Part 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote A: Ibid.]

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

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

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

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

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

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