times and Seasons were not full and adding: "But 
 when the history of the event was more fully written 
 his remarks were given more in detail." Mr. Roberts 
 does not tell us how these detailed remarks were 
 preserved for nearly twenty years without publica- 
 tion. Was there a verbatim report taken at the time? 
 If so, by whom? Where is the original copy now? 
 Or were there simply notes taken, and the skeleton 
 perfected afterwards? Or was it written from some 
 one's memory who was present? If he wants us to 
 believe he should tell us something to believe. But 
 if Mr. Roberts makes it clear that Elder Young did 
 say just what is reported he has effected nothing so 
 far as this controversy is concerned. 
 
 We believe that he who undertakes to lead a party 
 from the Church will not prosper : but the question 
 is, Where is the Church? Who represents it? Why 
 not meet the issue without so much equivocating? 
 
 On pages 7 and 8 Mr. Roberts corrects a mistake 
 made in his first edition and says: "Inadvertently 
 Hyrum Smith was represented as the counselor to the 
 Prophet," and sets forth that Sidney Rigdon and 
 William Law were the counselors at the time of the 
 Prophet's death. 
 
 Perhaps it was inadvertently that he failed to cor- 
 rect page 9 so as to harmonize with the foregoing, 
 for there he still represents Sidney Rigdon as the fel- 
 low counselor of Hyrum Smith. This he could not 
 
166 APPENDIX. 
 
 correct, however, without abandoning his former 
 position that Rigdon was retained in the Presidency 
 on account of the importunities of Hyrum Smith of 
 the same quorum. 
 
 On page 13 of my treatise I called attention to 
 President Woodruff's testimony as presented by 
 Roberts being in conflict with the record regarding 
 the vote on accepting Elder Rigdon. Mr. Roberts 
 makes no effort to defend or explain the testimony 
 of his witness, thus leaving Mr. Woodruff to be 
 impeached without protest. Would he do this if 
 defense had been possible? 
 
 Mr. Roberts still insists that the Twelve were sus- 
 tained at that meeting in Nauvoo on August 8, 1844, 
 as the First Presidency, and gives the resolution as 
 quoted from Millenial 8 tar, volume 25, but does not 
 attempt to explain the discrepancy between the reso- 
 lution as published at the time in the Times and Sea- 
 sons and the one he quotes; it surely can not be 
 explained on the ground that the first publication 
 was shorter and the last more in detail for the one is 
 not only shorter than the other, but is entirely of dif- 
 ferent import. 
 
 On page 8 Mr. Roberts reaffirms his charge 
 against Sidney Rigdon ; and though he had not given 
 Mr. Rigdon the credit of being exonerated from 
 any of the charges made against him in 1843, he now 
 admits that the charge of treacherous correspondence 
 with Ex -governor Carlin was satisfactorily explained 
 but claims that the charge of treasonable conduct 
 in connection with John C. Bennett was not explained, 
 
APPENDIX. Iffi 
 
 and aoouses us of making a part to bear off the bur- 
 den of the whole. 
 
 The reader will observe that Mr. Roberts has noi 
 presented any evidence of treasonable conduct ; and 
 though we are not specially interested in defending 
 Sidney Rigdon, we are not willing to believe him 
 guilty of such base conduct simply on the affirmation 
 of Mr. B. H. Roberts. He states that if any doubt 
 exists of the treachery of Sidney Rigdon it can be 
 dispelled by perusing the letter of John C. Bennett 
 to him bearing date of January 10, 1843, and by the 
 minutes of his trial before the Bishop of the Church 
 published in volume five of Times and Seasons, 
 pages 647-655 and 660-667. He gives us no refer- 
 ence as to where we may find the letter of John C. 
 Bennett referred to. 
 
 A careful perusal of the minutes of the so-called 
 trial of Sidney Rigdon does not sustain the charge 
 of treachery. The minutes of that trial disclose a 
 disposition on the part of Brigham Young and his 
 associates to dominate and bring all departments of 
 Church work under their dictation. 
 
 It is presumed to be a trial before the Presiding 
 Bishop of the Church assisted by a council of high 
 priests ; but it is quite evident that the Twelve were 
 in control. The minutes represent that Brigham 
 Young was in charge. He requested the choir to 
 sing; Orson Hyde, one of the Twelve, opened with 
 prayer; Brigham Young made the opening remarks, 
 though taking occasion to remark that the Twelve 
 were simply there as witnesses, and not as judges. 
 He was followed by remarks from Orson Hyde, 
 
168 APPENDIX. 
 
 Parley P. Pratt, Amasa Lyman, John Taylor, W. W. 
 Phelps, and Heber C. Kimball. These each of them 
 not only gave evidence, but argued the case, and 
 each of them presumed to decide the case before the 
 verdict of the court was rendered. Brigham Young 
 made the statement in his opening remarks that 
 Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the Book of Mormon and 
 Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the Temple, Joseph 
 Smith's measures, and the Twelve, were all one 
 party, and represented Elder Rigdon and others as 
 being of opposite parties. 
 
 Orson Hyde said, "Elder Rigdon is now going to 
 work to make a division." Mr. Hyde related a great 
 deal of hearsay evidence, making the statement that 
 he would omit names unless called upon ; but there 
 is no record that the names were ever called for. 
 Elder Hyde's statement of what somebody told him 
 without the council knowing who it was passed for 
 evidence before that council. 
 
 Parley P. Pratt said: 
 
 I say and bear testimony that the things revealed to Sidney 
 Rigdon touching the great battles to be fought somewhere ; the 
 secret meetings ; the ordination of officers, and the government 
 of this Church, is a revelation of falsehood and delusion, calcu- 
 lated to lead the people astray. 
 
 Amasa Lyman said: 
 
 There are many who seem to.be in difficulty concerning Sid- 
 ney Rigdon's standing in the Church during the time he has 
 been wallowing in his filth and corruption for four or five years 
 past. 
 
 John Taylor said : 
 
 There has already been much said, sufficient to criminate 
 Elder Rigdon, and to prove satisfactorily to the mind of every 
 
APPENDIX. 169 
 
 unprejudiced person, that he is unworthy of the confidence we 
 have reposed in him; that he has dishonored his high and holy 
 calling, and has in every way disqualified himself to act in that 
 relationship to the Church, which he has heretofore sustained. 
 
 W. W. Phelps said : 
 
 He has come and lied in the name of the Lord. . . . The 
 Devil has blinded his eyes, and he has endeavored to blind the 
 minds of the people against those revelations that have been our 
 guide since we came into this Church. ... I therefore, in the 
 authority of the holy priesthood, and as one who can not look 
 upon sin with any degree of allowance, declare his late revela- 
 tions, and his extraordinary ordinations of prophets, priests and 
 kings among the Gentiles, holding the keys of David, of the 
 Devil; and let all the people say: Amen. 
 
 HeberC. Kimballsaid: 
 
 I wish the people would hear and be wise, and those who have 
 been upholding Bro. Sidney, would turn about before they go 
 into everlasting despair. 
 
 Thus all of these so-called witnesses presume to 
 decide the case and tell that high council what 
 Sidney Rigdon was guilty of, instead of simply giv- 
 ing testimony and allowing the council to decide the 
 question of guilt or innocence. No respectable court 
 understanding its prerogatives and duties, would 
 allow witnesses to be guilty of such contempt. If Mr. 
 Young or any of his colleagues had gone before any 
 court of justice and used such language, they would 
 have been reprimanded, and if not heeding the repri- 
 mand, would have been punished for contempt. 
 
 After all this Mr. Young takes the floor the second 
 time and states what Mr. Hyde had before stated, 
 that he had some testimony from other parties whose 
 names he would not give if it could be dispensed 
 with, and so far as the record is concerned it seems 
 
170 APPENDIX. 
 
 to have been dispensed with. There is no record of 
 the names being called for, nor of the parties being 
 brought before the council. 
 
 The law gave Mr. Rigdon the privilege of having a 
 part of the council to speak in his behalf. One of the 
 council did volunteer to do so, namely, "William 
 Marks. Then instead of other members of the coun- 
 cil speaking against the accused as provided in the 
 law, Brigham Young, one of the witnesses in the 
 case, is permitted to reply to Mr. Marks. And in 
 that reply he says: "I have known that Bro. Marks 
 had no evidence but the written word; but if this 
 people have no evidence but the written word, it is 
 quite time to go to the river and be baptized for the 
 remission of their sins." 
 
 Witness Young was followed by witness Phelps in 
 answer to William Marks. He was followed by wit- 
 ness Hyde. After these three chief witnesses had 
 been allowed to speak in answer to the arguments of 
 one of the council, Bishop Whitney, who presided, 
 gave privilege for any other councilor to speak who 
 wished to do so, but no one responded. 
 
 Taking into consideration that Newel K. Whitney, 
 who presided over that council, was not at the time 
 Presiding Bishop of the Church, but was substituted 
 for George Miller, who was appointed by revelation 
 as Presiding Bishop of the Church ; and the further 
 fact that he was himself implicated as a party in the 
 case, as is evidenced from the statement of Brigham 
 Young before the court that he accompanied eight of 
 the Twelve when they went to converse with Sidney 
 Rigdon, laboring with him and upon the matters 
 
APPENDIX. 171 
 
 developed in that labor these charges were based, 
 and we have a case equaled by none on record, to 
 our knowledge, for injustice and partiality. 
 
 There are many other points of criticism that we 
 might make on this trial, but we forbear. No one 
 who reads the records of those times impartially will 
 allow that trial to have any effect in passing judg- 
 ment upon Sidney Rigdon. 
 
 It will be remembered that I cited Mr. Roberts to 
 his inaccuracy in stating that William Smith was 
 expelled from the Church at the time when he was 
 simply suspended from exercising the functions of 
 his office; to which Mr. Roberts now replies: "Sus- 
 pended from exercising the functions of their office 
 comes so preciously near suspension of fellowship for 
 an apostle as an apostle, that the Josephite 'Reply' 
 is welcome to all that exists in the difference." 
 Page 19. 
 
 I thank Mr. Roberts for his liberality in this case, 
 and accept the difference cheerfully. 
 
 In Mr. Roberts' first edition he claims that William 
 Smith did not teach the doctrine of lineal priesthood 
 until 1850. I showed from the writings of one in 
 sympathy with Mr. Roberts' faith, that he was teach- 
 ing it in St. Louis in November, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Roberts, on page 26 of his revised edition, 
 acknowledges his error, and claims that his fault was 
 in trusting too implicitly in Josephite statements of 
 its own history. He says : 
 
 The authority upon which the statement of the text was made 
 is from the statement of Jason W. Briggs, once a leading light 
 of the "Reorganized Church," and by Tullidge in his account of 
 
172 APPENDIX. 
 
 the rise of said Church, called the "first standard-bearer of 
 Israel's return." The statement by Briggs is quoted with 
 approval by Tullidge, and Tullidge's History here quoted is 
 "Published by the Board of Publication of the Reorganized 
 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." (See title page 
 Life of Joseph the Prophet by Tullidge, Piano edition, 1880.) 
 Following is the passage in question : 
 
 "In the general disorder that prevailed from the death of Joseph 
 Smith, here and there appeared a gleam of light and hope a 
 manifestation of the Spirit that all was not lost. Many ran to 
 and fro in the character of prophets and shepherds. Among 
 those appeared William Smith, who in the spring of 1850, called 
 a conference at Covington, Kentucky; from which time he vis- 
 ited many of the branches and scattered Saints, teaching lineal 
 priesthood, as applying to the Presidency of the Church; and 
 thus disposing of all pretenders already arisen, or to rise out of 
 the posterity of the original President 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 then called to it many at once accepted it as 
 the solution of the question of Presidency." (Page 576.) 
 
 This quotation is not accurate; but the most dam- 
 aging mistake made is in changing the word thus to 
 then. The quotation as it reads in the work from 
 which Mr. Roberts quoted is : 
 
 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. (See page 576, 
 Tullidge's History.) 
 
 A mistake like this might occur without design ; but 
 when it is a mistake made to favor a theory that he 
 is just at that time urging, it looks suspicious. Mr. 
 Roberts was trying to maintain that then, in 1850, was 
 ihe first time, according to Josephite history, that 
 William Smith taught the doctrine of lineal priest- 
 
APPENDIX. 173 
 
 hood ; and by changing the word thus to make it read 
 then it would favor his point. What makes it more 
 suspicious than before is that he quotes from the 
 same passage again on page 37, and there he 
 quotes it correctly and italicizes the word thus when 
 striving to make the point that it was through William 
 Smith's teaching that lineal priesthood was first 
 known. To make one point he changes the reading 
 by substituting another word ; to make another point 
 he emphasizes the original word, probably forgetting 
 his former effort. There is nothing in the quotation 
 from Elder Briggs to intimate that William Smith 
 had not taught lineal priesthood prior to the Coving - 
 ton conference. 
 
 In his first edition in speaking of Lyman Wight, 
 he made the positive statement : 
 
 In the latter part of August, 1844, 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 the Saints 
 with him, and settling in Texas, not far from the present site of 
 Austin. Page 26. 
 
 I showed that Lyman Wight did in fact go to Wis- 
 consin at the time when Mr. Roberts says he refused 
 to go. 
 
 Now on page 28 of his second edition Mr. Roberts 
 changes the text in the body of his work and makes 
 it to read, "He therefore finally went to Texas instead 
 of to Wisconsin to get out timbers for the Temple," 
 and so forth, thus throwing in an explanatory state- 
 ment that was not in the first edition, and contending 
 
174 APPENDIX. 
 
 that that was his point in the beginning, that he did 
 not go to get out timbers for the Temple. If he 
 intended to say that he certainly failed in his inten- 
 tions, for not an intimation of such a thing is found 
 in his first edition. 
 
 He then contends that he was right in his main 
 contention that Lyman Wight was not in harmony 
 with his fellow apostles, and that he refused to follow 
 their counsel, and goes on to some length to prove 
 this assertion. He might have saved himself this 
 trouble; for I made no claim to the contrary. I am 
 aware that he was not in harmony with Brigham 
 Young and others and refused to follow their coun- 
 sel; and hence no testimony to that fact was neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Again, Mr. Roberts claimed that Lyman "Wight 
 lived in obscurity and died outside the church of 
 Christ without a following. When I showed that he 
 had continued to have a following to the time of his 
 death; and that many are still following in the line 
 of his counsel and teaching on the doctrine of lineal 
 priesthood he changes the text again, and throws in 
 after the words, " without a following," the words, 
 "worthy the name of following." A very convenient 
 way for a man to escape the dilemma of his wrong 
 conclusions is to change without explanation or con- 
 fession, and decide that thefollowiny was not worthy 
 the name. 
 
 I do not care in this treatise to enter into the dis- 
 cussion of the question of worthiness; and hence 
 leave the matter for the reader to judge of the 
 dilemma a man is in who will thus change and pass 
 
APPENDIX. 176 
 
 judgment upon a body of people in order to escape 
 bhe error that he has fallen into. 
 
 Mr. Roberts, on pages 48 and 49, enters into a labored 
 argument to show that the revelation coming through 
 Elder Deam required determination as to who held 
 the highest authority previous to the choosing of the 
 seven apostles. 
 
 This is not material; and I have already spent 
 as much time as I care to spend on this point. I shall 
 therefore be content with quoting the words them- 
 selves, and permitting the reader to form his own 
 conclusion. Here are the words of the communi- 
 cation : 
 
 Verily, thus saith the Lord, as I said unto my servant Moses, 
 "See thou do all things according to the pattern," so say I 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 a majority of the Twelve Apostles; 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 preside.) Let them 
 select twelve men from among you, and ordain them to compose 
 my High Council. Behold, ye understand the order of the 
 Bishopric, the Seventy, the Elders, the Priests, Teachers and 
 Deacons. These organize according to the pattern. Behold, I 
 will be with you unto the end; even so, Amen. (See Church 
 History, vol. 3, pp. 217, 218.) 
 
 It will be seen from this, that while the one holding 
 the greatest authority before the conference was to 
 preside at the conference, it was the senior of the 
 seven who was to act as the President of the Church. 
 
 There is another point referred to by Mr. Roberts 
 
176 APPENDIX. 
 
 on page 49 of his revised version which may need a 
 more extended notice. In his first edition he said : 
 
 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! 
 
 On this I commented as follows : 
 
 This conclusion is evidently based upon the supposition that 
 when parties come out of one organization to affiliate with 
 another, the one they leave becomes a part of the one to which 
 they adhere. 
 
 How profound! According to this philosophy the Church 
 organized by Joseph Smith and others from 1830 to 1835, was a 
 stream formed by the confluence of several other streams issuing 
 from the several sectarian Churches. (See page 34.) 
 
 In his rejoinder Mr. Roberts seeks to ingeniously 
 avoid the consequence of this false philosophy of his 
 by turning the controversy upon a point that was not 
 even hinted at in his first supposition and says : 
 
 Not at all. The circumstances are wholly different. When 
 the Lord in the first vision to the Prophet Joseph announced his 
 rejection of all sectarian Churches there had to be a restoration 
 of divine authority, and hence sent John the Baptist, Peter, 
 James, and John, and others to restore that authority; and all 
 who left the several sectarian Churches, received the gospel and 
 divine authority through this new dispensation of authority 
 from heaven, and hence in the new Church thus formed there 
 was no taint of the old sects from which they had emerged or, 
 in other words, no flaw in their claims to divine authority. 
 
 This is quite fairly stated, but it is foreign to the 
 point Mr. Roberts raised in his first edition. The cir- 
 
APPENDIX. 177 
 
 cumstanoes so far as they relate to his first conten- 
 tion are exactly parallel. 
 
 God by revelation "announced his rejection of all 
 sectarian Churches." He authorized the organiza- 
 tion of another and many came out of them and 
 united with the new Church thus formed. They 
 brought with them no taint of the old, but built on 
 divine authority before restored through Joseph 
 Smith the Seer, and others. 
 
 Again God by revelation "announced his rejection" 
 of the Churches under James J. Strang, William 
 Smith, and others. He authorized the forming of 
 another organization, and some came out of these 
 rejected organizations and united with the one thus 
 formed. They brought with them no taint of the old, 
 but built on divine authority before restored through 
 Joseph Smith the Seer, and others. The Church 
 organized from 1830 to 1835 was the successor of a 
 Church once acknowledged of God, but rejected on 
 account of transgression, though authorized sectarian 
 Churches had intervened between, and it was in fact 
 a reorganization. 
 
 The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
 Day Saints was the successor of a Church once 
 acknowledged of God, but rejected on account of 
 transgression, though unauthorized sects had inter- 
 vened between. In both cases members entering into 
 the new organizations renounced all allegiance to 
 these unauthorized sects, and repudiated all authority 
 claimed by them. Then the cases are parallel, and if 
 one was formed by the confluence of corrupt, apostate 
 streams, so was the other. 
 
.* APPENDIX. 
 
 But as Mr. Roberts has sought to turn our atten- 
 tion from the above to the questions of authority, 
 Church organization and rejection, let us follow him 
 in his flight. He adds : 
 
 But with the Josephite reorganizes it is different. They 
 claim that the Church founded by the Prophet Joseph was 
 rejected of God, together with its dead. ... If that were true, 
 then its actions were repudiated, its authority was gone; and 
 the only way it could be regained would be by a reopening oi 
 the heavens, and a restoration of the priesthood as in the dis- 
 pensation of the gospel received by Joseph the Prophet. 
 
 Then by endeavoring to hold the Reorganization to 
 the philosophy of his own conclusions Mr. Roberts 
 argues that the men instrumental in its formation 
 were inconsistent in proceeding to reorganize without 
 a restoration of divine authority. 
 
 Mr. Roberts' error consists in supposing that 
 authority is contingent upon Church organization, 
 and hence when an organization is rejected all 
 authority is gone. He is evidently wrong in this, for 
 authority preceded Church organization and hence 
 could exist when said organization was rejected. 
 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ordained and 
 authorized to administer in the priesthood before 
 there was a Church, and by the authority thus 
 bestowed the Church organization was effected. 
 
 So priesthood may exist independent of Church 
 organization, and hence could be retained by indi- 
 viduals after the organization was rejected. I would 
 like to suggest to Mr. Roberts that if he will change 
 his premises and instead of arguing from the prem- 
 ises that authority is contingent upon organization, 
 argue from the premises that organization is contin- 
 
APPENDIX. 179 
 
 gent upon authority, his logical brain will lead him to 
 safer conclusions. 
 
 Further, though the priesthood held by Briggs, 
 Gurley, Deam, et a?., was doubtless good and 
 accepted of God, they did not proceed in the impor- 
 tant matter of organization until so directed by reve- 
 lation from God. So as far as that particular act 
 was concerned the authority was restored. 
 
 On page 53 Mr. Roberts again concedes that 
 he was mistaken in setting the date of Lyman 
 Wight's advocacy of lineal priesthood at 1850; but 
 he still contends "that this question of 'Young 
 Joseph's' claims to the Presidency was not mooted in 
 the controversy over the Presidency at Nauvoo in 
 August, 1844, the time of all times for those who 
 knew anything of the subject to have spoken." 
 
 In my reply I presented the fact that William Smith 
 and Lyman Wight preached lineal descent so soon 
 after their difference with others of the Twelve as to 
 make it strong presumptive evidence that this was 
 one of the points of difference. We invited attention 
 to the fact that the real points of difference were 
 never published ; that the Church papers were silent 
 upon the point; and that neitheV William Smith nor 
 Lyman Wight had an opportunity to preserve their 
 opinions in any periodical of the times. Mr. Roberts 
 ignores all this, and still asserts that they and all 
 others were silent upon this point. 
 
 Fortunately, since the publication of our reply, the 
 evidence has come to our hand which removes all 
 possible doubt; and it is not necessary for us to 
 stand upon this presumption, plain though it may be. 
 
180 APPENDIX. 
 
 We have before us a letter written by James Blakes- 
 lee to Jacob Scott, dated Hampton, Rock Island 
 County, Illinois, August 16, 1844, just eight days 
 after the memorable meeting on August 8 on which 
 so much has been said, and at which time so much 
 was said regarding Presidency and leadership. He 
 says: 
 
 But alas, -what a change one year has made. Even the space 
 of about one year, or a little more, has successfully introduced 
 into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a sufficient 
 amount of false doctrine, to deceive and lead away nearly all the 
 Church at Nauvoo, while the Prophet and Patriarch of the 
 Church have been barbarously murdered by the hand of a gang 
 of demons in human shape. Thus you see, sir, that the Church 
 is left without an earthly head, unless the promise of the Lord 
 shall be fulfilled, which saith, that if he removed Joseph, he 
 would appoint another in his stead.- But as this has not yet 
 been done, what is the Church to do? Now sir, if I have been 
 correctly informed, some of the members of the Church at Nau- 
 voo, want Stephen Markham for their head, and others Sidney 
 Rigdon, and others President Marks, and others little Joseph, 
 and others B. Young, and some others P. P. Pratt, and if they 
 can all have their choice, we shall soon have a multiplicity of 
 Churches of Latter Day Saints. 
 
 It appears that Elder Blakeslee was not present at 
 Nauvoo ; but that in about one week after that meet- 
 ing word had reached him of the controversy over 
 leadership at Nauvoo, and that in that controversy 
 young Joseph's name was mentioned with others. 
 This sets aside effectually and positively the state- 
 ment of Elder Roberts that young Joseph's claims 
 to the Presidency were not mooted in the con- 
 troversy. 
 
 Mr. Roberts thinks I might have added some inter- 
 
APPENDIX. 181 
 
 esting information in connection with my extract 
 from the Gospel Herald regarding the position of 
 Lyman Wight on lineal priesthood had I quoted John 
 E. Page in that connection. Doubtless it might be 
 interesting information, but it is not material to the 
 point in discussion. I was only attempting to show 
 that William Smith and Lyman Wight taught lineal 
 priesthood. I was aware that John E. Page did not. 
 His opinion has no more bearing upon the point as 
 to what William Smith and Lyman Wight taught 
 than has the opinion of Young, Kimball, or Pratt. 
 
 Mr. Roberts undertook to show a discrepancy in 
 the testimony regarding the blessing of President 
 Joseph Smith, a part of the testimony going to show 
 that he was blessed in Liberty Jail, and a part to 
 show that he was blessed soon after coming out of 
 Liberty Jail. I showed that he was several times 
 blessed to the same effect. All Mr. Roberts has to 
 say in his late edition is to ask how many times it is 
 necessary that young Joseph should be blessed, 
 appointed, and ordained to the same position by the 
 same person. It is not necessary for us to answer 
 the question. It is only necessary to show that he 
 was actually blessed at different times and places, 
 and this I have clearly shown. The question of 
 necessity should be asked of those who participated 
 in this blessing. 
 
 Mr. Roberts makes a labored effort to show a con- 
 flict between Elder Whitehead and others because 
 Elder Whitehead calls this blessing an ordination 
 while others do not. It is not necessary to occupy 
 space in arguing this. President Joseph Smith 
 
182 APPENDIX. 
 
 explains it sufficiently clear in the quotation which 
 Mr. Roberts himself inserts; he says, "This blessing 
 has by some been called an ordination, from the usual 
 predilection to confound names and terms." 
 
 The evidence shows that the Prophet Joseph Smith 
 laid his hands at different times upon the head of his 
 son and blessed him, declaring that he would succeed 
 him in his position in the Church. That is all we 
 claim. We have not taken a position as to whether 
 priesthood was conferred or not; simply that in fulfill- 
 ment of the revelation he designated who the suc- 
 cessor should be. In the sense of an appointment it 
 may be called an ordination. 
 
 Mr. Roberts thinks it very strange that young 
 Joseph was set apart before the congregation where 
 there were thousands present, and that that congre- 
 gation accepted him, and yet Mr. Whitehead is the 
 "sole witness." He thinks it very reasonable that 
 others in that congregation would have remembered 
 it, and would have contended at the time that he was 
 the rightful successor. The strangeness of it is 
 admitted; and one wonders why if true that the 
 efforts of Brigham Young were successful with so 
 many. But we have the positive testimony that Mr. 
 Whitehead was not the "sole witness," and that 
 young Joseph's claims were advocated by some, I 
 know not how many, in August, 1844, as evidenced 
 from the letter of Elder Blakeslee before quoted. 
 
 John H. Carter, of near Provo City, Utah, in his 
 testimony in the Temple Lot Suit said : 
 
 I was present at a meeting in the city of Nauyoo, in the state of 
 Illinois, at which something was said or done about the successor 
 
APPENDIX. 183 
 
 of Joseph Smith. It was held in the Bowery, right north of the 
 Temple, and Joseph Smith was on the stand. I can not tell you 
 when it was, but it was not long before he was killed. This hap- 
 pened in Nauvoo, in the Bowery that was erected right north of 
 the Temple, where they held meetings before the Temple was 
 finished. Yes sir, Joseph Smith who was called Junior, was on 
 the stand. It was on a Sunday. There was a congregation 
 gathered there on that occasion ; it was a large gathering. It 
 was the people mostly from Nauvoo who had gathered there, 
 and when they got together on these occasions there was a large 
 gathering. . . . 
 
 Joseph Smith came on the stand leading his son, young 
 Joseph, and they sat him down on a bench at the Prophet's 
 right hand, and Joseph got up and began to preach and talk to 
 the people, and the question he said was asked by somebody, 
 "If Joseph Smith should be killed or die, who would be his suc- 
 cessor?" And he turned around and said, pointing to his son, 
 "There is the successor," and he went on and said, "My work is 
 pretty nearly done," and that is about all he said in regard to 
 his son. He said in answer to a question that was asked as to 
 who should be his successor in case he should be killed or die, 
 and he pointed to his son, young Joseph, who was sitting there 
 at his side, and said he: "There is your leader." 
 
 My father-in-law was with me at the time, and sat there and 
 heard what was said, and when we were going home my father- 
 in-law asked, "What does that mean?" He said, "That has got 
 a meaning to it, from the way Joseph talked and pointed to his 
 son," because Joseph had said, "There is your leader," pointing 
 at the time to his son, and my father-in-law said, "We will see 
 the fulfillment of that by and by." 
 
 It was the understanding of the people generally, of the 
 Church as far as I know; all understood it from that day on 
 that when the boy Joseph came of age he would take the lead in 
 the Church and be its head. There were a great many people 
 who believed that, and moreover, President Young preached it 
 himself for some time after he came into the valley. That was 
 the belief of hundreds and thousands; was the belief then, and 
 is the belief now. 
 
184 APPENDIX. 
 
 I have always believed that ever since I heard Joseph say the 
 words I have stated, ever since I saw his father point him out; 
 and I believe it to-day just as strongly as I ever did, and it was 
 under that belief that I have followed President Young west 
 with the branch of the Church now known as the Salt Lake 
 branch. That was the teaching and the ideas held out by the 
 officers and elders, including Brigham Young and other promi- 
 nent elders of the Church, who afterwards came west and located 
 here at Salt Lake City; and it was the teaching in Utah Terri- 
 tory for several years after the death of Joseph Smith. Here in 
 Salt Lake City they publicly taught and held out the idea to the 
 members of the Church that Joseph Smith the son of Joseph 
 Smith, Jr., would eventually be the President of the Church. 
 Plaintiff's Abstract, pp. 180, 181. 
 
 This testimony corroborates in the main features 
 the statements made by Elder Whitehead; and also 
 accounts for, what otherwise would seem strange, 
 how Brigham Young succeeded so well. Thousands, 
 according to Mr. Carter, accepted his teachings 
 because he held out the idea that young Joseph 
 would be the proper person to take the leadership of 
 the Church when he became of age. 
 
 This testimony of Elders Whitehead and Carter is 
 strengthened by the testimony of Charles Derry, W. 
 W. Phelps, Alpheus Cutler, P. P. Pratt, D. S. Mills, 
 Lucy Smith, George Miller, Louis Gaulter, Harriet E. 
 Gaulter, Arthur Milliken, and A. B. Moore, as set 
 forth in our former reply. 
 
 Mr. Roberts in his former reply presented the 
 claim of Brigham Young that Hyrum Smith was 
 appointed by Joseph as his successor. I met this by 
 saying that if this claim be true it would destroy the 
 prophetic character of Joseph Smith, as it failed 
 of fulfillment. Mr. Roberts can not see how it 
 
APPENDIX. 185 
 
 would affect the prophetio character of Joseph Smith. 
 I do not know how to make it plainer. If Joseph 
 Smith said Hyrum would be his successor and 
 Hyrum fell in death before he did, it shows beyond 
 controversy that Joseph Smith was deceived in set- 
 ting apart as his successor a man whom God never 
 intended to succeed him. If this does not affect the 
 evidence of his prophetio calling I do not know what 
 would. 
 
 Again, if Joseph Smith set Hyrum apart as his 
 successor, where is the consistency in the claim that 
 he provided that the Twelve should succeed him by 
 conferring upon them all the keys and responsibilities 
 which he had himself held? 
 
 Elder Orson Hyde in his testimony before the 
 Bishop's court that tried Sidney Rigdon, makes a 
 pertinent statement on this point. It is as follows: 
 
 Now why did he say to the Twelve on YOUR shoulders will this 
 responsibility rest, why did he not mention Bro. Hyrum? The 
 Spirit knew that Hyrum would be taken with him, and hence he 
 did not mention his name; Elder Rigdon's name was not men- 
 tioned, although he was here all the time, but he did not attend 
 our councils. Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 651. 
 
 Here is a direct conflict between Elders Young and 
 Hyde, Elder Young stating that Joseph did ordain 
 Hyrum as his successor, and Elder Hyde stating that 
 Joseph did not mention him because the Spirit knew 
 that Hyrum would be taken with him. Can Mr. 
 Roberts or any other advocate of that theory recon- 
 cile these statements? 
 
 On page 79 Mr. Roberts states that I had no other 
 means of escape from certain conclusions only to 
 
186 APPENDIX. 
 
 throw discredit upon passages in the history of the 
 Prophet, because I questioned the genuineness of 
 some publications issued by the Utah Church. 
 
 It was not the writer of the "Reply" that threw 
 discredit upon the history of the Church as published 
 by the Utah people ; but that discredit has been the 
 result of their own acts. In the face of the facts it 
 will avail nothing for Mr. Roberts to call references 
 to this subject "contemptible Josephite quibbling." 
 
 The late Elder Charles W. Wandell, who in 1845 
 was employed in the historian's office in Nauvoo, in 
 speaking of the purported writings of Joseph Smith 
 the Seer, notices some interpolations and then 
 remarks : 
 
 I notice these interpolations because having been employed 
 (myself) in the historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, 
 and employed too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, 
 I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was "doctored" to 
 suit the new order of things, and this too by the direct order of 
 Brigham Young to Doctor Richards, and systematically by 
 Richards. From manuscript in my possession. 
 
 I presume Mr. Roberts will resort to his usual tao- 
 tics, and say that Elder Wandell had lost his honor 
 when he offered this statement; but he will hardly 
 claim that George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff 
 had lost their honor when they stated the following 
 as found on page 5 of the preface to the first 
 volume of Church History as published by the Utah 
 Church, in 1902: 
 
 The history of Joseph Smith is now before the world, and we 
 are satisfied that a history more correct in its details than this 
 was never published. To have it strictly correct, the greatest 
 possible pains have been taken by the historians and clerks 
 
APPENDIX. 187 
 
 engaged in the work. They were eye and ear witnesses of 
 nearly all the transactions recorded in this history, most of 
 which were reported as they transpired, and, where they were 
 not personally present, they have had access to those who were. 
 Moreover, since the death of the Prophet Joseph, the history 
 has been carefully revised under the strict inspection of Presi- 
 dent Brigham Young, and approved by him. We, therefore, 
 hereby bear our testimony to all the world, unto whom these 
 words shall come, that the history of Joseph Smith is true, and 
 is one of the most authentic histories ever written. 
 
 This certainly agrees with the statement of Elder 
 Wandell, and is a confession published by themselves 
 that the history of Joseph Smith was carefully 
 revised under the inspection of Brigham Young. 
 Who, then, was it that threw discredit upon the genu- 
 ineness of history as published in Utah? When we 
 state that its genuineness is questionable we state 
 just what their confession shows. 
 
 Mr. Roberts quotes an action of the conference of 
 October, 1844, sustaining Brigham Young as one of 
 the Twelve and First Presidency of the Church, and 
 asks, "Can there be any doubt but what this was 
 practically the same as that of the eighth of August?" 
 We answer, Yes, there can be and is doubt. The 
 whole history of the transaction shows that they ven- 
 tured a little farther each succeeding time that the 
 case was mentioned. 
 
 On page 74 Mr. Roberts misrepresents us by con- 
 veying the idea that we had taken a position that 
 lineal priesthood as applied to the Presidency was an 
 invariable rule, subject to no contingencies; whereas 
 I stated our position clearly on page 50 of my first 
 edition, that "the son's right to his father's position 
 
188 APPENDIX. 
 
 is contingent upon these conditions, and that God 
 alone is a competent judge of ability and worthiness, 
 we hold that no man should be ordained to any 
 office without a call from God." Our position was 
 that all other things being equal, God had determined 
 that the son should succeed to his father's place; but 
 not alone by virtue of his lineage, but that he to 
 occupy must be called of God, as God alone was the 
 judge of availability and worthiness. 
 
 I repeat that we do not know why Hyrum Smith, 
 an elder son than Joseph the Seer, was not chosen. 
 He probably had the right of lineage; but God called 
 Joseph, that is sufficient. Why should Elder Roberts 
 contend upon this point when it is not the point at 
 issue between us? The issue is not regarding the 
 first or second son but regarding lineage as applying 
 to the Presidency at all. 
 
 On page 75 Elder Roberts repeats his challenge to 
 produce a purported revelation through Joseph Smith, 
 President of the Reorganization, that he was called to 
 the position. I do not know how to convey an idea to 
 the mind of Mr. Roberts if I have not done so upon this 
 point. We cited him to the revelation given through 
 Jason W. Briggs, to the effect that the seed of Joseph 
 Smith was to come forth and preside over the high 
 priesthood of the Church; and in connection we have 
 a revelation given to Joseph Smith indorsing that 
 organization at Zarahemla. If the revelation in- 
 dorsed that organization it indorsed the position on 
 which it stood, that the seed of Joseph Smith the 
 Seer was to preside over the high priesthood of the 
 Church. 
 
APPENDIX. 180 
 
 Again, when he went to Amboy, in 1860, to assume 
 that position, he said, "I have come in obedience to 
 a power not my own, and shall be dictated by the 
 power that sent me." To occupy space upon this 
 point would be useless. Though Mr. Roberts may 
 not understand this language, I am sure that the 
 majority of our readers can. 
 
 On pages 77 and 78 Mr. Roberts quotes a purported 
 statement of Joseph Smith as published in Millennial 
 titar, volume 22, as follows : * 'We have a Judas in our 
 midst; whatever can be the matter with these men?" 
 and throws into the midst of this quotation his own 
 words as follows: "This appears to have had an 
 unpleasant effect upon the minds of some leading men 
 in the Church, especially upon the minds of William 
 Law and William Marks, who complain before the 
 mayor's court about the action of these special 
 police." 
 
 By what authority does Mr. Roberts say that these 
 were William Law and William Marks? True, their 
 names are mentioned further on in this purported 
 quotation; but not in the connection in which Mr. 
 Roberts places them. It must be remembered, too, 
 that at the time the history of Joseph Smith was care- 
 fully revised under the inspection of Brigham Young 
 he had a controversy with William Marks that might 
 have induced him to write his name into the revised 
 history. 
 
 In the following pages Mr. Roberts again takes up 
 the argument of the lesser ordaining the greater, and 
 represents us as taking the position that the lesser 
 ordains the greater by virtue of its position in the 
 
190 APPENDIX. 
 
 priesthood. This is not and has never been the posi- 
 tion of the Reorganization. Our position has been 
 that a command of God is sufficient authority for an 
 ordination ; and that if one holding the lesser posi- 
 tion is directed to ordain a man to a higher position 
 than that which he himself holds, it is legitimate for 
 him to do so. Our position upon this point has 
 recently been conceded by the editors of the Juvenile 
 Instructor, of which Joseph F. Smith, President of 
 the Utah Church, is the chief editor. In commenting 
 upon the ordination of the Twelve in 1835, the editors 
 of this periodical say in the issue for March 1, 1902 ; 
 
 This proceeding is strong evidence of the fact that the priest- 
 hood is greater than any of its offices; and further, that any 
 man who has received the holy Melchisedec priesthood is 
 empowered by and through the possession of that priesthood to 
 perform any ordinance connected therewith when called upon to 
 do so by the proper authority. For this reason we find in the 
 history of the Church that apostles have presided over stakes of 
 Zion, at other times they have acted as traveling elders in the 
 foreign missions of the Churh when a high priest or seventy 
 has presided therein. It is the duty of a high priest to preside 
 at home, but high priests are often called to labor as missiona- 
 ries abroad, while seventies^ whose special mission is to preach 
 the gospel to the outside world, are occasionally called to pre- 
 side at home. Again, seventies have been authorized to ordain 
 high priests and high priests, seventies. All these apparent 
 deviations from the usual procedure were regular and proper 
 because every man holding the Melchisedec priesthood has 
 within him the latent power to do all things that that priesthood 
 authorizes, no matter what office he holds; but he has no right 
 to depart from the limitations prescribed for his office unless he 
 is specially called upon and appointed to do so, either by the 
 Lord through revelation or by the Lord's representative, or 
 by one holding an office in the priesthood whose calling 
 
APPENDIX. 191 
 
 clearly authorizes him to give such instructions and special 
 authority. 
 
 The case in point is one of the evidences of the truth of our 
 position. Here the Lord by revelation and by the instructions 
 of his mouthpiece calls upon three men, two of whom are high 
 priests, to choose twelve men to form the quorum of the Twelve 
 Apostles, and then to ordain or set them apart for this most 
 responsible and exalted calling. He did so because they had the 
 Melchisedec priesthood and in that priesthood was embraced the 
 necessary authority to perform this duty. We admit that even 
 if it did not, that the Lord himself could, if he so pleased, give 
 these men extraordinary and unusual powers on any occasion. 
 We have no desire to limit the powers of the Lord. 
 
 If there is any question in the minds of any as to 
 the responsibility of the editors upon this point, the 
 following letter will settle that question. I wrote the 
 Juvenile Instructor immediately after this appeared, 
 asking who was responsible for the answers to ques- 
 tions in the department of "Answers to Questions" in 
 the Juvenile Instructor, and received the following : 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, March 13, 1902. 
 ELDER HEMAN C. SMITH, Historian, Lamoni, Iowa. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your favor of 7th inst. is to hand. In reply I will 
 say, the Editors of the Juvenile Instructor are responsible for 
 what appears in its pages under the caption of "Answers to 
 Questions;" indeed, by far the greater portion is written by one 
 of themselves. Yours fraternally, 
 
 JOSEPH P. SMITH. 
 
 President Joseph P. Smith in the above takes even 
 stronger ground than the Reorganization has ever 
 taken in which he sets forth that one holding authority 
 to ordain can direct another, and that other can 
 ordain by virtue of the authority thus delegated. 
 Which is right, President Joseph F. Smith or Elder 
 B. H. Roberts when the latter speaks of the position 
 
192 APPENDIX. 
 
 of the Reorganization on this point as "the untenable 
 position, as false in philosophy as it is in fact, that 
 the lesser can ordain the greater, and the greater thus 
 accredited can ordain a still greater even the greatest 
 of all"? 
 
 On page 85 (see also page 78) Mr. Roberts makes 
 one of the most stupendous blunders that it has ever 
 been our fortune to notice in a man of ordinary care- 
 fulness in controversy : He states : 
 
 The "Reply" writer seems to think there was some special 
 virtue in the fact that William Marks took part in the ordination 
 of young Joseph, because Marks was a high priest in the days of 
 Joseph the Prophet. ("Reply," p. 142.) That is disposed of by 
 the fact that Marks was a follower of the Apostate Strang and a 
 member of his apostate church; and "Young Joseph" has said: 
 "Whenever individuals claiming authority under the Church as 
 organized by the first Joseph became members of any faction, 
 they immediately became divested of all authority." {Saints' 
 Herald, vol. 4, no. 10, p. 158.) And since young Joseph is a 
 "prophet" of course that disposes of the man who is supposed 
 to have made assurance doubly sure in ordaining him nay, of 
 the very man who, I believe, was mouth at his ordination. 
 
 The above quotation made by Mr. Roberts is an 
 incomplete one. It is part of the minutes of a special 
 conference held at Galland's Grove, Iowa, October 
 25 and 26, 1863, and does not purport to give the 
 exact words of the president of the conference, but 
 says: 
 
 The president then (in substance) made the following remarks: 
 
 "All official acts of any elder, while acting under the authority 
 of the old Church, are recognized by us as valid; but the acts of 
 those elders who received their authority from any of the fac- 
 tious organizations, such as Brigham's, Brewster's, Strang's, 
 etc., etc., are not recognized by us as valid; for whenever any of 
 those factions were organized, each member received his 
 
APPENDIX. 193 
 
 authority from that faction; hence whenever individuals, claim- 
 ing authority under the Church as organized by the first Joseph, 
 became members of any faction, they immediately became 
 divested of all authority except that received from the faction 
 to which they had joined themselves. Thus when Brigham 
 Young usurped the Presidency of the Church at or near Council 
 Bluffs, the disorganization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat- 
 ter Day Saints was thereby effected, and Brigham's church was 
 brought into existence. The same is true of all the factious 
 organizations. Therefore from the time they set up for them- 
 selves their acts in a church capacity are spurious." 
 
 So we have not the exact words used upon that 
 occasion, but the substance of them. But the most 
 remarkable part of it all is that Mr. Roberts repre- 
 sents it as being the language of "Young Joseph" 
 when there fs nothing in the entire proceedings to 
 show that young Joseph was present; but it is stated 
 in the heading of the minutes that the district was 
 under the presidency of Elder John A. Mclntosh; 
 and the minutes are signed right in the column oppo- 
 site the one from which Mr. Roberts quotes, "John 
 A. Mclntosh, president; O. E. Holcomb, Nathan 
 Lindsay, clerks." So the president referred to is 
 John A. Mclntosh, and not "Young Joseph" as 
 asserted by Mr. Roberts. 
 
 If the remarks were made as reported in this 
 synopsis, and we grant they may have been, for 
 Uncle Johnny Mclntosh, as we familiarly called him, 
 though a man of sterling integrity, was a man of 
 radical views, and may have held the view expressed ; 
 it commits only him, if anybody, to that position, 
 and not President Joseph Smith. Mr. Roberts makes 
 the blunder of referring to this several times in the 
 
194 APPENDIX. 
 
 course of his reply. It is impossible for us to deter- 
 mine how he could make such an egregious blunder 
 as this. 
 
 In the body of his work, page 86, Elder Roberts 
 states that, "One who succeeds to the position of the 
 Prophet Joseph must come in at the gate, and be 
 ordained as the Lord had before instructed the 
 Church that is, he must be accepted by the Church, 
 and be ordained by the direction of a general con- 
 ference." But on page 105 he states: "Brigham 
 Young always held, and is on record from the death 
 of the Prophet, that the keys of the kingdom, which 
 the Prophet Joseph held, he bestowed upon the 
 Twelve, and that to occupy any position in the 
 Church, they needed no other ordination." 
 
 If Mr. Roberts is right in his statement, then Elder 
 Young is condemned as not being properly ordained 
 to the position he held. 
 
 On page 90 he states that Amasa Lyman had been 
 ordained a counselor to Joseph Smith the Prophet to 
 take the place of Sidney Rigdon; "but Elder Lyman 
 had never been presented to the people to be sus- 
 tained by their vote, and hence his appointment was 
 not completed, and he had no claim even to the 
 counselorship in the Presidency." 
 
 If Elder Lyman had been ordained to the position 
 of counselor, and had no claim because he had not 
 been presented to the people to be sustained, what 
 becomes of the claim of the Twelve even though it be 
 conceded that Joseph appointed them to succeed him? 
 They had not at that time been presented to the peo- 
 ple to be sustained by their vote. If the Twelve 
 
APPENDIX. 195 
 
 could be presented after the death of Joseph, why 
 would it not have been consistent to have presented 
 Elder Lyman at the same time instead of turning him 
 down because he had not been previously presented 
 to the people? 
 
 On page 86 Mr. Roberts makes the following com- 
 ment on the subject of Joseph Smith appointing his 
 successor: 
 
 The "Reply" writer seeking to combat the limitations of the 
 revelation here described, and contending for a larger applica- 
 tion of it, says: "To take the position, as Mr. Roberts does, 
 that Joseph Smith was not authorized to appoint his successor 
 except in the event of transgression, is to make the authority to 
 appoint contingent upon transgression." Nevertheless such are 
 the limitations of this particular revelation, as an inspection of 
 it wijl disclose ; and at this point it is this particular revelation 
 and not the general power of appointment which is under con- 
 sideration. If Joseph Smith remains faithful he is to continue 
 God's mouthpiece to 'the Church, and none other is to be 
 appointed. If he transgress, then he is still to retain power 
 enough to appoint another in his stead. 
 
 Mr. Roberts asserts, what the revelation clearly 
 implies, that in case of transgression he is to retain 
 power to appoint his successor; it follows then that 
 he had it before the transgression. He could not 
 retain that which he did not have; and hence 
 his power to appoint is not contingent upon his 
 transgression. 
 
 Commencing on page 93 Mr. Roberts enters into a 
 long argument on the question of Church rejection. 
 I shall simply content myself with quoting what 
 the Lord has said in regard to it in paragraph 10 
 and part of paragraph 11, section 107, Doctrine and 
 Covenants : 
 
196 APPENDIX. 
 
 And again, verily I say unto you, Let all my saints come from 
 afar; and send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers, and 
 say unto them, Come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and 
 your precious stones, and with all your antiquities ; and with all 
 who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come may come, 
 and bring, the box-tree, and the fir-tree, and the pine-tree, 
 together with all the precious trees of the earth ; and with iron, 
 with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your 
 precious things of the earth, and build a house to my name, for 
 the Most High to dwell therein ; for there is not a place found on 
 earth that he may come and restore again that which was lost unto 
 you, or, which he hath taken away, even the fullness of the 
 priesthood; for a baptisimal font there is not upon the earth; 
 that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead; 
 for this ordinance belongeth to my house, and can not be accept- 
 able to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not 
 able to build a house unto me. But I command you, all ye my 
 saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a Suffi- 
 cient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your 
 baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. 
 
 But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for 
 your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not 
 these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected 
 as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God. 
 
 If this be true, that the Lord granted unto them a 
 sufficient time to build a house, and they failed, the 
 Church was rejected; and there is no use of Mr. 
 Roberts pleading that they did not have time or 
 opportunity, for the decree had gone forth that they 
 should have a sufficient time. 
 
 I introduced witnesses in my former reply, one of 
 them being President Brigham Young, to the effect 
 that the temple was not completed. The testimony 
 of these witnesses Elder Roberts has not noticed. 
 He says we tried to bring him and Elder Charles W. 
 
APPENDIX. 197 
 
 Penrose into conflict. "But there is no conflict." 
 Whether or not there is a conflict we will leave the 
 reader to judge. Roberts says, "The temple was 
 completed." Mr. Penrose says: "There were 
 probably some additions which would have been 
 made to 'complete' the edifice in the full sense of the 
 term if the builders had remained to enjoy it." 
 
 Referring to a point of a personal nature, as Mr. 
 Roberts terms it in his note on page 96, I am still at a 
 loss to understand Mr. Roberts. In his former trea- 
 tise he quoted from Pratt's autobiography what pur- 
 ported to be a communication of the Spirit to Parley 
 P. Pratt in 1844, and used the word organize where 
 the text had it reorganize. I invited his attention to 
 this, and now he says: "The copy of Pratt's auto- 
 biography in my library is the second edition, 1888, 
 and referring to the passage again, I find was quoted 
 accurately by me, whatever difference may exist 
 between that and any edition the 'Reply' writer may 
 have quoted." 
 
 I have before me the edition of 1888, and the word 
 is plainly reorganize in that edition. Mr. Roberts 
 must be mistaken ; he did not use the edition of 1888 
 if his book reads organize. I trust that every one 
 who reads this, if at all possible will get the edition 
 of 1888 and determine who has told the truth in regard 
 to it. 
 
 In my reply to Mr. Roberts I showed how he had 
 confounded the terms keys and oracles, and that the 
 words were never synonyms. This he now virtu- 
 ally concedes, but attempts to get out of the dilemma 
 by saying that this is not the only passage in which 
 
198 APPENDIX, 
 
 the Lord uses words in his revelations outside the 
 technical sense in which they are used by lexicogra- 
 phers; and invites attention to the passage which 
 provides that the Twelve shall ordain evangelical 
 ministers as they shall be designated unto them by 
 revelation. He says : 
 
 The context clearly establishes that these "evangelical minis- 
 ters" are "evangelists," or "patriarchs." Yet you shall look 
 through your standard dictionaries in vain to find that "evan- 
 gelist" and "patriarch" are equivalent terms, yet God here so 
 uses them. 
 
 Not quite so fast, Mr. Roberts. God does not so 
 use them. The word patriarch is not found in the 
 quotation. The passage reads as follows : 
 
 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the 
 Church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be desig- 
 nated unto them by revelation. (See Lamoni edition of Doc- 
 trine and Covenants, section 104, paragraph 17; Utah edition, 
 section 107, paragraph 39.) 
 
 It will be observed that the word patriarch is not 
 used. An evangelical minister may be a patriarch 
 according to the definition given in our standard 
 dictionaries. The leading definition of the word 
 evangelist according to Webster is: "A bringer of 
 the glad tidings of Christ and his doctrines." A 
 patriarch certainly may be and ought to be that, and 
 could be called according to this definition an evan- 
 gelical minister. While all evangelists are not patri- 
 archs, every patriarch ought to be an evangelist, or 
 "a bringer of the glad tidings of Christ and his doc- 
 trines." So Mr. Roberts' point here is not well 
 taken. 
 
 It will be remembered that I criticised the witnesses 
 
APPENDIX. 199 
 
 of Mr. Roberts whom he quotes to prove that Joseph 
 Smith the Seer bestowed all the authority and keys 
 and powers which he held upon the Twelve. I 
 showed that their language differed, no two of them 
 giving the same words, and no one of them relating 
 it twice alike. To which Mr. Roberts replies on page 
 102 as follows : 
 
 That sort of quibbling is worthy of a tenth rate lawyer just 
 beginning his career, or Josephite writer. The complete 
 answer to the contention is, that while no two of the witnesses 
 give the same words, and no one of them, perhaps, relating the 
 same circumstance twice employs the same language, yet the 
 reader will see that they do not fail to make it plain that all the 
 authority, and all the keys of power and priesthood the Prophet 
 Joseph himself held, he conferred upon the Twelve; and that 
 was perfectly consistent with, and even made necessary by the 
 revelations which provide that the Twelve shall be equal in 
 power and authority with the First Presidency. 
 
 "Were these witnesses relating in their own language 
 an event which each of them saw, Mr. Roberts' point 
 would be well taken. It is not necessary that wit- 
 nesses should use the same language in describing 
 that which they have seen. But when they are quot- 
 ing the language of another, and undertaking to say 
 what another said, they should agree as to the words 
 used, or we can not determine what was said, and 
 will not be able to judge of the import. . 
 
 On page 104 Mr. Roberts inserts an additional testi- 
 mony upon this point of Joseph Smith ordaining the 
 Twelve, namely, the testimony of William B. Smith 
 as given in the Temple Lot Suit. The following 
 answer which Elder William B. Smith acknowledges 
 having been the author of, is the one upon which Mr, 
 
200 APPENDIX. 
 
 Roberts relies, stating that this agrees with the testi- 
 mony of Brigham Young,' Orson Hyde, and Wilford 
 Woodruff, to the effect that Joseph Smith the 
 Prophet gave the keys and authority which he pos- 
 sessed to the Twelve. 
 
 Following is the matter referred to as it appears in 
 an undated epistle of the Twelve and which the wit- 
 ness was asked to read : 
 
 PRESIDENT WILLIAM SMITH WAS ORDAINED BY HIS BROTHER 
 
 JOSEPH SMITH. 
 
 Previous to President William Smith's leaving Nauvoo, on his 
 mission to the East, for the last time during the earthly exist- 
 ence of his brothers, President Joseph Smith ordained him a 
 Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator, and then informed him 
 that he had all the necessary ordinations to lead the Church (in 
 his time), then leaped, smote his feet together, and observed 
 that it was done; in a few days Brother William started on his 
 mission and saw his brothers no more. He returned to Nauvoo 
 In about a year after they were murdered. 
 
 A comparison of the above with the quotation made 
 by Mr. Roberts will show that he has not been careful 
 In his copying. 
 
 I can not see that there is anything in William 
 Smith's testimony to convey the idea conveyed in the 
 statements of Young, Hyde, and Woodruff. He 
 simply says that Joseph Smith ordained him indi- 
 vidually, and makes no reference in this statement to 
 his bestowing authority upon the Twelve as such. 
 William Smith, as we have already shown, claimed 
 that the son of Joseph Smith was his legal successor ; 
 and in this same testimony given before the court, 
 Jrom which Mr. Roberts quotes a part, he says: "I 
 held the view that in case the legal successor who I 
 
APPENDIX. 201 
 
 seen as such, never came forward himself to occupy 
 that place that I held a sufficient claim under my 
 apostleship to be properly the legal successor to my 
 brother Joseph, in case that position was never held 
 at that time, by persons who at that time were 
 legally entitled to that position." (See answer to 
 question 464, page 192, Original Testimony.) So he 
 only claimed the right to preside when the legally 
 authorized President was not installed, and only then 
 by virtue of his apostleship. 
 
 He was further asked: "Had your brother ever 
 undertaken to confer upon you that authority?" To 
 which he answered: "Never any further than the 
 ordination conferring upon me the office of an apos- 
 tle." (See question 467, page 193, ibid.) The ordi- 
 nation referred to in the passage quoted by Mr. 
 Roberts is thus explained by Elder Smith himself. 
 
 Though Elder William Smith was made under 
 cross-examination to acknowledge the authorship of 
 what Mr. Roberts quotes, the language clearly indi- 
 cates that it was not the language of William Smith, 
 as he would not call himself "Brother William." He 
 was a very old man, hard of hearing at the time of 
 giving his testimony in court, and in all probability 
 was made to say what he did not intend to say, but 
 his explanation makes it plain. 
 
 If Mr. Roberts insists upon this testimony of Wil- 
 liam Smith quoted by him without its connection 
 being taken in evidence, it proves that William Smith 
 was ordained the successor of Joseph Smith, not 
 Brigham Young, nor any other member of the Quo- 
 rum of Twelve, and not Hyrum Smith; and Mr. 
 
202 APPENDIX. 
 
 Roberts' theory that Hyrum Smith was ordained the 
 successor, and that the keys were all bestowed upon 
 the Twelve as a quorum, falls to the ground under 
 the testimony of William Smith. 
 
 On the point of succession Mr. Roberts is con- 
 siderably confused. At one time he says Hyrum 
 Smith was ordained and set apart as the successor; at 
 another time that the keys and authority of the 
 priesthood were bestowed upon the Twelve as a quo- 
 rum and thus they were authorized to preside. And 
 now he comes forward with the testimony that Wil- 
 liam Smith was ordained to be the successor of 
 Joseph Smith. If Mr. Roberts and his associates will 
 take a position upon this point so that we will know 
 where they are and what they claim really was done 
 to provide for succession, we will be pleased to con- 
 sider their position more fully. Judging from Mr. 
 Roberts' treatise it would be impossible to tell what 
 their position is. 
 
 On page 109 Mr. Roberts again refers to the state- 
 ment made by Brigham Young at Council Bluffs in 
 1847, that they were about to reorganize the Church 
 with the First Presidency and Patriarch, and declares 
 that the language can not be construed to mean to 
 reorganize the Church. In his first edition he said 
 it only referred to the Presidency. He has made a 
 little improvement in his reply and adds the Patri- 
 arch. I said before that I was willing to let the 
 matter stand by simply quoting the words. I am still 
 content to do so. Here they are: 
 
 Since the murder of President Joseph Smith, many false 
 prophets and false teachers have arisen, and 'tried to deceive 
 
APPENDIX. 205 
 
 many, during which time we have mostly tarried with the body of 
 the Church, or been seeking a new location, leaving those prophets 
 and teachers to run their race undisturbed, who have died natural 
 deaths, or committed suicides; and we now, having in contem- 
 plation soon to reorganize the Church according to the original 
 pattern, with a First Presidency and Patriarch, etc. 
 
 On pages 110 and 111 Mr. Roberts enters into quite 
 an extended argument to prove that the approximates 
 of the numerical strength of the Church as given by 
 Joseph Smith on two different occasions, and by Wil- 
 ford Woodruff, were wrong, and says, "The numbers 
 they referred to were simply not in the Church." He 
 contends that Mr. Franklin D. Richards' estimates of 
 about twenty -six or twenty -seven thousand are much 
 more reliable. To confirm Elder Richards' estimates 
 he quotes a letter from George J. Adams to the Bos- 
 ton, Massachusetts, Bee, copied in the Times and 
 Seasons of March 15, 1843, where Mr. George J. 
 Adams places the membership in the United States 
 at fifty thousand, and those in the British Isles at 
 twenty thousand, and says that the editor of the 
 Times and Seasons corrects this by saying about ten 
 thousand in the British Isles. Then Mr. Roberts, 
 upon what authority I do not know, makes the state- 
 ment that if Mr. Adams' estimate in the United States 
 should be cut down one half it would be nearer the 
 truth. After getting these reductions made it would 
 leave thirty -five thousand, a discrepancy between 
 Richards' figures and Roberts' lowest estimate of 
 eight or nine thousand. 
 
 Nor does Mr. Roberts take into consideration that 
 the communication of Elder Adams was published in 
 Times and Seasons more than a year before the 
 
204 APPENDIX. 
 
 death of Joseph Smith, and hence the year and three 
 months increase was not computed by him ; nor the 
 further fact that the communication bears no date, 
 and hence we can not determine when it was written 
 nor when it was published in the Bee. Further, he 
 does not tell us that Elder Adams in his communica- 
 tion speaks of the work being established in Upper 
 Canada in 1836, "and soon spread through that 
 Province." "This glorious message has also spread 
 into Germany, a part of France, and reached even 
 Constantinople, Jerusalem, the East Indies, and the 
 islands of the seas." 
 
 These statements were before Mr. Roberts when he 
 quoted Elder Adams, and he knew that Elder Adams 
 made no computation of the numbers in these coun- 
 tries. Yet he quotes Mr. Adams' figures in the 
 United States and Great Britain as though that was 
 all. Reduces these figures one half ten thousand 
 on the authority of the editor of the Times and /Sea- 
 sons, and the other twenty- five thousand on his own 
 assertion, all to prove that Joseph Smith and Wilford 
 Woodruff did not know I 
 
 Further comment is needless. 
 
 Mr. Roberts quotes quite an array of testimony to 
 prove that an exploring expedition was authorized by 
 Joseph Smith to explore the western country. Some 
 of this testimony is of a very questionable character 
 and none of it is of very vital importance. Whether 
 they organized to explore or not has nothing to do 
 with the issues before us. I think it quite possible 
 that they discussed the propriety of going west, 
 south, and elsewhere; but that the determination 
 
APPENDIX. 205 
 
 was finally made to settle in Utah, does not appear 
 clear. And even if it did, it does not justify the 
 Church policy adopted in Utah, which is the real 
 issue between us. Nor would a determination in 
 council to make a location in Salt Lake Valley, or 
 anywhere else, change the decree of God as set forth 
 in the revelation locating Zion, and declaring that it 
 should not be removed out of its place. 
 
 In this connection Mr. Roberts introduces the tes- 
 timony of two men who claim to have volunteered to 
 go with the company to explore the West. The first 
 is Mr. S. W. Richards. He simply states that he was 
 one of a company of twenty-five young men to be sent 
 "westward to find a suitable place for the Saints to 
 move to, where they could rest for a time from tho 
 constant harassings and persecutions to which they 
 were then being subjected, and which was likely to 
 increase if the mob did not have the life of the Prophet 
 placed at their disposal.'* He does not say that they 
 were asked to go to the Rocky Mountains, only the 
 direction is indicated, westward from Nauvoo, and 
 that the place to be selected was to be a temporary 
 abiding place where the Saints could "rest for a 
 time." In closing his statement he remarks that 
 "California and Oregon if deemed necessary, were to 
 be the fields of our exploration ; while it was thought 
 Lower California would offer the greatest induce- 
 ments for locating a city for the Saints." This latter 
 statement seems to be thrown in incidentally. He 
 does not say that the Church authorities when asking 
 him to go westward indicated these places, nor where 
 the suggestion came from to explore California and 
 
206 APPENDIX. 
 
 Oregon. Taking this last statement, it is very indefi- 
 nite, showing that they had no settled decision as to 
 where they would go. 
 
 Mr. Joseph A. Kelting, the other witness, is as 
 indefinite upon this point as Mr. Richards, or even 
 more so. He says : "I also know that previous to the 
 death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, there was a 
 movement on foot, looking to the removal of the 
 Church from Illinois to the West. Joseph Smith was 
 the one who took lead in that matter, and called upon 
 certain brethren to go on an exploring expedition to 
 seek a suitable location for the Church; and I was 
 among the number selected to go." 
 
 There is no mention in this statement of the Rocky 
 Mountains or the Great Salt Lake; but simply west 
 from Illinois. After all their efforts to prove that 
 Joseph Smith originated the exodus to the Rocky 
 Mountains, they fail to prove that any place was 
 selected or that it was finally determined to go west 
 at all. The most that they can prove is that it was 
 under consideration and its feasibility discussed. 
 But as we have before said, that is not the issue at 
 all. The issue is upon the policies adopted by that 
 people. We have no objection to their temporary 
 residence in the Salt Lake Valley, or anywhere else. 
 Our objection is to making it the Zion of the Lord, 
 and to the doctrines taught and the policies inaugu- 
 rated. 
 
 Another subject, however, is introduced in this 
 statement of Mr. Kelting, and it is sought to prove 
 by him that Joseph Smith the Seer was implicated in 
 polygamy. In this as on other points Mr. Roberts is 
 
APPENDIX. 207 
 
 not treating upon the questions involved. The issue 
 between us is not whether Joseph Smith taught and 
 practiced polygamy or not; the question is, Is 
 polygamy right, or is it wrong? However, it is proper 
 to state that the evidence connecting Joseph Smith 
 with polygamy is very unsatisfactory so far as we 
 have been able to examine it; and this statement of 
 Mr. Kelting is no exception to the rule. He repre- 
 sents the Prophet as being too cowardly to openly 
 avow his convictions, which is exactly contrary to the 
 record of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He is repre- 
 sented as taking Kelting into a private room, locking 
 the door, and then making inquiry if he had heard 
 certain things. Then pledging him not to tell if he 
 revealed to him the facts in the case; getting his 
 promise not to betray him, and then confidentially 
 telling him about this plurality of wives doctrine; a 
 doctrine, according to the purported revelation on the 
 subject, that was of such importance as to affect the 
 salvation of men's souls in eternity. Notwithstand- 
 ing all this, the Prophet of the Lord in the secrecies 
 of his own chamber pledges a man not to tell this im- 
 portant thing, and puts him under obligations by get- 
 ting him to be a party to the practice. There is no one 
 present but Joseph Smith and Joseph A. Kelting; no 
 possibility of proving or disproving his statement by 
 other witnesses, so far as the original conversation is 
 concerned. The only intimation of any one knowing 
 anything about it is that he told it sometime a few 
 years ago to Alexander H. Smith, son of the Prophet. 
 Elder Alexander H. Smith being the only other wit- 
 ness in the case, we wrote him, sending him a copy of 
 
208 APPENDIX, 
 
 Mr. Joseph A. Kelting's statement and asking him to 
 answer for publication as to his remembrance of such 
 a conversation. In answer to our inquiry we received 
 the following : 
 
 DETROIT, Minnesota, July 11, 1903. 
 BRO. HEMAN SMITH: 
 
 Yours of July 2, containing affidavit of one Joseph A. Kelt- 
 ing, of Colton, California, reached me this forenoon on my 
 return from Bottineau, North Dakota. 
 
 I remember the man's name, but have no remembrance of 
 having called upon him while in California. If I did it was not 
 at Colton, but San Bernardino. 
 
 The man has simply drawn upon his imagination, for no such 
 conversation ever passed between us. It is of such a nature that 
 I should have remembered it. I could not well forget it. You . 
 will note he affirms his statement relative to the body of his 
 article, and incidentally says he told me of it. You may publish 
 my answer if you wish. 
 
 It is fabrication from beginning to end. The man evidently is 
 taking refuge under that infamous clause in that supposed reve- 
 lation on celestial marriage, which says, under certain condi- 
 tions a man may commit all manner of sins save the shedding of 
 innocent blood, etc. If that people are not taking refuge under 
 a covering of lies, this world never saw a people who did. 
 
 Mr. Anson's statement is again published; but we 
 quoted that in our reply to Mr. Roberts and made all 
 the comments necessary. Then comes the purported 
 statement of Gideon Carter without the signature of 
 Mr. Carter, but stating that it was subscribed and 
 sworn to the twenty -seventh day of February, 1874, 
 before J. C. Christy, a notary public in and for San 
 Bernardino County, state of California. Why Mr, 
 Carter's signature is not secured seems strange. I 
 was personally acquainted with Mr. Gideon Carter, 
 and believed him to be an honest and truthful man. 
 
APPENDIX. 209 
 
 can hardly credit the report that he ever said what 
 he is reported to have said in this statement; for he 
 represents that at the time of the death of Joseph 
 Smith the Prophet he was living in the family of 
 Orange Lysander Wight, the son of Lyman Wight. 
 Though he does not say that they resided in Nauvoo, 
 that inference is to be drawn, for he is relating 
 events that transpired in Nauvoo, and he says that 
 the killing of the Prophet is an event that he dis- 
 tinctly remembers. 
 
 Now, if Mr. Gideon Carter lived in the family of 
 Orange Lysander Wight, in the spring and summer 
 of 1844, he was not at Nauvoo but at Black River 
 Falls, Wisconsin. A boy thirteen years of age, liv- 
 ing in Wisconsin, with means of communication so 
 limited as they then were, could have known but very 
 little of events transpiring at Nauvoo at that period of 
 time. 
 
 Lyman Wight in his journal states : 
 
 I started about the middle of April, 1844, to Nauvoo witL my 
 wife and my three youngest children. My three oldest children 
 having married on the sixth day of February last, I left them to 
 tarry with the remainder of the company until the first of July 
 next, having already sold the mills, but reserved them until that 
 time. 
 
 Orange Wight was the oldest son of Lyman Wight, 
 and is one of the three spoken of. The mills spoken 
 of were at Black River Falls, Wisconsin, which place 
 Lyman Wight was leaving in the middle of April to 
 go to Nauvoo. According to this statement Mr. 
 Gideon Carter is wrong; also when he says that 
 Orange Wight married his sister Matilda Carter about 
 
210 APPENDIX. 
 
 a year before the killing of Joseph Smith, for that 
 event occurred on February 6, 1844, not quite five 
 months before the death of Joseph Smith. He had 
 been living in Wisconsin from sometime in 1843 until 
 the middle of April, and was living there in April, 
 1844, to continue in possession of the mills until the 
 first of the following July. His oldest sister, Mrs. 
 Anna C. Smith, one of the three spoken of, who was 
 married at the same time he was, now residing at 
 Lamoni, Iowa, says she does not remember distinctly 
 the date of their arrival in Nauvoo; but does remem- 
 ber distinctly that it was after the death of the 
 Prophet, and that she came down the river on a raft 
 in company with her brother Orange. 
 
 So Mr. Carter, if he ever made the statement, may 
 be right in saying that he lived with Orange Lysander 
 Wight; but if so, he is a very poor witness of what 
 transpired at Nauvoo, being but a boy of thirteen 
 years and not present. The rest of his testimony is 
 very unimportant. He relates that Lyman Wight 
 made certain claims in Texas in regard to the doc- 
 trine of polygamy. This is but second-hand testi- 
 mony. Mr. Carter knows nothing about it. I have 
 talked with Carter in regard to it; and while I found 
 him quite willing to throw the responsibility of the 
 conduct of those with whom he was nearly related 
 upon Joseph Smith, he personally knew nothing in 
 regard to Joseph Smith's connection with the practice 
 of polygamy. 
 
 I presume that the date of this statement of Mr. 
 Carter is a typographical error, and that it should be 
 1894 instead of 1874, as Mr. Roberts was in that 
 
APPENDIX. 211 
 
 country in 1894, and the date of the statement of 
 Joseph A. Kelting is March 1, 1894. The date of 
 Carter's probably should be February 27, 1894. At 
 that time Mr. Roberts was contemplating a discussion 
 with some elders of the Reorganization in San Ber- 
 nardino, and was doubtless collecting these state- 
 ments for that purpose. But if so, why did he not 
 give his opponents an opportunity to be present when 
 these examinations were made and to cross-examine 
 the witnesses. Right in the neighborhood where his 
 opponents were living, and where it was supposed 
 the discussion would take place, he privately inter- 
 viewed parties, procured a signed statement from 
 one, and now publishes another unsigned and gives 
 no opportunity for the other side to be represented. 
 Such testimony as this is of but very little value; 
 and we have already given it all the consideration 
 that it merits, if not more. 
 
 Mr. Roberts publishes a statement purporting to be 
 a statement of John Taylor and Orson Hyde, in a 
 communication to the Saints in Great Britain, in 
 which they give notice of the removal of the. Church 
 from Nauvoo, and further say "years before the 
 temple was completed, and long before the martyr- 
 dom of our Prophet and Patriarch. Many living 
 witnesses can testify that we proposed moving to 
 California, leaving the land of our oppression, 
 preaching the gospel to the Lamanites, building up 
 other temples to the living God, and establishing 
 ourselves in the far distant West." 
 
 This is immaterial. Suppose there was a proposi- 
 
212 APPENDIX. 
 
 tion of that kind ; it does not affect the main question 
 at issue, as we have before shown. 
 
 On page 127 Mr. Roberts makes another of his 
 historical mistakes. He says that "the Church while 
 in the Eastern States never numbered more than 
 three or at the most four stakes of Zion." 
 
 Mr. Roberts will hardly dispute that there was a 
 stake at Kirtland, Ohio; one at Adam-ondi-Ahman, 
 in Missouri; one at Commerce, or Nauvoo; one 
 called the Zarahemla Stake, across the river from 
 Nauvoo. Millennial /Star, volume 18, page 55, con- 
 tains a notice of the First Presidency deciding to 
 organize a stake at Crooked Creek, Illinois. On 
 December 4 and 5, 1841 , a conference was held at 
 Ramus, Illinois, at which time it was decided that 
 the organization of Ramus Stake should be discon- 
 tinued. At the October conference of 1840 a "com- 
 mittee was appointed to organize stakes, consisting 
 of Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, and Almon Babbitt; 
 and during the same month they organized stakes at 
 Lima, Quincy, Mount Hope, and Freedom, and on 
 the first of November they organized a stake called 
 Geneva Stake, in Morgan County, Illinois. 
 
 Here are at least eleven stakes organized in the 
 East. Mr. Roberts may mean, however, that there 
 were never more than three or four at the same time. 
 But this is not true, for here is an account of at least 
 five organized within one month after the October 
 conference of 1840. 
 
 In my reply to Mr. Roberts I refused to take the 
 statement in that "carefully revised" history of 
 Joseph Smith as evidence that there could be more 
 
APPENDIX. 213 
 
 than seven quorums of seventy legally in existence 
 at the same time. Mr. Roberts, on page 129 of his 
 revised edition, cites as confirmation of his former 
 statement the following from a copy of the manu- 
 script of Church History written by John Whitmer : 
 
 About the same time . . . there were seventy high priests 
 chosen, who were called elders, to be under the direction of the 
 Twelve and assist them according to their needs, and if the 
 seventy were not enough, call seventy more until seventy times 
 seventy. 
 
 This history, written by John Whitmer, of which 
 Mr. Roberts says the Church in Utah has a copy, is 
 now in our hands. The quotation by Mr. Roberts is 
 nearly correct; but Mr. Roberts would hardly be 
 willing to take the statement of John Whitmer as 
 being correct in every particular, for he will not 
 admit, I believe, that these seventy were high priests. 
 There are many things in this history of John Whit- 
 mer which Mr. Roberts would not admit as authori- 
 tative. If Mr. Roberts has had an opportunity of 
 perusing the copy of this history, he certainly knows 
 that Mr. Whitmer was not an accurate historian. Nor 
 has the Church in Utah confined itself to the limit set 
 forth in this quotation from John Whitmer. They 
 have more than doubled the number of "seventy 
 times seventy." 
 
 On page 132 Mr. Roberts quotes a statement made 
 in our reply to the effect that ordinations to the 
 priesthood for the dead, endowments for the dead, 
 sealings (husbands and wives) for the dead, sealings 
 (children to parents) for the dead, were not contem- 
 plated in the law of God ; and then asks the author 
 
214 APPENDIX. 
 
 of the "Reply" if he will "undertake to argue that 
 confirmation is not as necessary to salvation of the 
 dead as baptism; or that baptism is complete with- 
 out the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as well as the 
 baptism of water." 
 
 Certainly not. Why does Mr. Roberts lug in the 
 ordinance of confirmation and the receiving of the 
 Holy Ghost here, when it is not mentioned by us? 
 We mentioned that the law did not contemplate ordi- 
 nations for the dead, endowments for the dead, 
 the sealing of husbands and wives, and the sealing 
 of children to parents. We do not deny the ordi- 
 nance of confirmation in its proper place nor the 
 reception of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But he again quotes (page 133) that revised history 
 of Joseph Smith, volume twelve of Millennial /Star, 
 page 664. This reference is probably a typograph- 
 ical error, as we have not been able to find the 
 quotation by the reference. But this particular quo- 
 tation purports to be a sermon delivered by Joseph 
 Smith, January 20, 1844, reported by Elder Wood- 
 ruff. He is there made to say regarding the dead : 
 
 But how are we to become saviors on Mount Zion? By build- 
 ing their temples, erecting their baptismal fonts, and going 
 forth and receiving all the ordinances, baptisms, confirmations, 
 washings, anointings, ordinations, and sealing powers upon 
 their heads, in behalf of all their progenitors who are dead, and 
 redeem them that they may come forth in the first resurrection 
 and be exalted to thrones of glory with them; and herein is the 
 chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the children, and 
 the hearts of the children to the fathers, which fulfills the mis- 
 sion of Elijah. 
 
APPENDIX. 215 
 
 The only point in which this purported sermon 
 conflicts with our statement is on the ordinations. 
 Nothing even in that about sealing husbands and 
 wives, parents and children! We are still of the 
 opinion that the people in Utah are doing work in 
 their temples not authorized by the law of God, at 
 least they have not been able to produce any law 
 covering their practices. 
 
 Mr. Roberts in his first edition stated that "some 
 of our 'friends' of high standing in the 'Reorganiza- 
 tion* joining in the hue and cry against the Saints of 
 God, and aiding in the work of misrepresentation." 
 
 In replying to this I challenged the proof that 
 the Reorganization had aided in the work of mis- 
 representation. Replying to this challenge Mr. Rob- 
 erts says : 
 
 Well, here is the proof: On February 22, 1882, in the course 
 of a speech against the Church in Utah, Joseph Smith, the 
 President of the Reorganized Church said: 
 
 "There were many men in Utah who were single because they 
 said they had no assurance they could find for wives women who 
 were not contaminated. They might go to the farm houses to 
 choose wives, but could not feel certain that some of the bishops 
 had not been there and robbed the daughters of their virtue. " 
 The Chicago Daily Inter- Ocean, February 23, 1882. 
 
 The Chicago Times' version of this part of the same speech, 
 under the caption "A Lusty War Cry" (issue of February 23, 
 1882), is as follows: 
 
 "There are hundreds and thousands of Mormons in Utah who 
 will not marry wives because they do not know where to get 
 wives that have not been contaminated. They do not know what 
 houses have escaped the invasion of lecherous bishops who have 
 robbed hundreds of women of their purity. The men can not 
 afford to take the risks that marriage means." 
 
 Many vile and vicious things have been said of the Saints in 
 
216 APPENDIX. 
 
 Utah, but it was reserved for Joseph Smith, the President of the 
 Reorganized Church, to say at once the most untruthful, the 
 lowest, the most contemptible, cowardly, and vicious thing that 
 ever was said of a much-maligned and misrepresented people. 
 And what makes it so utterly inexcusable is the fact that the 
 speaker knew better; for he had been in Utah, and had been 
 among the people sufficiently to know that no such conditions as 
 he describes in that speech existed. It was malicious, willful 
 misrepresentation. He bore false witness against his neighbors. 
 At the time of the speech I noted down the misrepresantations, 
 not from the Chicago papers, but from other papers, for the 
 false statement was widely copied, and I think made a dispatch 
 to the press of the country. Recently I sent to the Chicago 
 papers and had the above quotations verified. 
 
 It is only necessary to say in this connection that 
 President Joseph Smith denied these statements, and 
 published his denial immediately after. In the 
 /Saints 9 Herald for June 1, 1882, there is not only a 
 denial but a statement of what he did say as follows : 
 
 Some of the statements made by the Editor in the speech, 
 complained of by the News, are not given in the Tribune's report 
 as they were uttered. This is the case with the one referring to 
 the "contamination of women by Mormon bishops." The state- 
 ment as made by the Editor was this; that whi e in Salt Lake 
 City, in 1876, he became acquainted with an unmarried man, 
 then thirty-nine years old, whose youth and early manhood had 
 been spent in Utah. The Editor asked him the question why 
 he had not married, and he gave in reply substantially, that 
 he did not know where to go in the Territory, to get a wife; that 
 it was not easy to find young marriageable women who were not 
 already married into polygamous families, or were bespoken for 
 some bishop. This man further stated that he was not alone in 
 being unmarried for the same cause, the contamination of 
 polygamy. We believe the statement made by him was true; 
 but the Tribune's report gives the Editor as the author of the 
 saying. 
 
APPENDIX. 217 
 
 Notwithstanding this denial the people of Utah 
 continued to reiterate the charge ; and July 2, 1885, 
 President Smith while in Salt Lake City wrote a 
 communication on the subject to the Deseret News 
 and handed it to the editor in person. I am informed 
 that it did not appear. It was, however, published in 
 the Saints' Advocate for July, 1885. - The letter is as 
 follows : 
 
 SALT LAKE CITY, July 2, 1885. 
 
 Editor Deseret News: Please do me the justice of the follow- 
 ing correction: . 
 
 The statement complained of by you in your to-day's issue, as 
 given in the Chicago Tribune's report of my Chicago speech, 
 February 22, 1882, was not made by me in the form stated. The 
 statement made by me was, 'That while in Salt Lake City, in 
 1876, 1 became acquainted with an unmarried man, then thirty- 
 nine years old, whose youth and early manhood had been spent 
 in Utah. I asked him the question why he had not married, and 
 he gave in reply, substantially, that he did not know where to 
 go in the Territory to get a wife ; that it was not easy to find 
 young marriageable women, who were not already married into 
 polygamous families, or were bespoken for some bishop. This 
 man further stated that he was not alone in being unmarried for 
 the same cause, the contamination of polygamy " 
 
 Neither the Times nor Herald gave the sentence in the 
 obnoxious form used by the Tribune. I had twice before been 
 misrepresented by the same paper, and tried to have them set 
 me right, and failed ; and so did not try in this instance ; but in 
 the issue of our own paper, the Saints' Herald for June 1, 
 1882, as soon after the presentation of the matter in your issue 
 for May 13, 1882, as it was possible, 1. published this correction, 
 of which a copy of the paper containing it was sent you, with 
 the denial of having made the statement; using the following 
 language concerning it: ''The statement as given iii the Tribune 
 report, and which the News denounces as an 'atrocious lie,' was 
 not made as stated. The Times and Herald each published a 
 
218 APPENDIX. 
 
 report, and neither of them got the remark in the form given by 
 the Tribune. As given it is a harsh remark, of which we do not 
 object to the News finding fault." 
 
 The virtue and purity of the women of Utah, aside from 
 plural marriage, were not questioned by me and never have 
 been. 
 
 I hand you herewith a copy of the Saints 1 Herald for June 1, 
 1882, that you may see that I made the correction of the 
 improper statement as soon as I could after my attention was 
 called to it. Had I made the remark I should justly deserve 
 censure; but not having made it, you should in honor to your- 
 self and justice to me permit this to go before your readers. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 JOSEPH SMITH. 
 
 Mr. Roberts may claim that the denial of President 
 Smith was only on the Tribune report, whereas he is 
 quoted from the Daily Inter- Ocean and the Chicago 
 Times. But though the reports in these papers may 
 differ, Mr. Roberts certainly is not justified, in the 
 light of these explanations, in quoting the language 
 as President Smith's when he clearly states that it 
 was the language of another, and also gives the lan- 
 guage which he did use, which differs materially from 
 that published in the Times, Inter- Ocean, Herald, and 
 Tribune. 
 
 In Mr. Roberts' late edition of his book he adds an 
 article entitled, "A Sufficient Answer to Josephites," 
 which purports to have been published in the Improve- 
 ment Era for February, 1898, and is now copied into 
 this treatise. 
 
 In the first place he essays to state the position of 
 the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 Saints, and states for them that they hold that Joseph 
 Smith, the President of their organization, of right 
 
APPENDIX. 219 
 
 should have succeeded to the Presidency for two rea- 
 sons: "First, because, as they allege, it is his birth- 
 right; and second, by virtue of an ordination to that 
 position which they affirm he received from his father 
 before the latter 's martyrdom." 
 
 This is not only a misstatement of the case but a 
 partial statement also. The "Josephites" do claim that 
 all other things being equal he had prior right by 
 birthright; but they do not claim that he was ordained 
 to that position by his father (only in the sense that 
 an appointment can be called an ordination), but 
 simply that he was blessed and designated as the 
 successor. It was an appointment, not an ordination 
 to the priesthood. 
 
 He should have said that the claim is made not only 
 upon these two reasons, but, third, that he was called 
 of God to that position ; fourth, that he was accepted 
 by the Church to serve in that capacity, and, fifth, 
 that he was properly ordained by those authorized. 
 
 He again misstates our position when he says that 
 the Reorganization claims "that in leading the people 
 to Utah, the Twelve led them astray." It is not our 
 claim, and Mr. Roberts ought to know it, that they led 
 the people astray in leading them to Utah, but that 
 they led them astray in many things besides leading 
 bhem to Utah. 
 
 The "Sufficient Answer to Josephites," as Mr. 
 Roberts terms it, consists in this : That in May, 1843, 
 Joseph Smith had an interview with Stephen A. 
 Douglas, and during that interview he said : 
 
 Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States ; 
 and if you ever turn your hand against me or the Latter Day 
 
220 APPENDIX. 
 
 Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of the Almighty 
 upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified 
 the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to 
 you through life. 
 
 He claims that this prophecy was fulfilled, and that 
 the hand of the Almighty rested upon Stephen A. 
 Douglas because Mr. Douglas made a speech on the 
 twelfth day of June, 1857, in Springfield, Illinois, in 
 the course of which he said, referring to the Mor- 
 mons: 
 
 Should such a state of things actually exist as we are led to 
 infer from the reports and such information comes in an official 
 shape the knife must be applied to this pestiferous, disgusting 
 cancer which is gnawing into the very vitals of the body politic. 
 It must be cut out by the roots, and seared over by the red-hot 
 iron of stern and unflinching law. . . . Should all efforts fail 
 to bring them to a sense of their duty, there is but one remedy 
 left. Repeal the organic law of the Territory, on the ground 
 that they are alien enemies and outlaws, unfit to be citizens of a 
 territory, much less ever to become citizens of one of the free 
 and independent States of this confederacy. 
 
 This was said regarding the people in Utah ; but it 
 will be noticed that Mr. Douglas based this strong 
 statement on the contingency that "such a state of 
 things actually exists as we are led to infer from the 
 reports." Perhaps Mr. Douglas was right; and if a 
 state of things such as was reported existed there, 
 the measures advocated by Mr. Douglas would have 
 been proper. We have not the reports and can not 
 judge. But why hold, as Mr. Roberts concludes, 
 that the judgments of God followed Stephen A. 
 Douglas any more than any other defeated candidate 
 for the presidency? Other men have been defeated. 
 Other men died after* their defeat; and but few if 
 
APPENDIX. 221 
 
 any died more honored than Stephen A. Douglas by 
 that portion of the citizenship which supported him. 
 
 But to show Mr. Roberts' ignorance of the facts ot 
 history we have but to quote one paragraph of his 
 comments found on page 146 of his revised work : 
 
 Stephen A. Douglas did aspire to the presidency of the 
 United States, and was nominated for that office by the Demo- 
 cratic Convention, held in Charleston, on the 23d of June, 1860 
 When in the convention he was declared the regular nominee oJ 
 the Democratic party, "The whole body rose to its feet, hata 
 were waved in the air and many tossed aloft; shouts, screams, 
 and yells, and every boisterous mode of expressing approbatior 
 and unanimity, were resorted to." 
 
 When Mr. Douglas aspired to the presidency, no man in th 
 history of American politics had more reason to hope for suc- 
 cess. The political party of which he was the recognized leader, 
 in the preceding presidential election had polled 174 electoral 
 votes, as against 122 cast by the other two parties which opposed 
 it; and a popular vote of 1,838,169, as against 1,215,798 votes 
 for the two parties opposing. 
 
 It would be hard to form a passage as short as this 
 with more mistakes in it. Stephen A. Douglas was 
 not nominated at Charleston. The Charleston con- 
 vention was not held in June but in April, at which 
 time there was a division in the convention ; and the 
 part of the convention that favored Douglas met at 
 Baltimore, Maryland, June 18, and there Douglas 
 was nominated. He was not declared the regular 
 nominee of the Democratic party in the convention 
 that met at Charleston ; simply the nominee of that 
 convention that met at Baltimore. The Democratic 
 party did not poll a majority of the popular vote in 
 1856 as asserted by Mr. Roberts. Mr. Buchanan 
 polled 1,838,169 just as Mr. Roberts gives it, but his 
 
222 APPENDIX. 
 
 two opponents' combined vote was greater than his. 
 Fremont received 1,341,264, and Fillmore 874,534; 
 making their combined vote 2,215,798. A mistake of 
 just one million, a characteristic mistake for Roberts 
 after all! (See History of Ready Reference by 
 Larned, vol. 5; also Greeley's American Conflict, 
 vol. 1.) It is not true that no man in politics had 
 more reason than Douglas to hope for success. Had 
 he represented the Democratic party as a whole, he 
 might have had great reasons to hope for success; 
 but he represented but a faction, and was nominated 
 by a faction. 
 
 Mr. Roberts asserts that he "died at his home 
 in Chicago, a disappointed, not to say heart-broken 
 man." 
 
 There is no reason to say that he was a heart- 
 broken man. Disappointed, of course, as many other 
 men have been, but Stephen A. Douglas had the 
 manly courage after his defeat, when the Union 
 was about to be rent asunder, to rally to the sup- 
 port of Mr. Lincoln, his successful competitor. 
 He advocated that it was the duty of the defeated 
 party to sustain Mr. Lincoln's administration and the 
 Union. 
 
 Mr. Roberts concludes after making these misstate- 
 ments that this is a sufficient answer to the Joseph - 
 ites because it was not the Josephites whom Douglas 
 spoke against but the people in Utah; and that 
 he died under the judgment of God because he did 
 so speak. 
 
 In the first place he did not speak against the peo- 
 ple in Utah only on the supposition that reports con- 
 
APPENDIX. 223 
 
 cerning them were tr.ue. In the second place there is 
 no evidence that the judgment of God specially fol- 
 lowed him. I presume Mr. Roberts would agree 
 that if reports concerning the people in Utah were 
 true some heroic measures would be necessary. 
 
 In Appendix 1, page 153, Mr. Roberts gives some 
 instances of history which he claims would justify 
 Joseph Smith in receiving a revelation on polygamy 
 and keeping it secret, and that the charge of coward- 
 ice if he did so would not obtain. He speaks of Jesus 
 the Christ saying unto his disciples that they should 
 tell no man the vision, and quotes from that care- 
 fully revised history of Joseph Smith to show that on 
 different occasions he counseled the elders not tc 
 teach certain doctrines until the work was more fully 
 established. He also quotes from the revelation oi 
 March 7, 1831, as follows: 
 
 And now I say unto you, Keep these things from going abroad 
 unto the world, until it is expedient in me, that ye may accom- 
 plish this work in the eyes of the people and in the eyes of your 
 enemies, that they may not know your works until ye have 
 accomplished the thing which I have commanded you. Doctrine 
 and Covenants 45: 15. (Utah edition, paragraph 72.) 
 
 In the instruction of Christ to his disciples there 
 was no principle of practice involved regarding which 
 they were to keep silent. To make the revelation of 
 1831 apply Mr. Roberts would have to maintain that 
 the terms these things and this work mean identically 
 the same thing a construction that the context will 
 not justify. 
 
 The Lord has just been explaining some of his 
 teaching to the early disciples, and says : 
 
224 APPENDIX. 
 
 It shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning 
 this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all 
 these things shall be made known; wherefore I give unto you 
 that you may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the 
 things to come," etc. Paragraph 11. 
 
 A very good reason for keeping these things was 
 that they were not fully revealed. This was given in 
 March, 1831, and was of course to be understood in 
 the light of what was given on the same point the 
 month before as follows : 
 
 Thou shalt ask, and my scriptures shall be given as I have 
 appointed, and they shall be preserved in safety; and it is 
 expedient that thou shouldst hold thy peace concerning them, 
 and not teach them until ye have received them in full. And I 
 give unto you a commandment, that then ye shall teach them 
 unto all men; for they shall be taught unto all nations, kin- 
 dreds, tongues, and people." Doctrine and Covenants 42: 15. 
 (Utah edition, paragraphs 56-58.) 
 
 In the passage which Mr. Roberts quotes the 
 phrase these things refers to the things which the 
 Lord was partially explaining but which were not to, 
 be fully revealed until the New Testament was trans- 
 lated, and hence were not at that time to go unto the 
 world. But this work referred to as "the thing which 
 I have commanded you" refers to the work in hand, 
 namely, the translation of the Scriptures. They 
 understood by the express terms of the former com- 
 mandment that they were to teach to all men the 
 things prescribed as soon as they were revealed in 
 full. 
 
 In the case of the polygamous revelation, so called, 
 it was kept secret after it was revealed and in full 
 force. Exactly tfre opposite prooeduare from the one 
 referred to in the revelation of 1831. 
 
APPENDIX. 225 
 
 There is nothing in what Mr. Roberts has quoted 
 to justify the keeping of anything secret which affects 
 the souls of men when the time for the accomplish- 
 ment of the work arrives. 
 
 In Appendix 2, page 155, he seeks to justify the 
 Church authorities in declining to discuss the issues 
 between them and the Reorganization, and again 
 quotes that carefully revised history by President 
 Brigham Young, to show that Joseph Smith told the 
 elders not to contend with others on account of their 
 faith or systems of religion, but to pursue a steady 
 course. An open, fair discussion of differences, and 
 a contention with others on account of their faith or 
 systems of religion, are quite different things. This 
 did not forbid discussion held in the proper spirit of 
 discussion. It was not so understood at the time, if 
 indeed Joseph Smith ever said it; for the elders at 
 that time did meet all who cared to differ from them 
 in discussion. Few if any opportunities of the kind 
 were ever declined. This shows that it was not their 
 understanding that debates were forbidden. 
 
 But Mr. Roberts says : 
 
 Though there may be times and circumstances when public 
 debate would be proper and at such times and places the elders 
 of the Church will not be found wanting in the courage neces- 
 sary to defend the truth. 
 
 It is peculiar, however, that the times and circum- 
 stances are always propitious when these Utah repre- 
 sentatives meet the sectarian world; but entirely 
 unpropitious when it becomes necessary to discuss 
 with the 1 representatives of the Reorganization. 
 
 Mr. Roberts closes with the testimony of President 
 
226 APPENDIX. 
 
 Wilford Woodruff. I have already noticed that in my 
 former treatise, and showed that he differed from the 
 record in important particulars; and Mr. Roberts has 
 not undertaken a defense. I therefore leave the mat- 
 ter for the consideration of the reader without further 
 comment on this point. 
 
 If in anything we are surprised at Mr. Roberts' 
 attempt to reply to our criticism, it is that the weak- 
 ness of his position becomes more apparent, and we 
 are more than ever convinced of the soundness of the 
 position of the Reorganization. 
 
 Mr. Roberts in the course of his remarks throws 
 out insinuations that we have abandoned certain 
 positions because we did not defend all the argu- 
 ments made by representatives of the Reorganiza- 
 tion. Personally we have abandoned no position 
 taken in the former book. It can hardly be expected 
 of us, nor would Roberts be willing to place himself 
 in that attitude, to defend all the arguments made by 
 parties on his side of the question. It is not always, 
 however, because we are not willing to defend that 
 we have kept silent. Sometimes defense was not 
 needed. Arguments may be fallacious ; men may in 
 their zeal strain texts to apply them where we do not 
 see the application ; but after all and the most that 
 can be said, the position occupied by the Reorgani- 
 zation is invulnerable; and should the policy of the 
 Reorganization continue to be in harmony with the 
 foundations laid and the positions occupied by its 
 early defenders it can not fail of success. 
 
 I submit this brief review, praying that the bless- 
 ing of God may attend it; that light and liberty 
 
APPENDIX. 227 
 
 may come to those who read, together with the 
 courage of conviction, that they may henceforth 
 stand for the right and the truth. 
 
 BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Account of meeting, 7. 
 
 Adam-God, theory of, taught, 123, 
 124, 145. 
 
 Adams, G. J., connected with 
 Wm. Smith, 18 ; elation of, 47 ; 
 on succession, 47, 48. 
 
 Additional correspondence, 149. 
 
 Amboy Conference, complaint 
 filed against, 121. 
 
 Answers insisted upon, 62. 
 
 Apostasy to take place, 90. 
 
 Apostleship, senior of, to pre- 
 side, 28. 
 
 Apostolic authority, of Reorgani- 
 zation, 62; renewal of, 141. 
 
 Approval of church necessary, 31. 
 
 Arizona, colonies formed in, 93. 
 
 Authority, prepared for defense 
 of, 62; command of God suffi- 
 cient, 143. 
 
 Baldwin Caleb, not on record, 40. 
 
 Baptism, for the dead, 95; legal 
 and sufficient, 118. 
 
 Beeman, Alva, ordination of, 155, 
 156. 
 
 Bennett, J. C., conspiracy of. 8. 
 
 Benson, E. T., dispatched to meet 
 companies, 116; present at re- 
 organization, 119; received into 
 Twelve, 121. 
 
 Biography of Anson Call, 88. 
 
 Bishop, law of lineage appertain- 
 ing to, 50. 
 
 Blessing of Joseph Smith, 41, 43- 
 48, 132. 
 
 Blood atonement taught by 
 Young and Grant, 126-128, 145. 
 
 Bond, Ira, ordination of, 156. 
 
 Briggs, J. W., priesthood of, 28; 
 revelation to, 134; instruction 
 to, 134, 137. 
 
 Butterfield. Josiah, cut off the 
 church, 122. 
 
 Calhoun, J. C., letter to, 55, 56. 
 
 Call, Anson, biography of, 88. 
 
 Cannon, Abram, position of, 53; 
 ordination of, 157. 
 
 Cannon, G. Q.. testimony of 9; 
 sermon of, 129. 
 
 Carlin, Gov., conspiracy of, 8. 
 
 Carter, J. H., testimony of, 48. 
 
 Challenge, acceptance of, 57. 
 
 Christ, concerning birth of, 124. 
 
 Church, where is it who repre- 
 sents it, 5; satisfied with Rig- 
 don, 8; approval of necessary, 
 31; disorganization of, 68; re- 
 jection of, 68, 69 ; held together, 
 87; numerical strength of, 59, 
 87 ; to be driven West, 88, 91 ; 
 remove to Rocky Mountains, 
 88-91. 
 
 Clark, J. B., letter of, 153. 
 
 Clawson, H. B., statement of, 129. 
 
 Code of good morals, Joseph 
 Smith pledged to, 32, 33 ; Reor- 
 ganization adheres to, 138. 
 
 Colorado, colonies formed in, 93. 
 
 Committees to select Twelve, 141, 
 142. 
 
 Conference of October, 1843, 8; at 
 Amboy, 121. 
 
 Conspiracy of Carlin, et al., 8. 
 
 Correspondence, of Carlin, et al., 
 8; between Smith and Rich- 
 ards, 59-61. 
 
 Counterfeit, Reorganized Church 
 a, 84. 
 
 Cowdery, Oliver, apostolic au- 
 thority of, 63 ; to select Twelve 
 ordains them, 141. 
 
 Cowdery, William, ordination of, 
 155, 156. 
 
 Credit attaches to Prophet. 90. 
 
 Criminal record, glory of, 99. 
 
 Dealings of God, history of, 10. 
 Debts, Young's teaching concern- 
 ing, 124, 125. 
 Derry, Charles, testimony of, 48. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 229 
 
 Deseret News, evasive answers 
 of, 61, 62; statement of, 129; 
 letters of, 150, 151 ; should re- 
 tract, 159. 
 
 Edict not enforced without con- 
 sent, 81. 
 
 Eldredge, H. S., ordination of, 
 157. 
 
 Endowments for the dead, 95. 
 
 Expelled without trial, 122. 
 
 Family chosen of God rejected, 
 
 131. 
 First Presidency, what need have 
 
 they for, 83. 
 Fjelsted, Daniel, ordination of, 
 
 157. 
 
 Gates, Jacob, ordination of, 157. 
 
 Gaulter, H. E., testimony of, 48. 
 
 Gaulter, Louis, testimony of, 48. 
 
 Gospel Herald attacks Lyman 
 Wight, 37-39. 
 
 Grant, J. M., on blood atone- 
 ment, 127; ordination of, 157. 
 
 Grant, H. J., position of, 53. 
 
 Gurley, Z. H., Sen., revelation 
 to, 34; authority of, 63. 
 
 Harris, Martin, added to commit- 
 teeordains, 141. 
 
 Hewett, Richard, letter of, to J. 
 J. Strang, 24, 25. 
 
 High Council, changes made in, 
 122 ; Marks President of, 142. 
 
 History, added to misrepre- 
 sented, 8 ; of God's dealings, 10. 
 
 Holy Scriptures, preservation of, 
 139; property of Reorganiza- 
 tion, 140. 
 
 Hyde, Orson, suspended from of- 
 ficerestored, 16 ; challenged by 
 Strang reply of, 26, 27 ; quotes 
 rule to test revelations, 81; 
 statement of, 81, 82; in the 
 East, 114; position of on rebap- 
 tism, 117, 118. 
 
 Idaho, colonies formed in, 93. 
 Improvement Associations, es- 
 tablishing of, 93. 
 
 Independence Temple, building 
 
 of, 97. 
 Inspired Translation, on order of ' 
 
 priesthood, 55. 
 Isaiah, prophecy of, 92. 
 Issue, rests upon what done and 
 
 how done, 79; the real, 85; 
 
 clearly defined, 155. 
 
 Jaques, John, signs for Richards, 
 61. 
 
 Jensen, Andrew, statement of, 
 97; Historical Record of, 156. 
 
 "Josephite" contention sus- 
 tained, 159. 
 
 Kay, James, letter of, 18. 
 
 Key doctrine, legitimate results 
 of, 145. 
 
 Keys, belong to Presidency, 44, 
 134; not taken by Joseph, 76; 
 definition of, 77, 78 ; interpreta- 
 tion of, 78; bestowed on the 
 Twelve, 80-83. 
 
 Kimball, H. C., in the East, 114; 
 rebaptized reordained, 116; at- 
 tends council chosen coun- 
 selor, 119. 
 
 Kirtland Temple, building of, 97; 
 title in Reorganization, 98. 
 
 Leading spirits, Penrose's asser- 
 tion concerning, 101. 
 
 Letter, Kay to Millennial Star, 
 18 ; Miller and Hewett to Strang, 
 24, 25; Strang to Taylor and 
 Hyde, 26; Hyde and Taylor to 
 Strang, 27 ; Wight to Northern 
 Islander, 36 ; Smith to Richards, 
 59-61; Richards to Smith, 59; 
 Smith to Stubbart, 104-111 ; Luff 
 to Parker, 111-113; Long to Pen- 
 rose, 149-151 ; Deseret News to 
 Long, 150, 151 ; Penrose to Long, 
 152; Clark to Richards, 153; 
 Richards to Clark, 154. 
 
 Liars, Young's claims concerning, 
 125. 
 
 Lineal priesthood, 17-20, 88, 44, 45, 
 50-56; practiced by Utah 
 Church, 53. 
 
 Logan, temple of, 95, 96, 98. 
 
230 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Long, J. O., letters of, 149-151. 
 
 Luff, Joseph, letter of concern- 
 ing interview, 111-113. 
 
 Lyman, Amasa, addresses meet- 
 ing, 12 ; rebaptism and reordi- 
 nation of, 116; present at 
 reorganization, 119 ; offered 
 position, 121. 
 
 Lyman, F. M., position of, 53. 
 
 Manifesto issued by Woodruff, 
 130, 131. 
 
 Manti, temple of, 95, 96, 98. 
 
 Marks, William, attitude of, 14; 
 authority of, 63 ; indorses 
 Twelve, 83, 84; enemy to gain 
 advantage over, 84; a blessing 
 to many, 84; removed from 
 position, 122; appeals to writ- 
 ten word, 122; President of 
 High Council assists in ordi- 
 nation, 142. 
 
 McRae, Alexander, not on record 
 silence of, 40. 
 
 Meeting, account of, 7 ; of August 
 8, 1844, 9. 
 
 Miller, George, introduced by 
 Roberts, 21 ; letter of, to Strang, 
 24; reason of, for disagreement, 
 25 ; testimony of, 48, 49 ; action 
 of, explained, 49, 50; relegated 
 to second place, 121 ; ordination 
 of, 156. 
 
 Miller, U. G., inquiry of, 61. 
 
 Milliken, Arthur, testimony of, 48. 
 
 Mills. D. S., testimony of, 48. 
 
 Moore, A. B., testimony of, 48. 
 
 Morgan, John, ordination of, 157. 
 
 Moses, revelation to, 10. 
 
 Mountain, definition of, 92. 
 
 Nauvoo, building of, 88, 91. 
 Nauvoo House, Smith family to 
 
 have place in, 42, 43, 45 ; resting 
 
 place, 42 ; building of, 41, 88. 
 Nauvoo Temple, building of, 88, 
 
 97. 
 Notice, promise of, 115 ; not given, 
 
 120. 
 
 Officers, to be approved by 
 ^church, 81; return of antici- 
 pated, 114. 
 
 Olney, Oliver, ordination of, 156. 
 Opponents, extravagance of, 157. 
 
 Oracles, given to the church, 76, 
 78-80; definition of, 77-79. 
 
 Ordination, necessity for, 58, 62; 
 for the dead, 95; apostles and 
 high priests officiate at, 143. 
 
 Page, J. E., at Pittsburg, 114; 
 disapproved of, 121. 
 
 Parker, R. J., letter to, 111-113. 
 
 Patriarch, William Smith or- 
 dained, 16; law of lineage ap- 
 pertaining to, 50, 52; mentioned 
 by Young, 86. 
 
 Pattern, organize according to 
 original, 86. 
 
 Penitentiary, ex-convicts from, 99. 
 
 Penrose, C. W., echoes Roberts, 
 45; on completion of temple, 
 69-71; on release from obliga- 
 tions, 73; on temple building, 
 96 ; reply to, 101 ; assumes with- 
 out proof, 101; on order and 
 discipline, 103; connected with 
 historical department, 149 ; let- 
 ter of, 152; position of, 155; 
 tangle of, 159., 
 
 People unprepared for events, 114. 
 
 Persecution, Roberts' claim con- 
 cerning, 98, 99. 
 
 Phelps, Elder, addresses meet- 
 ing, 12 ; moves to accept Twelve, 
 116. 
 
 Piercy, Frederick, trip of, 30. 
 
 Pledge of Joseph Smith, 31-33. 
 
 Plural marriage, first indorse- 
 ment of, 128. 
 
 Polygamy, action of Reorganiza- 
 tion concerning, 100; introduc- 
 tion of, 128; doomed, 130, 145; 
 successor cannot accept, 147. 
 
 Pratt. Orson, in the East, 114; 
 rebaptism and reordination of, 
 116; present at reorganization, 
 119. 
 
 Pratt, P. P., addresses meeting, 
 12; on disorganization, 74; on 
 reorganization, 74 ; revelation 
 to, 75, 79, 85, 91 ; statement of, 
 80, 82, 91; in New York re- 
 turns to Nauvoo, 114; in Salt 
 Lake Valley, 120. 
 
 Prediction not fulfilled, 7. 
 
 President of high priesthood, or- 
 dination to, 143. 
 
 Priesthood, source of, 144, 145. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 231 
 
 Presidency, keys of kingdom be- 
 long to, 44, 45; in Joseph's pos- 
 terity, 44, 45. 
 
 Presidents, ordination of, 155-158. 
 
 Priesthood of apostles, 28. 
 
 Prophetic character of predic- 
 tion, 7. 
 
 Quorums, to approve revelations, 
 31 ; set in order, 157. 
 
 Rebaptism, of Twelve, 116, 117; 
 enjoined, 117, 118; necessity 
 for, 117, 118. 
 
 Relief Societies, establishing of, 
 93. 
 
 Reordination, 116, 118, 119. 
 
 Reorganization still exists, 6; ab- 
 sorbs Wight's following, 23; 
 history of, 28 ; stream of reso- 
 lution of, 34; not composed of 
 Strangites and Smithites, 35; 
 approved, 57, 58; apostolic au- 
 thority of, 62, 63 ; necessity for, 
 74, 75, 79, 85,86 ; a counterfeit. 84; 
 action of, 100; leading spirits 
 of, 101, 102; opposed to po- 
 lygamy, 129; position of, 133, 
 134 ; acknowledged of God, 132- 
 140; redeeming waste places, 
 138; authority in, 140-146; po- 
 sition of, 155 ; president of, 160. 
 
 Residue, gathering of, 136-138. 
 
 Resolution of Strangites, 39. 
 
 Revelation, 'to Moses, 10; to be 
 approved by quorums, 31; to 
 Z. H. Gurley, 34; to F. G. Wil- 
 liams, 44; to Joseph Smith, 57; 
 Joseph Smith to receive, 78 ; to 
 P. P. Pratt, 75, 79; danger in, 
 
 Richards, F. D., publishes Illus- 
 trated Route, 30 ; letters of, 59, 
 154; estimate of, 87; position 
 of, 155; assertion of false, 158; 
 acknowledgment of, 160. 
 
 Richards, S. W., arranges with 
 Piercy, 30. 
 
 Richards, Willard, at Nauvoo, 
 114; rebaptism and reordina- 
 tion of, 116. 
 
 Rigdon, Sidney, failure of, 5 ; slan- 
 dered suspected blamable 
 exonerated, 8; meeting called 
 by, 12; refuses to have name 
 
 presented, 12; acquiesces, 14; in 
 Pennsylvania returns to Nau- 
 voo. 114; appoints meeting- 
 claims not presented, 115; dis- 
 posed of expelled, 121. 
 Roberts, B. H., his. introduction, 
 5 ; gives prominence to predic- 
 tion, 5 ; assumes point at issue,5 ; 
 unenviable controversialist, 6; 
 admits prediction is not fulfilled, 
 6 ; forms conclusion without evi- 
 dence, 6; quotes doubtful au- 
 thority, 7; blunders, 7; cites 
 hearsay, 7; unkind his incen- 
 tive^; misrepresents, 8; tenden- 
 cies of, 9 ; introduces meeting of 
 August 8, 9; against the record, 
 12; introduces work of Wm. 
 Smith personal interview, 15 ; 
 misstatement of, 16; errs on 
 Wm. Smith, 17, 18; reckless as- 
 sumption of, 21 ; errs on Lyman 
 Wight, 22-24; strictures of on 
 Bishop Miller, 24, 25; unmanly 
 attack of, 27; sarcastic state- 
 ment of, 29; sneers of, 30; 
 unenviable position of, 39 ; pet- 
 tifoggery of. 40; fatal conces- 
 sion of,' 56, 57; affirmation of, 
 62, 64; seeks to make contrast, 
 63; against Woodruff and 
 Staines, 67; on completion of 
 temple, 69, 70: claim of, 79; con- 
 founds keys with oracles, 77; 
 unfortunate, 85; distorts lan- 
 guage, 86; specifications of, 86; 
 on Governor Wells, 103. 
 
 Rocky Mountains, prediction con- 
 cerning, 88-91; people led to, 93. 
 
 Rule established by Joseph Smith, 
 31. 
 
 Satan, transformation of, 11. 
 
 Salt Lake, temple of, 95-98. 
 
 Salt Lake Valley, strange events 
 in, 116. 
 
 Science favors lineal priesthood, 
 52. 
 
 Sealings for the dead, 95. 
 
 Seventies, selection of, 94; pro- 
 vision for, 93, 94 ; presidents of 
 ignored, 94 ; nine extra quorums 
 Brigham's nominees, 122; 
 presidents of ordained, 156, 157. 
 
232 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Smith, A. H., on completion of 
 temple, 70; discourse of, 86. 
 
 Smith, Don C., ordination of, 155, 
 156. 
 
 Smith, Emma, testimony of, 46, 
 47; Holy Scriptures in hands 
 of, 139. 
 
 Smith family, commendation of, 
 30 ; their place, 53. 
 
 Smith, G. A., in Michigan, 114; 
 rebaptism and reordination of, 
 116; present at reorganization, 
 119. 
 
 Smith, Heman C., letters of, 
 59-61. 
 
 Smith, Hyrum, successor ship of, 
 50, 65. 
 
 Smith, J. F., position of, 53. 
 
 Smith, J. H. , position of, 53. 
 
 Smith, John, presents the Twelve, 
 116. 
 
 Smith, John, position of, 53. 
 
 Smith, Joseph, (first President,) 
 history of added to, 8 ; explana- 
 tion of, 8; attends council of 
 Twelve, 16; rule established by, 
 81 ; words of to be received, 33; 
 blessing of, 41, 42, 43, 44; and 
 family to have place in Nauvoo 
 House, 42; posterity of, to be 
 plants of renown, 42, 48; to 
 hold presidency, 44, 45; on 
 priesthood, 53-55 ; apostolic 
 authority of, 63; bis right to 
 appoint successor, 63-65, 79, 
 160; on completion of temple, 
 72 ; authority to receive revela- 
 tions, 78; language of, 80, 82, 
 83 ; prophecy concerning Rocky 
 Mountains, 88-91 ; writes to his 
 wife, 90, 91 ; warning to church, 
 72, 91 ; things written into his- 
 tory of, 94 ; not responsible for 
 departure, 95; ordained Presi- 
 dent, 143, 157, 158. 
 
 Smith, Joseph, (second Presi- 
 dent,) received by Wight's fol- 
 lowers, 23; enterprises of, 29; 
 and family, reputation of, 30; 
 his speech of acceptance 
 pledge of, 31 ; power by which 
 dictated, 32; acquainted with 
 associates, 32; blessings of, 89, 
 40, 45-48, 132; statement of, 40; 
 calling of, 41 ; appointed by his 
 
 father, 45-49; testimony of, 46; 
 revelation to autobiography 
 of, 57; ordination of, 62; on 
 completion of temple, 70 ; inter- 
 viewed by Spencer, et al., 103- 
 113; proceedings of, 132; his 
 call to scattered saints, 138, 139; 
 ordination of, 142, 146 ; teaching 
 of, 146-148 ; Prophet and Presi- 
 dent, 148; ordained President, 
 158 ; requisites of, 160. 
 
 Smith, Lucy, Roberts' attempt to 
 convict, 19 ; testimony of, 48. 
 
 Smith, Sylvester, ordination of, 
 156. 
 
 Smith, William, failure of, 5; his 
 work introduced, 15 ; suspended 
 from office restored, 16; or- 
 dained Patriarch, 16; commen- 
 dation of, 17 ; on lineal priest- 
 hood, 17, 18, 20, 38; action 
 against, 18, 19 ; on disorganiza- 
 tion, 18, 74; in the East, 114; 
 disapproval of, 121. 
 
 Snider, John, removed from 
 building committee, 122. 
 
 Snow, Lorenzo, ordination of, 59, 
 62 ; not ordained, 143. 
 
 Spencer, S. G., interview with, 
 103-113; statements of conflict, 
 104; seeks to find conflict, 113. 
 
 Spirit enables men to develop, 10. 
 
 Staines, W. C., testimony of, 10; 
 against Roberts, 67. 
 
 Stakes of Zion, establishing of, 
 93. 
 
 Statement, not significant, 5 ; evi- 
 dence of not complete, 6; of 
 Brigham Young, 80, 82 ; of Or- 
 son Hyde, 81, 83; of Wilford 
 Woodruff, 81-83 ; of P. P. Pratt, 
 80-82. 
 
 St. George, temple of, 95, 96, 98. 
 
 Stout, J. H., inquiry of, 61. 
 
 Strang, J. J., failure of, 5; work 
 of courage of, 26; challenges 
 Taylor and Hyde, 26, 27; un- 
 manly attack on, 27. 
 
 Stubbart, J. M., letter to, 104. 
 
 Successor, how appointed, 63, 64; 
 to be appointed by Joseph, 63- 
 65, 79; teaching of, 146, 147; 
 conditions of appointment, 147. 
 
 Sunday schools, establishing of, 
 98. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Suspended without trial, 123. 
 
 Taylor, John, editor and proprie- 
 tor, 17 ; private journal of, 19 ; 
 challenged by Strang reply of, 
 26, 27; ordination of, 59-62, 154, 
 158; in Nauvoo, 114; editor, 
 115; in Salt Lake Valley, 120; 
 not ordained, 143. 
 
 Taylor, J. W., position of, 53. 
 
 Taylor. W. W., ordination of, 157. 
 
 Teasdale, George, on marriage 
 question, 130. 
 
 Temple, completion of, 69-72; 
 building of, 69; of Logan, 95, 
 96, 98; of Manti, 95, 96, 98; of 
 St. George, 71, 95, 96, 98; of 
 Salt Lake, 95-97; command- 
 ment concerning building, 96, 
 97; at Kirtland, 97, 98; at Inde- 
 pendence, 97; at Nauvoo, 97; 
 attempt to build without reve- 
 lation, 97. 
 
 Testimony of G. Q. Cannon, 9; of 
 W. U. Staines, 10 ; of W. Wood- 
 ruff, 10 ; of Lyman Wight, 36, 37. 
 
 Transformation, Satan author of, 
 11 ; counterpart of, 11. 
 
 Tullidge quotes Woodruff, 116. 
 
 Twelve, dictation of. 9 ; sustaining 
 the, 13, 115, 116; seven of, 
 chosen, 28; senior of, to pre- 
 side, 28; at Nauvoo, 29; next to 
 First Presidency, 68; on com- 
 pletion of temple, 72 ; authority 
 and mission of, 75 ; recognition 
 of, 79: keys bestowed upon, 76, 
 79-83 ; indorsed by Marks, 83, 
 84; general epistle of, 85; build 
 Nauvoo, etc., 88; failed to 
 build, 88; turn towards West, 
 88; seventies increased by, 93, 
 94; in Nauvoo, 114; rebaptism 
 and reordination of, 116; coun- 
 cil of, 119 ; selection of, 141, 142 ; 
 authority of, 141. 
 
 Unlawful cohabitation, action of 
 Reorganization concerning, 100. 
 
 Utah authorities, abominable 
 teaching of, 148. 
 
 Utah, colonies formed in, 93. 
 
 Wells, Governor, on Roberts, 108. 
 
 Whitehead, James, testimony of, 
 46-48. 
 
 Whitmer, David, to select Twelve 
 ordains them, 141. 
 
 Whitney, N. K., placed over Mil- 
 ler, 121. 
 
 Wight, Lyman, introduced by 
 Roberts true to Joseph Smith, 
 21 ; directs in pinery visits 
 Nauvoo goes East returns to 
 Nauvoo and Wisconsin, 22; fol- 
 lowing of death of, 23; pos- 
 terity of, 23; Galveston News' 
 mention of, 24; testimony of, 
 
 86, 37 ; on lineal priesthood, 38, 
 89; attacked by Gospel Herald, 
 
 87, 38 ; Roberts' attempted im- 
 peachment of, 39 ; on disorgani- 
 zation, 74; in the East, 114; not 
 with the Twelve, 119, 120; dis- 
 approved of, 121; removed 
 from building committee, 122. 
 
 Wilderness, church not to flee to, 
 74, 75, 79, 91. 
 
 Williams, F. G., revelation to, 44. 
 
 Wisconsin, Wight and Miller in, 
 22, 23. 
 
 Woodruff, A. O., position of, 53. 
 
 Woodruff, Wilford, testimony of, 
 10, 13; against the record, 13; 
 ordination of, 59-62, 154, 158; 
 against Roberts and record, 67 ; 
 statement of, 81-83; report of, 
 87; testimony of, 102; in the 
 East, 114; Tullidge quotes, 116; 
 rebaptism and reordination of, 
 116 ; present at reorganization, 
 119 ; issues manifesto, 130, 131 ; 
 not ordained, 143. 
 
 Wyoming, colonies formed In, 93. 
 
 Young, Brigham, Jr., position of, 
 53. 
 
 Young, Brigham, Sen., language 
 of, 5; policy of, 9; assumes ap- 
 pearance of Smith, 9; fraudu- 
 lent attitude of, 10; assumes 
 control of meeting, 12 ; speaks 
 presents motion, 12; boastful 
 spirit of, 33; ambition of him- 
 self and successors, 53 ; ordina- 
 tion of, 59-62, 154, 158; admis- 
 sion of, 62; on completion of 
 temple, 71; statements of, 80; 
 signs general epistle, 85 ; on re- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 organizing church, 85; on tem- 
 ple building, 97, 98 ; movements 
 of in the east, 114; assumes 
 control, 115; rebaptized, 116; 
 counsels rebaptism, 118; chosen 
 President, 119; votes for him- 
 self, 120; removes men from 
 office, 121; repudiates written 
 word, 122 ; on Joseph Smith and 
 keys, 123; on Adam-God and 
 birth of Christ, 124; on debts, 
 124, 125; liars, thieves, etc., 125; 
 blood atonement, 126. 127; re- 
 
 sponsible for polygamy, 128; 
 
 interview of, 129; prophesies 
 
 concerning polygamy, 129, 130; 
 
 proved a false prophet, 131 ; not 
 
 ordained, 143. 
 Young, Joseph, ordination of, 
 
 156. 
 Young, S. B., ordination of, 157. 
 
 Zarahemla, reorganization at, 57, 
 
 132, 133. 
 
 Zion, redemption of, 135, 136. 
 Zion's Camp, work of, 137. 
 

 

 
 Ill 
 mm