Part 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote B: Matt. xxiv, 24.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAMONI, Iowa, May 26, 1892.

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

In line with this is the following:

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

[Footnote A: Ibid, p. 339.]

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