Origin of the 'Reorganized' Church and the Question of Succession

by Joseph Fielding Smith

SALVATION FOR THE DEAD IMPORTANT.

Now, is it not plain to see how important this doctrine is, and why the Saints were to be rejected? But they were not rejected for they performed the baptisms for their dead, and are today performing the baptisms and the ordinances for and in behalf of their dead. Therefore they are not rejected. Again, the Prophet says that the Saints have not too much time to save and redeem their dead, and gather their living relatives together that they may be saved also, before the earth will be smitten, as revealed by Malachi. Therefore it is quite evident why the Lord permitted them to baptize in the river, and not wait until those ordinances could be performed in the Temple, and why He was so anxious that they should hurry and prepare a place in the Temple, where they could be performed in accordance with the plan from before the foundation of the world.

Here is another statement that I wish to refer to. In an editorial in the Times and Seasons written by the Prophet, in volume 3, pages 759-761, where he is speaking of the remarks made by the Savior to the Jews, that upon them should come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, who was slain between the Temple and the altar, Joseph the Prophet declares in most emphatic terms that the reason why this blood was to come upon these Jews was, that:

"They possessed greater privileges than any other generation, not only as pertaining to themselves but to their dead, their sin was greater as they not only neglected their own salvation but that of their progenitors, and hence their blood was required at their hands."

Now, if these Jews were to answer for the blood of their progenitors because they neglected the salvation of their dead, then, may we not ask; will not we have to answer for the blood of our dead if we neglect these ordinances in their behalf? It matters not even if we have been baptized and have had hands laid on our heads for the reception of the Holy Ghost; if we wilfully neglect the salvation of our dead, then also we shall stand rejected of the Lord because we have rejected our dead; and just so sure their blood will be required at our hands.

Now, what is the attitude of the "Reorganized" Church in relation to the salvation of the dead, the neglect of which the Church—yes, and also the individual—was to stand rejected of the Lord? I have here a copy of a resolution that was passed by the general conference of that sect in 1886, at the time that Mr. Briggs withdrew. This resolution is in reply to his charge that he could not accept the principle of "baptism for the dead." Here it is:

"That as to the alleged Temple building and ceremonial endowments therein, that we know of no Temple building, except as edifices wherein to worship God, and no endowment except the endowment of the Holy Spirit of the kind experienced by the early Saints on Pentecost day."

"'Baptism for the dead' referred to belongs to those local questions of which the body has said by resolution:

"'That the commandments of a local character, given to the first organization of the Church are binding on the Reorganization only so far as they are either reiterated or referred to as binding by commandment to this church. And that principle has neither been reiterated nor referred to as a commandment."

Just think of that! They declare that we were rejected because we failed to build a house where these ordinances were to be performed, and yet they actually have the audacity to say that the work of salvation for the dead is not binding on them because it has not been reiterated or referred to as a commandment binding on them. Now is that consistent? They call it a local commandment, yet we have seen that this commandment was the burden of the Scriptures and the greatest responsibility that God has placed upon us, and we are obliged to save our dead if we would ourselves be saved. And yet, this commandment without which the whole earth was to be utterly wasted and destroyed—this eternal commandment that had been prepared before the foundation of the world—is not binding on them! "A local commandment!" "A permissive rite!" My friends, from the teachings of Joseph Smith the Prophet, which I have presented, you may well judge which is the Church "rejected with its dead."^[14]

Footnotes

[1.] This statement that the Latter-day Saints were endeavoring to get beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, which is repeated so often by anti-"Mormon" writers and speakers, including many devotees of the "Reorganization," who vainly attempt to prove the disloyalty of the Saints, is rather astonishing in the face of the facts of history. The exodus to the Rocky Mountains was undertaken of necessity, as it was from Missouri to Illinois, because the Saints had been ruthlessly driven from their homes by armed mobocrats. Notwithstanding this, the Church came to the Rocky Mountains because the Lord willed it so, for He permitted the expulsion from Nauvoo that His purposes might be fulfilled. The Prophet Joseph Smith, as early as 1842, received a revelation declaring that the Saints would be driven to these valleys. That revelation is found in the history of the Church for Saturday, August 6, 1842. Our friends the Reorganites, have themselves testified in their more sober moments to the truth of this grand prediction. In a history published by them in 1880, and which they said was "the aim of the publishers to place within the reach of those who cared to know, a more correct standard from which to determine the character and work of Joseph Smith, the founder, under divine direction, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," "And is the cheapest book published by the (Reorganized) Church." They record the following:

"Just at this time (1842) also occurred Joseph's first marked prophecy, on record, concerning the removal of the Saints to the Rocky Mountains. Says the Record:

"Saturday 6th, (August, 1842). Passed over the river to Montrose, Iowa, in company with General Adams, Colonel Brewer, and others, and witnessed the installation of the officers of the Rising Sun Lodge of Ancient York Masons, at Montrose, by General James Adams, Deputy Grand Master of Illinois. While the Deputy Grand Master was engaged in giving the requisite instructions to the Master Elect, I had a conversation with a number of brethren, in the shade of the building, on the subject of our persecutions in Missouri, and the constant annoyance which has followed us since we were driven from the State. I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction, and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors, or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some would live to go and assist in making settlements and building cities, and see the Saints become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains."

"The exodus is a great historic fact. It would do violence to history to expunge this record. The Twelve, however, may have shaped the record thus to fit their own events. It is not even affirmed that Joseph gave such a revelation to the Church; but the historical landmark, pointing to the Rocky Mountains, is this prophecy to his Masonic brethren, on the 6th of August, 1842, just about five years before the feet of the pioneers emerged from the last mountain gorge into the beautiful valley of the Great Salt Lake." (Tullidge's Life of Joseph Smith, Lamoni edition, page 398-9).

In February 1844 a company was selected to go and explore Oregon and California (Utah then being a portion of what was called "Upper California,") for the purpose of selecting a site where the Saints could build a city. The minutes of this meeting say: "At a meeting of the Twelve, at the Mayor's office, Nauvoo, February 21, 1844, seven o'clock, p. m., Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, George A. Smith, Willard Richards and four others being present, called by previous notice, by instruction of President Joseph Smith on the 20th instant, for the purpose of selecting a company to explore Oregon and California, and select a site for a new city for the Saints."

Jonathan Dunham, Phineas H. Young, David D. Yearsley and David Fullmer, volunteered to go; and Alphonzo Young, James Emmett, George D. Watt, and Daniel Spencer were requested to go. These brethren were requested to meet with the council on the following Friday evening at the Assembly Room, and the history of the Prophet continues: "Met with the Twelve in the Assembly Room (Friday 23rd) concerning the Oregon and California Exploring Expedition; Hyrum and Sidney present. I told them I wanted an exploration of all that mountain country. Perhaps it would be best to go direct to Santa Fe. Send twenty-five men: let them preach the Gospel wherever they go. Let that man go that can raise $500, a good horse and mule, a double-barrel gun, one barrel rifle, and the other smooth bore, a saddle and bridle, a pair of revolving pistols, bowie-knife, and a good saber. Appoint a leader, and let him beat up for volunteers. I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountains he may want to talk with his God; when with the savage nations have power to govern, etc. If we don't get volunteers wait until after the election."

On this and other occasions shortly following, these volunteered to go: George D. Watt, Samuel Bent, Joseph A. Kelting, David Fullmer, James Emmett, Daniel Spencer, Samuel Rolfe, Daniel Avery, Samuel W. Richards, Almon L. Fuller, Hosea Stout, Thomas S. Edwards, Moses Smith and Rufus Beach. There were also others. It is also a fact that on the evening of June 22, 1844, because of persecution, the Prophet Joseph Smith, his brother Hyrum and a few others crossed the Mississippi river with the intention of going to the Rocky Mountains, beyond the persecutions of their enemies. The following day they were accused of cowardice by false friends who declared that they were fleeing from the flock in time of danger. This falsehood so wounded the Prophet who had stood in the breach from the beginning to protect the Saints, that he returned to Nauvoo, and gave himself up declaring that if his life was of no value to his friends, it was of none to himself. Four days later he suffered martyrdom, sealing his testimony with his blood.

Mr. George Derry, himself a Reorganite, in the Saints' Herald for January 31, 1906, in reply to the editor who doubted that any such intention as a settlement in the West was contemplated by Joseph Smith, wrote the following:

"In reading the article in Saints' Herald, No. 46, 'The Editor at Home,' I got the impression that the writer was in doubt as to the correct statement of S. W. Richards that he was one of twenty-five men that were selected by Joseph Smith, Jr., to go out west to try to find a location for the Saints beyond the reach of mobs—a condition no doubt desirable in those trying times. S. W. Richards was president of the Church in the British Isles while I lived in London. I was president of a branch there and I was often brought in contact with other presiding officers as they met in council every month. The London conference was composed of forty-two branches, was often visited by the president of the mission and his counselors. I well remember S. W. Richards and others making the same statement at one of our monthly meetings, for they frequently dwelt at considerable length on the persecutions and trials of the Saints in that day. I believed the statements then—fifty-three years ago. I have no reason to reject it now. I have never heard it disproved. The testimony of S. W. Richards is as true in 1905 [See Era, Vol. 7, 927] as it was in 1853, that the company was organized. Recording the facts would not add to their truthfulness. I never heard that the company went west, but the company was organized, although conditions were changed.

"In reading of the wonderful manifestations given in Kirtland, I find the following vision seen by Joseph Smith: 'I saw Brigham Young standing in a strange land in the far South and West in a desert place on a rock in the midst of about a dozen men of color. He was preaching to them in their own tongue. I saw the twelve apostles of the Lamb that now are upon the earth standing together in a circle, much fatigued. I finally saw them in the celestial Kingdom of God.'

"The conditions here stated very much resemble the conditions existing in Utah extending four hundred miles south of Salt Lake City. Here is certainly strong indication, if visions are reliable, that Brigham Young with the rest of the apostles would go to a strange land beyond the bounds of civilization. And in view of the mobbings and drivings they had to endure, is it any wonder that they should seek a quiet resting-place? Who shall say there was anything dishonorable in organizing a company by Joseph Smith, Jr., to seek out a quiet resting-place where they could be free to worship God in peace, none to make them afraid? The writer seems to have serious doubts as to the truth of the statements of the two men he met in Salt Lake City, because we have no record of the preparations made. I never heard it stated that the company did go west, because conditions changed, but the fact still remains—the company was formed, firearms and provisions were agreed upon, but as to what happened to change the program we have no record. But that the company was formed under the direction and choice of Joseph Smith is beyond doubt." As early as 1831, the Lord in a revelation (Doc. & Cov. 49:25) declared that "Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed." When Brigham Young therefore, and the apostles, lead the Church to the valleys of the mountains, it was in fulfillment of the word of the Lord to Joseph Smith, uttered first, in March, 1831, second in August 1842, and moreover, it was but carrying out the design of the Prophet Joseph Smith. When men accuse the Saints of fleeing to the west desiring to get beyond the borders of the United States, and of being disloyal to the American government, they not only place themselves at variance with the facts of history, but utter a miserable falsehood that merits only the severest contempt. In B. H. Roberts' "Succession," pages 109 to 126, a complete array of evidence regarding the exodus as outlined by Joseph Smith may be found.

[2.] In several of the revelations given to the Church in the beginning, the doctrine of common consent is made mandatory. In the revelation of April 6, 1830, the date of the organization of the Church—the Lord says: "The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the Church (branch) to which they belong, or from the conferences." * * * * * No person is to be ordained to any office in this Church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that Church." In section 26, verse 2: "All things shall be done by common consent in the Church, by much prayer and faith, for all things ye shall receive by faith." See also Sec. 124:144.

The Saints by vote accepted the Twelve Apostles as the presiding quorum of the Church at this special conference August 8, and again at the regular conference in October. This fact settled the matter of succession according to the revelations. These authorities and their successors, have been sustained at each conference of the Church, twice a year, and at the quarterly conferences of the various stakes four times a year from that day to this. The question of succession was, therefore, settled at Nauvoo when the assembled Saints voted to sustain the Apostles as the presiding quorum of the Church. The attempt of any party or parties, before any other body, to set up the Church and to ordain officers in conflict with the action of the Church on the dates previously mentioned, would be illegally done; just as much so as if in the municipality, state or nation, after the majority of the citizens had elected officers (and that almost unanimously) to serve them, a few disgruntled, defeated, candidates and their sympathizers should appoint another election, hold it by themselves and then declare that the regularly and properly elected officers were rejected and unauthorized to serve. Such a thing in the nation could be no more foolish or absurd than were the attempts of apostates to set up a new organization of the Church from a handful of disgruntled office-seekers and their sympathizers. In one case there would be as much authority as in the other and no more.

But the contention of Reorganites has been, that the apostles assumed authority and powers that did not belong to them. That their duty was in the world and it was the prerogative of the high council of Nauvoo with William Marks and counselors, at their head, to direct the affairs of the Church. They say:

"That the Twelve usurped authority, and assumed privileges and duties after the death of Joseph and Hyrum which did not belong to them, is seen in the fact that their mission and calling was to travel abroad among the branches, and throughout the world, preaching, organizing branches, thus building up the Church outside of Zion and the organized stakes. That such was their mission and calling may be seen in the law of the Church which is further confirmed in the teachings of the martyr as follows:

"'The Twelve will have no right to go into Zion, or any of its stakes, and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof, where there is a standing high council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the Church.' Joseph Smith's History, Mill. Star, Vol. 15, p. 261.

"After the death of Joseph, the Twelve superseded, by their arrogant, despotic acts, the standing high council at the stake of Nauvoo, of both which the late President Wm. Marks was president. And this usurpation thus begun, has been perpetuated till now; entailing darkness, discord, and misrule upon that faction of the Church." (The Successor pp. 14, 15).

Alexander H. Smith, presiding patriarch of the "Reorganized" church, and then one of their "apostles," made the following statement, March 29, 1885, in Salt Lake City:

"At the evening meeting his remarks were directed to the subject of the reorganization of the church, in which he showed why this measure became necessary, and how Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles usurped the leadership. He quoted from declarations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and the revelations to show what the organization and order of the priesthood were, and how, in case of death of the prophet, the word of the Lord, was to be given to the Saints. It was to be through the high council of the chief or center stake of Zion, in which jurisdiction the Twelve Apostles had no business whatever. Their work and powers extended only to matters beyond the borders of Zion. When the prophet was killed, therefore, the right and duty to rule fell upon the high council at Nauvoo, of which Elder Marks was the president. But Brigham Young and eight others of the Twelve, brushed this order of the priesthood to one side, and seized the reins of government themselves." (Saints' Herald, Vol. 32:342).

This argument set forth in the "Successor" and by Alexander H. Smith, which has been quite universal in the "Reorganized" Church, would not be quite so bad if it was not for a number of insurmountable difficulties and objections that stand in the way. In the first place the objectors fail to state that the powers of the high council and stake presidency at Nauvoo, were limited to the affairs of the stake, and outside of that they held no jurisdiction. Following the martyrdom, the Church was considering matters that affected the whole Church and not merely the stake at Nauvoo. The Twelve Apostles, therefore, assumed by legal right their proper place as the presiding quorum of the Church, and were so sustained. The revelation on Priesthood (sec. 107) says the Twelve Apostles, form a quorum equal in authority with the First Presidency (verse 24) and it was the duty of the Apostles, not only to ordain evangelical ministers (Patriarchs) but also to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the Church, (verse 58). We read that "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers," etc. (I. Cor. 12:28) not first high councils and presidents of Stakes. Neither are the duties of the Apostles confined to their labors out side of the Stakes of Zion.

[3.] If Jason W. Briggs joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints June 6, 1841, and resided in Wisconsin from that time till 1854, he cannot be considered a faithful member of the Church, "who desired to do the will of heaven;" for in remaining at Beloit during all these years he was going contrary to the word of the Lord given to the Prophet in 1841. On January 15th of that year, the Lord said through the Presidency, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, and on divers other occasions, that the Saints scattered abroad should come to Nauvoo and Hancock county. Here is the command: "Let all those who appreciate the blessings of the Gospel, and realize the importance of obeying the commandments of heaven * * * first prepare for the general gathering. Let them dispose of their effects as fast as circumstances will possibly admit, without making too great sacrifice, and remove to our city and county. * * * This cannot be too forcibly impressed on the minds of all, and the elders are hereby instructed to proclaim this word in all places where the Saints reside in their public ministrations, for this is according to the instructions we have received from the Lord. (My italics.)

Again, on May 24, 1841, the Prophet said this gathering to Hancock and Lee counties was "important and should be attended to by all who feel an interest in the prosperity of this corner stone of Zion," and the Twelve Apostles a short time later, under the direction of the First Presidency, in an epistle to the Saints, said: "We say to all Saints who desire to do the will of heaven, arise, and tarry not, but come up hither to the place of gathering as speedily as possible." (My italics.)

Mr. Briggs visited Nauvoo once in 1843, but again returned to Wisconsin (Reorg. Hist. 3:737) where he lived until 1854, either defying this commandment or else ignoring it, thus proving he was not in harmony with the Presidency of the Church, and was one who did not "desire to do the will of heaven." If he had been faithful he would have gone to Nauvoo and remained there and assisted in the building of the Temple, but he did not do so, was not diligent and went contrary to the "instructions" the Presidency had "received from the Lord." That the Lord would not choose such an unfaithful servant to build up His Church, give him revelations and cause him to stand as president pro tem., in the place of the Seed of Joseph Smith, which Reorganites claim Jason W. Briggs did, is obvious and requires no further comment.

[4.] I have been taken to task for saying that about this time Jason W. Briggs organized the Beloit branch for the Strang organization. Reorganites claim that the Beloit branch was raised up in 1842 or 1843—they don't know just when. For the sake of the argument we will grant that a branch was organized at Beloit in 1842 or 1843. If so, the faithful members of that branch removed to Nauvoo, agreeable to the commandment of the Lord previously quoted. Those who remained at Beloit, like Jason W. Briggs, were not faithful in that they did not "desire to do the will of heaven." And what has been said of Mr. Briggs, will also apply to them. Nevertheless, between 1846 and 1848, Jason W. Briggs organized the Beloit branch for Strang's organization, or else the Reorganite history is at fault. They say that in 1849 the Beloit branch was a Strangite branch, and remained with Mr. Strang until 1850 (Reorg. Hist., 3:737). Most of these members—and they were few—after they left the Strangites joined the organization of William B. Smith's organizations were without authority, so whatever power those unfaithful members had before 1844, they lost when they joined these apostate organizations of Strang, et al. For they could not take power or authority with them. This truth is expressed by an officer of the Reorganized Church who said, at Galland's Grove, Iowa, October 25, 1863: "Whenever individuals claiming authority under the church as organized by the first Joseph, become members of any faction, they immediately become divested of all authority except that received from that faction." (True Saints' Herald, Vol. 4, page 158).

[5.] In a vain effort to blind the readers of the Saints' Herald the "defender" tries to make it appear that I state here that Zenas H. Gurley left the "Reorganized" church; but from the way he writes it, it is evident that he doesn't himself believe that any such attempt was made. Zenas H. Gurley, Sen., died August 28, 1871, and in speaking of his family in 1886—fifteen years later—it is obvious that the reference does not include him. That Mr. Gurley left them when he got on the other side, I have my reasons to believe, but at no time in the entire publication has he been confounded with his son of the same name. The son is mentioned but once and then only incidentally and unavoidably in connection with the withdrawal of Jason W. Briggs from the "Reorganization." The family of Zenas H. Gurley mentioned here consisted of his wife Margaret, sons Zenas H. (who was one of their "Apostles") Edwin H., and their wives. The attempt of the writer of the "defense" to throw dust in the eyes of the readers of the Saints' Herald as he has done here and at many other points, is contemptible.

[6.] In the "defense" that appeared in the Saints' Herald, June 30, 1909, in answer to this, the statement is made that, "Those were received whose original baptisms had been performed either previously to 1844 or by men who held authority previous to 1844." This declaration helps their cause not at all, for whatever authority any of those men who were active in these various "factions" may have held, when in the Church, they could not take it with them, when they withdrew. Moreover, action was taken against them and they were divested of all authority by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from which their authority came. And what authentic proof have they to offer that these men had authority in the Prophet's day? Zenas H. Gurley, and Jason W. Briggs were confessedly, the two most active and most noted in this work of the "Reorganization." Mr. Gurley, it is true, was senior president of the 21st quorum of Seventy at Nauvoo before he left the Church, having been ordained under the direction of President Joseph Young. He claimed it was by virtue of this office in the Priesthood that he officiated originally in the bringing forth of the "New Organization," in 1852. (True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, page 56). Yet the president of the "Reorganization" himself repudiates that authority. (See section on Succession, subject Properly Ordained?)

It is claimed by the "Reorganization" that Mr. Briggs was an Elder in 1842, but that also is mere sayso, there is no authentic record for it. In proof of this I submit the following correspondence.

Salt Lake City., Feb. 21, 1905.

Mr. Heman C. Smith, Church Historian, Reorganized Church.

Dear Sir: The 3rd volume of the "History of the Reorganized Church," page 737, states that Jason W. Briggs was ordained an Elder in 1842. Will you kindly inform me who ordained him and the date of the ordination; also the authority on which the statement of the ordination is made, and oblige?

Very respectfully,
JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR.

The reply dated Lamoni, Iowa, Feb. 26, 1905, is as follows:

Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr. Salt Lake City, U.

Dear Sir: Yours of February 21, is at hand and contents noted.

Replying we will say we are not able to inform you as to who officiated in the ordination of Elder Jason W. Briggs to the office of Elder; nor can we give you the date any nearer than the year 1842.

The authority upon which the statement was made is the sworn statement of Elder Briggs in the Temple Lot Case. See Plaintiff's Abstract, page 393.

Very respectfully,
HEMAN C. SMITH.

In the formation of the "New Organization" (now the "Reorganization") Mr. Briggs acted by virtue of the office of High Priest. Mr. Gurley says they had "two High Priests (Mr. Briggs being one of them) and one senior President of the Seventies." (The Seventy being himself). See True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, page 56. And in the "revelation" given by Mr. Deam it was stated that "It is my will that you respect authority in my Church, therefore let the greatest among you preside at your conference." (True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, p. 55). Mr. Jason W. Briggs was chosen to preside (p. 57). Where did he get his authority as a High Priest by which he had the right to preside? From James J. Strang. The Voree record of conferences, April 8, 1846, contains the following: "Resolved unanimously that Jason W. Briggs be ordained a High Priest. Ordination under the hands of President James J. Strang and William Marks."

[7.] In reply to this the Reorganite "defender" declares that I have not been fair to Mr. Briggs, that if he believed "even one section out of what was in excess of one hundred, both as to its genuineness and authenticity, it would necessarily follow that he believed to an extent in the mission of Joseph Smith through whom it was given, in that case Joseph F. Smith, Jr., could not truthfully use the language he did in describing Briggs' attitude toward the Standard works of the Church." * * * * Mr. Briggs denied the plenary inspiration of the sacred books; but that is neither a denial of the authenticity, or of the partiality of their inspiration."

This is a mere quibble. Mr. Briggs denied the gathering of Israel; temple building and the ceremonial endowments therein; the salvation of the dead through the temple ordinances, which the Prophet Joseph said was "the burden of the Scriptures;" the law of tithing and of consecration, the only law by which Zion could be redeemed and built; the right of Joseph Smith or any other man to be a sole mouthpiece of God to the Church; the plenary inspiration and consequent absolute authority of the Scriptures; and the revelation on temple building. What else he did not believe is not stated; but if there is any fundamental principle in the mission of the Prophet Joseph, or in the Scriptures that he did believe, surely he ought to have full credit for it!

[8.] The writer of the "defense" also very peevishly objects to the statement that Mr. Briggs was unstable to the last. He says: "If unstable and discontented to the last, he could not have been stable and contented for a generation preceding the 'last'. If stable and contented for upwards of thirty years preceding the last (1886,) then Mr. Smith uttered an untruth, then he reflected a falsehood, when he said Briggs was 'unstable' and discontent 'to the last.' Why not tell the truth about him even though an 'apostate?' I see no excuse for reflecting on his stability any part of his life. If he stepped momentarily aside from his path in the early part of his life it was because his north star was obscured by a cloud he could not avoid; but as soon as the cloud disappeared and his guiding star was again visible, he resumed his pathway. No lack of stability there. * * * * Joseph F. Smith, Jr., should tell the truth, even about the dead."

Another quibble. This is rather a severe arraignment to come from a member of the "Reorganized" Church, which organization has been from its beginning so energetic in maligning the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both living and dead, accusing them of every wickedness under the sun, even going so far as to accuse President Young of being an accomplice in the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (See R. C. Evans, in Toronto Star, of January 28, 1905, and Saints' Herald, Vol. 32:190.)

Well, let us see wherein we have wrongfully accused Mr. Briggs. He joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1841; failed to gather at Nauvoo when commanded; left the Church in 1846 during the exodus, "because he had no root;" joined James J. Strang in 1846 and remained with him until 1850; left Mr. Strang and followed William Smith until 1851; left William Smith and joined with Zenas H. Gurley in the "New Organization of the Church," which finally resulted in the forming of the "Reorganized" Church; remained with this organization until 1886, when he withdrew from it and died at Harris, Colorado, January 11, 1899, rejecting the work he performed in all these organizations. Moreover, he was "ordained" April 8, 1846 to the office of "High Priest" by James J. Strang, and declared that Strang was Joseph Smith's legal successor as this letter will show:

"The following letter was written in answer to one from Mr. Briggs of Wisconsin. His letter is too scurrilous to appear in print, therefore we publish only the reply of Mr. Bacon."

"Beaver Island, July 18th, 1851.

"Mr. Briggs:

"Sir: Some time since I received a letter from you in which you claim to take the liberty to write to me, on the ground that our acquaintance had been such as to forbid personal enmities; and, therefore, you would carry out the precept: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you;' and that I was less orthodox in the pretenses of Strang, etc., than some others. * * * * * I will not notice the argument, powerful as it may be, which you assert you have found upon examination, touching the letter of appointment. But what examination can this be, in which you have found out that you spoke that which was not true? When you declared in public congregations, at your own fireside, and at the fireside of your neighbors, that Joseph Smith wrote with his own hand the 'Letter of Appointment' (for you saw him in vision) and your surprise and faith in the 'knocking spirits' of New York, from the fact that they (the spirits) asserted the same?"

He represented the Beloit and Prairie branches of Strang's church at the conference held in October, 1848, (Voree Record) and traveled quite extensively for that cult from 1846 to 1850. When he joined William B. Smith he acknowledged him as Prophet and leader, was ordained by William B. Smith, an "Apostle." After he left William B. Smith and joined Zenas H. Gurley he claimed to have a revelation embodying the very things he repudiated when he withdrew from the "Reorganization."

To Mathias F. Cowley, in the presence of others, Mr. Briggs, a short time before his death in answer to the question whether the "revelation" he received in 1851 was true or not, said: "You know we learn by experience. I would not like to claim it to be a revelation now, but it is just as good as any revelation that was given to Joseph Smith."

Although he remained with the "Reorganized" Church for thirty years, if this record does not show that he was unstable of character at the beginning all the way through and "to the end," pray tell, what does instability mean!

[9.] The members of the "Reorganized" Church in the beginning laid great stress on the statement that the Prophet Joseph Smith was smitten by the shaft of death (D. & C. 85th sec.) for putting forth his hand to steady the ark of God, and that his successor should be the "one mighty and strong," the Lord should send, "holding the sceptre of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints, whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God."

Mr. Briggs in his "revelation" says the Prophet's successor should be one mighty and strong and one of his seed, and for years the claim was made that Joseph Smith the present head of the "Reorganization," was that personage. This is emphatically declared in the "Successor," (revised edition) and in various numbers of the "Saints' Herald" and other of their publications. This is from page 66, Vol. 17, True L. D. S. Herald: "God foreknew the character of sister Emma—that she would be faithful and true to him who had called her—and he elected her to be the mother of the successor of the Martyr—the "one mighty and strong," who is "to set in order the house of God, (i. e., the church; see I. Tim. iii. 15; I. Pet. iv. 17; Heb. iii. 6), and arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints; the man who shall lead them (the Saints) like as Moses led the children of Israel, (which was by direct revelation from God), and who, when sent of God, would find the Saints in 'bondage,' from which they should be 'led out' by power, (of God) 'and with a stretched out arm.'"

That's the way they formerly gave it; but they have been forced to recede because their president has not come up to this standard of the one spoken of in the Prophet's revelation. Therefore they have, since 1900, resolved:

"Whereas, we have received no divine communication authorizing any particular interpretation of the revelation before us; and as the Reorganized Church has never taken action upon the matter;

"Resolved, that we leave it an open question, to be decided as God may develop His purposes among us, while we acknowledge the leading features in it to be prominently characteristic of Jesus Christ." (From a letter by Joseph Smith of the "Reorganization" in my possession—J. F. S., Jr.)

This is rather a hard jolt to Mr. Briggs' "revelation."

[10.] The Reorganite "defender" says, "Also, we wish Mr. Smith to note, that the Lord in the same connection says, 'If my people will hearken to my voice,' they shall not be moved out of their place. Were they moved? Yes, they were cannonaded from Nauvoo, their enemies scattered them, some of them went to Utah. Was it because they "hearkened," or because they had not hearkened?"

He misinterprets the Scriptures. Thus do they read:

"And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place" (verse 45). Who these servants were that the Saints should "hearken" to, the Lord informs us in verses 124 to 129 of this same section. "First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith, to be a Patriarch unto you, * * * I give unto you Joseph Smith, to be a presiding elder over all my Church. * * * I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon, and my servant William Law. * * * * I give unto you my servant Brigham Young, to be a President over the Twelve traveling council, which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature; They are—Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, William Smith, John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, George A. Smith." These were the general authorities who were to be "hearkened" to. And the people hearkened to the Prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith until their death, then the right of presidency fell on the shoulders of the Twelve. The faithful Saints "hearkened" to them and helped them to build the Temple. But the unfaithful rejected these servants whom the Lord in this revelation gave to the Church for the Saints to hearken to, departed from Nauvoo, refused to comply with the command of the Lord to build His house, and were consequently moved out of their place in the Church into the "Reorganization." The moving "out of their place" did not refer to the location (Nauvoo) but to their place in the Kingdom of God; or, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And all who refused to obey this commandment and hearken to these servants were removed from the Church. "But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them. And it shall come to pass, That if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, (i. e., hearken to "the voice of these men whom I have appointed") I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promise which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord." (verses 46-7).

[11.] The Reorganite response to this is as follows: "Not by any means, no such an indication. We have seen that they were diligent in May 1842—not up to. The corner-stone of the edifice had been laid April 6, 1841, over a year from the date of the quotation. Room for a great deal of lagging between those two periods of time."

"The next quotation is from Hyrum Smith (no reference) at the April Conference, 1844, who speaks of, as Joseph F. Smith [Jr.], puts it, the 'willingness of the Saints to do the work as late as 1844.' Yes, but he does not say they had been willing afforded time up to 1844. From May 1842, to April, 1844, (nearly two years), afforded time to be guilty of lethargy and to falter enough to incur the penalty the fiat of the Lord had fixed."

Such miserable, puerile, balderdash set forth as argument, is disgusting. Nevertheless it is characteristic of the "defense" writer who, throughout, argues in this fashion, failing to present the quotations he attacks for fear his readers will discover his dishonorable methods. He was afraid to present to his readers the quotation from the remarks of Patriarch Hyrum Smith and the quotation from the Prophet wherein he said:

"Never since the formation of this Church was laid have we seen manifest a greater willingness to comply with the requisitions of Jehovah, a more ardent desire to do the will of God; more strenuous exertions used or greater sacrifices made, than have been SINCE the Lord said, LET THE TEMPLE BE BUILT BY THE TITHING OF MY PEOPLE!"

The reasons he did not give these quotations is, that he knew his readers would see his trickery and deception. Then he goes on to argue that the Saints were not diligent in September 1841, because the Lord said at that time: "Let the work of my Temple, and all the works which I have appointed unto you, be continued on and not cease, let your diligence and your perseverance, and patience, and your works be redoubled, and you shall in no wise lose your reward." (My italics). Therefore, he argues, "they were not sufficiently diligent at that time," because they were commanded to redouble their works. "That at least makes one positive break in Mr. Smith's chain of diligence."

Let us see: their works that were to be redoubled were not confined to the building of the Temple, and the context of this revelation (see sec. 127) proves that they were in favor with the Lord and had been diligent and patient and persevering in their works. We have seen too, from the Prophet's own words, that "laboring with their might" meant one-tenth of their time or means—a tithing of the people, which is all the Lord had asked of them, and this could be redoubled without any thought of lethargy or lack of diligence. There is no sense in the Reorganite "defender," being unreasonable, technical and peevish in this matter to win a point for a dilapidated cause. There is sufficient evidence given in this book; and it is not all that could be given by any means, to show that the Saints labored faithfully, diligently, and did all that the Lord required of them until they had completed the Temple; and that, too, while they were being harassed, persecuted, and in every way opposed by their enemies. All these facts the "defender" very carefully avoids.

Another thing. Who was it that failed to be diligent and to labor with their mights in building the Temple? Those scattered members who refused to go to Nauvoo when commanded, and afterwards,—if we may accept Reorganite testimony—became the nucleus of their Church! Those who fled from Nauvoo with James J. Strang, Sidney Rigdon and William Smith; forsaking the Church; refusing to assist in the completion of the Temple; opposing the building of that edifice; even prophesying that it would not be built, and blocking the progress of its erection! Notwithstanding the Lord declared to Parley P. Pratt in a revelation just following the martyrdom—which is accepted by the Reorganites as genuine—"Go and say unto my people (not rejected) 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 (not rejected). But exhort them that they continue to build the House of the Lord which I have commanded them to build in Nauvoo." (My comments and italics). Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, page 371). Notwithstanding this commandment, some forsook Nauvoo and refused to assist in building the Temple, and these were the ones who afterwards became active members of the "Reorganization." It will take more evidence than a lot of innuendos, accusations, and downright sophistry to prove that the Lord rejected those who labored diligently on the Temple, according to His command, and accepted those who rejected the Temple, and refused to assist in its erection.

[12.] Commenting on this the Reorganite "defender" says: "On page 23 he quotes from Sidney Rigdon, 'In the Messenger and Advocate for June, 1846;' and on next page (24) he says: 'At that time (June, 1846) the temple was not quite finished.' On page 24, not finished in June, and on page 23, finished on May 1st. On which page is he correct?"

If the foregoing criticism was written through ignorance, of course the writer may be excused, for one cannot be expected to furnish reasoning powers to men who lack the capacity to understand a simple fact. But it appears very forcibly that it is a deliberate prevarication, prepared purposely to deceive, and thus shall I look upon it, rather than lay it to his stupidity.

There is no contradiction whatever here, for I did not say, as he gives it: "At this time (June, 1846) the Temple was not quite finished." The reference taken from the letter of Sidney Rigdon, appeared in the Messenger and Advocate of June, 1846, along with a number of other articles written in March, April and May, 1846. Any greenhorn, much less a man of wisdom and intelligence, knows that an article appearing in a monthly magazine is always written before the date of publication of the magazine, and more was this the case in 1846, when the modern improvements and facilities were not to be had by a small country publication. Now, what I did say—which would have been apparent to his readers had he dared to publish the statement of Sidney Rigdon and my comment which proves the diligence of the Saints up to the last—was this: "This article was written just shortly after the exodus commenced, and at that time (i. e., shortly after the exodus commenced) the Temple was not quite finished, but it was finished before all the Saints left Nauvoo." (See context). This harmonizes perfectly with the date of dedication. Moreover, Sidney Rigdon had not been at Nauvoo since before the exodus commenced, which was in February, 1846, not June, and was not prepared to say just what the Saints did after that time.

[13.] In answer to the question, "when was the Church rejected with its dead?" the president of the "Reorganization" in an editorial in the Saints' Herald, February 17, 1905, said: "We are not aware that specific date or time, or any one specific act has been fixed upon as the time and the event when and why the Church was rejected." He then declares that the seed was sown as early as 1843 that finally grew and culminated in the "rejection of the Church."

Mr. Heman C. Smith quotes Lyman Wight (True Succession, p. 74) as follows: "We were to have sufficient time to build that house, [Nauvoo Temple] 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 Temple and baptizing went very leisurely, till the Temple was somewhere in building the second story, when Brother Joseph from the stand announced the alarming declaration that baptism for the 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."

Mr. Heman C. Smith accepts this statement saying: "What but blind ambition to rule prevented others of the signers [Apostles] from recognizing the consequence so apparent?"

This was written by Lyman Wight in 1851 and was an afterthought on his part, for he continued to work in the ministry until the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, without one intimation by word or deed that the Church had been rejected in 1841. Moreover, if the Saints could get the structure of a building that cost a million dollars "somewhere in building the second story" in that time of distress and trouble, within about six months they could not possibly have worked very leisurely, and the Prophet in 1842 praised them for their diligence and zeal. (See page 38).

Another Reorganite writer (A. M. Chase) in the Saints' Herald for June 20, 1906, declares that the Church was rejected in 1841: "When this appointment was ended by revelation, October 3, 1841, and the temple not completed, then all Israel should have known they were 'rejected as a church' with their dead."

It is quite evident that the sufficient time was up on this date, for they were to have the privilege to baptize in the river "while the time was passing" and this privilege of baptizing in the river terminated, October 3, 1841, thus proving that the time had come for baptisms in the Temple. It was not finished and the revelation did not call for it to be finished, and at this time it was built sufficiently for this ordinance to be attended to in the font in the proper way. For that reason the Lord transferred the ordinance of baptism for the dead from the river to the font of the Lord's House. That he had not rejected the Church is evident from this very commandment, for in it the Lord tells them to baptize in the font in the Temple, which He would not have done had they been rejected. If He had rejected them He would have stated so positively in a revelation to the Prophet, for he received several revelations after this event and some of them were concerning baptism for the dead and temple work. (See sections 127 and 128). This commandment given to the Church in 1841 and other revelations subsequently, prove conclusively that the Lord would and did accept of the work for the dead in the Temple, without it being "completely finished," after the privilege to baptize in the river had expired. The thing for which they were to be rejected was the failure to perform these ordinances, after the expiration of river baptisms, and the Saints did not fail to perform the ordinances in the Temple.

[14.] The Reorganite "defender" at this point carefully avoids the evidence and argument presented here, and argues at great length attempting to prove that the Church was rejected because the Lord said He was "about to restore many things to the earth pertaining to the Priesthood." The Lord said: "I deign to reveal unto My Church, things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulnesss of times." The "defender" says these things were not revealed, nor restored to the Church; that no revelations that were kept hid from before the foundation of the world, pertaining to the Priesthood in the dispensation of the fulnesss of times, have been revealed from heaven; therefore the Church was rejected with its dead. He says their Doctrine and Covenants contains no such revelations; that no such revelations are to be found in our edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; and, therefore, he concludes, no such revelations have been given to us, or the Church; so the Church must have been rejected.

He asks me to answer the following questions: "Now let us ask, Mr. Smith: Have any such revelations been received? Name them. Where are they and what are they?"

I have taken this matter up under the head of "Temple Building and Ceremonial Endowments Therein." All that is necessary to say here is this: If the Lord kept things hid from the world since before the foundation thereof was laid and now has revealed them to His people, they are not intended for the world and necessarily will not be found in the written word. Such revelations have been revealed unto the Church in the Temples of the Lord; but I shall not name them. If the Lord saw fit to keep them from the world, yes, and from the dispensations past, He does not intend to reveal them to the world now; neither to the scoffer and the unbeliever in His works. Let our friend read Matthew 7:10-12, as it is given in the Holy Scriptures: "And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet. For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you."