"For this Melchisedek was ordained a Priest after the order of the Son of God, which Order was without FATHER, without MOTHER, without DESCENT, having neither beginning of days or end of life. And ALL THOSE who are ordained unto this Priesthood are like unto the Son of God, abiding a Priest continually." (Heb. 7:3.)
There is only ONE way men receive the priesthood of God, and that is by the laying on of hands by one who had already the authority, therefore, "ALL THOSE who are ORDAINED UNTO this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually." It thus becomes evident that even had the son of the Prophet been promised in the revelations that he should become President of the Church, he could not become such until he was ordained by one possessing the authority to ordain him.
Should we admit that he had the promise from his father of being president, would men who had joined one church after another and become divested of all authority, have priesthood enough to so ordain him? (See Corner-Stone tract.)
III. Ordination
This leads us to the third claim, i.e., that "young Joseph" was ordained by proper authority.
Those who ordained him to the priesthood and set him apart to be president of the Reorganized Church were William Marks, Zenas H. Gurley, W. W. Blair, and Samuel Powers. The two latter never did belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. William Marks, at the time of the martyrdom of the Prophet, followed Sidney Rigdon, evidently forgetting the claim which he later advocated, that "young Joseph" should succeed his father. Later he left the church and joined James J. Strang's Organization, acknowledging Strang as the prophet of the Lord and the one who should succeed Joseph. (Reorganized History, vol. 3, p. 723.) He so far departed from the true path as to be ordained and anointed to one position after another under Strang's hands, thus vitiating any priesthood he formerly received had he not been excommunicated. (See Corner Stones.) BECOMING DISSATISFIED he left Strang and joined Charles B. Thompson's Church. (Reorganized History, vol. 3, p. 724,) STILL LATER he left Thompson and joined John E. Page's Church. (Reorganized History, vol. 3, p. 724.) On June 11th, 1859, he entered the New Organization, subsequently the "Reorganization," on his original baptism. NOW WHERE WAS HIS AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN YOUNG JOSEPH?
On the verge of the great exodus from Nauvoo, Zenas H. Gurley fell away from the church. He was a Seventy at the time, but not a member of any general presiding quorum. One cannot but be struck with the coincident fact that just at this time the saints faced their greatest ordeal. Everything looked black. Only stout hearts survive. The question persists in recurring to the mind, did Zenas H. Gurley forsake the church in its need because of disbelief in it, or because he paled before the hardships and suffering ahead? At any rate, he left the church and joined J. J. Strang's Organization, in which he remained for a number of years. He became a leading factor in bringing about "The New Organization," and in 1860 assisted in ordaining young Joseph to the priesthood, and also in setting him apart. How about his authority? If the whole church went wrong and he was one of these few pillars, sent of God, to steady the ark, why did he grope about in uncertainty and join a man-made church? In an earlier case we know of, the Lord was very particular that his chosen vessel should "join none of them."
Reader, have you ever stopped to consider this fact, that a man who holds the priesthood of God cannot debase that priesthood by joining a church which is not of God and still retain that priesthood?
The only answer there is to this query makes plain the fact that these men had no authority to ordain any one to any office in the priesthood, and as proof that "young Joseph" was not ordained by his father we quote his own words:
"No, sir, I did NOT state that I was ordained by my father; I did not make the statement. I was NOT ordained by my father as his successor,—according to my understanding of the word 'ordained' I was not." (Plaintiff's Abstract, in temple lot suit, page 79, paragraph 162.)