After making this acknowledgment he was received back into fellowship, but did not again obtain his former position. Later he became dissatisfied and withdrew from the Church and was excommunicated. During the exodus he joined James J. Strang, and in 1846 was called to be a counselor to James J. Strang in his organization. (History of "Reorganized" Church, 3:723). For a time he was also president of Strang's "Stake of Zion," and also a bishop in his organization (History of "Reorganized" Church, 3:44 and 723). First a "bishop," then "president of the 'Stake of Zion,' and then "counselor" in Strang's presidency. In 1852 he became a member of Charles B. Thompson's church (Reorg. Hist., 3:55 and 3:724). In 1855 he left Thompson and entered into an organization with John E. Page and others (Reorg. Hist., 3:724); and on June 11, 1859, he was received into the "Reorganization" on his original baptism," "and they recognized his original ordination to the Priesthood, although he had been disfellowshiped by the church that conferred that Priesthood. After he was disfellowshiped in 1844 and later left the Church and wandered around through the organizations of James J. Strang, Charles B. Thompson and John E. Page, receiving "ordinations," and honors, and positions, in these movements, he was then received into the "Reorganized" Church on his original baptism. Now, I ask the question in all candor of any fair minded Latter-day Saint—Did he after this, in 1860, have any authority or Priesthood to confer upon Joseph Smith of the "Reorganization," much less the keys and position of president of the High Priesthood; keys that he never did hold?[6]
GURLEY'S AUTHORITY.
Zenas H. Gurley, who also laid hands on the head of Joseph in that "ordination," was ordained to the office of a Seventy in Nauvoo in 1844 under the direction of President Joseph Young. Members of the "Reorganization" claim that he was ordained a Seventy in Far West, Mo., in 1838, but this is not the fact. The records in the Historian's office show that this man was ordained in 1844, as I have stated, and the following year—April 6, 1845—he was made the senior president of the Twenty-first quorum of Seventy. He left the Church as did William Marks, and therefore lost his Priesthood and had none to confer on the head of Joseph Smith.
Now the revelation clearly indicates that no man is called to build up the Church unless it is known to the Church that he has been properly ordained to that calling, by the heads of the Church. But these men were not so called. On the 8th of July, 1904, I wrote to Mr. Heman C. Smith, historian of the "Reorganization" as follows:
"In the biographical sketch of Zenas H. Gurley, in the third volume of your Church History, the statement is made that he, (Zenas H. Gurley) was ordained to the office of a Seventy at Far West, Missouri. Would you kindly furnish me with the date of this ordination, and also state the authority on which the statement is made, and oblige."
On the 15th of that month I received the following:
"Replying to yours of July 8, will say that the church record in the Recorder's office shows that Zenas H. Gurley was ordained to the office of Seventy at Far West, Mo., in 1838; day and month are not stated. This appears once in the hand-writing of Isaac Sheen, former church recorder, and once in the handwriting of Henry A. Stebbins, the present church recorder. Elder Stebbins' memory is that he received it directly from Elder Gurley; and it is presumable that Elder Sheen also had the information direct. It is upon the authority of this record that the statement was made in the biographical sketch."
You see they don't know very much about it, it is all presumption. I cannot conceive of any reason why Mr. Gurley would desire to falsify the record, and doubt that he ever made such a statement as the above. The fact is, however, that he was not ordained a Seventy in Far West in 1838, but in Nauvoo in 1844.
Now we will see how much faith they put in the "authority" of Mr. Gurley themselves. January 30, 1905, the following communication was sent to the president of the "Reorganization:"
"Will you be so kind as to answer for me the following questions: Is it a teaching of the 'Reorganized' Church that the quorums of Seventies are limited in number to seven quorums, or do you place a limit on these quorums at all?
"Do you recognize as valid any of the ordinations in Nauvoo in 1844-5, of men to the office of Seventy, under the direction of the Twelve Apostles and first council of Seventy, beyond those of the first seven quorums?
"In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah, the custom is to ordain Seventies and organize quorums beyond the seventh, and as this practice has been opposed by some of the Elders of the 'Reorganized' Church, I was prompted to inquire if those Elders were in harmony with the doctrines of the Church."