[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.