The prophetic office

Chapter I

The President of the Reorganized Church A Man Made Prophet.

We are well aware of the fact that the elders of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do much good in advocating the first principles of the gospel, and getting the people to be able to understand the great truth, that God has spoken to men in these latter days by a great Prophet, and has restored to the earth the gospel of Apostolic days. But when they say, as they often do, that James J. Strang was a false prophet, and that Joseph Smith, who is now, and has been for many years President of their church, is a prophet of God, and that he holds the same degree of priesthood as his father, they are saying too much, a good deal more than they are justified in. Both the present Joseph, and James J. Strang claim to be the true successor in the prophetic office to Joseph Smith, the great modern Prophet who was shot June 27th, 1844. Let us examine the claims of these two men.

We will first take up the claims of the present head of the Reorganized Church. He was about twelve years old when his father, the great Prophet was killed. He did not, nor any one in his behalf, make any claim to be his father’s successor for several years after this sad event. About the year 1856 to i860, Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley came to Joseph and wanted him to take up the claim to be his father’s successor in the prophetic office. The following is his reply as given by himself: ‘‘Will 1 ever have anything to do with Mormonism? If so, how and what will it be?” These words are quoted from “Life of Joseph the ! Prophet,” page 757, a book that is printed and sold | by the Reorganized Church, and of course they are willing to take evidence on the question before us from their own publications.

Again we are told in this book, on page 760, “In the fall ot the year 1856 three events occurred that had much to do with my course religiously, and aided me to decide the question, what part of my father’s work, if any, was I to take?”

Once more Joseph tells us, “I believed that He who enabled my father to decide * * could enable me, if He would, to decide whether I should, or should not, have anything to do with Mormonism; and if so, what?” — Page 762.

From time to time the conversation with Mr. Briggs and Mr. Gurley went on, and the present Joseph again tells us on page 768, “I did not then know whether 1 should ever be called to take any part in that work, (his father’s gospel work,) but that if I were, I was ready, and that it would have to be made clear to me, as well as to others wliat that work was.”

This makes four testimonies quoted from “Life of Joseph the Prophet,” in which the present Joseph up to this time, made no claim to be his father’s successor. From the fact that Joseph was at this time about 26 years old, “and did not know then that he ever would have anything to do with MorfPRQFHBTiC, <€)FI};0E

^Hpnism,” jt; ?^hoy/s cQpclusiively, that; ,he was neitl|- /er appqined,, n^p,9rdjain,^d b,y his f^thpr, , j . We vyiU,po\y, call your , ,a,ttej|ition to’ what the 'President of , the .,(Re;9rgan,iz^d. Ch,ur9|i said ,of hi^ ifather abpat twenty- 1, hrep .year^ , after tJ;iis. I,t is .this: “hie [hts, , father] ,(?puld 9,ot.pr(|^in and , induct ii successor whi,le him^ejf h,v,ed. ”7— Xpuug Joseph’s letter tp J. ,3. Pr^ce, in,, thp ^ajrtts A'dyojcate of ,J^e,p., vql Joseph ,j«ya,s, figjjt,, ir\, t^iis; h,ip

father could not ordain and induct a successor while lived, or there would be two heads to the church 'at|' the''sam^e'''tithe.' This ’mates' the fifth statehieiit in which he disow'ii's atiy ordiiihtion h'y h'is father to' the prophetic' office'." '

store in, Nauvoo.’’-rT3,aipts, Herald, Jp^e 27, 1885, page. 413, , .This Sitatenieqt is ajsp in, the Jqsephit^ tract, Nq. '17, .called "The Successor,’’ page 9[. .This tract vyas^ cirpulate.d, abqtit years ago,

il,t is alsq .put. , o,n, rPJ^Prd ,,i,ti “True Succe,ssion In Church ,1’reslffency,” ,by J^lder jlejpan C. Smith, .page 47. , It 4s, , very , easy tp, se,e that this Whitq- ,head tefitiippny, says,, Jpsepl; .Smith, his jjrother Jiiraut, aud NqwpU ly, . V^hitney aqointed and ordained Young Joseph a Prophet, Seer, and .Revelator. It is al^o very easy to ^see that tliis one statement contradicts the five made by his own trophet and Presiden't, as already showri; ' so tins makes five contradiction's.’ > ■ > , 1

. We w,ill pow see, w,hat God ffas spoken by the

great mqdqpp ,^/pp,he); , , “JBut.yerdy, verjly,' I s^y unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift, [the prophetic office] except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead.” — Doctrine and Covenants 43:2. This revelation says, Joseph the Prophet shall not have power, except to appoint his successor, while Elder Whitehead says he ordained him. This is the sixth contradiction this Whitehead testimony is the cause of.

Now, dear reader, which will you believe? Will you believe the founder of the Church when he says by revelation from God that he shall only have power to appoint, not ordain, his successor, and the four testimonies of Young Joseph that he did not know that he ever would have anything to do with his father’s work, and another by him that his father could not ordain and induct a successor while he lived, or will you believe this false statement which originated with Elder Whitehead? But what astonishes me about these contradictions is that the leaders of the Reorganized Church, who certainly must know that they exist, still keep publishing the Whitehead testimony, and several of the elders tell it wherever they go. Of course the common members of the Church are not so much to blame if they believe it, for they hear this side of the question from the elders, and not the other.

When Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H Gurley went to Joseph, the son of the Prophet, in the year 1856, to get him to accept the presidency of the Reorganized Church, they both claimed to have a revelation by which he was called to the prophetic office. Of course they finally succeeded in getting him to accept it. The following is Mr. Brigg’s revelation: “In mine own due time I will call upon the seed of Joseph Smith and will bring one forth, and he shall be mighty and strong, and shall preside over the high priesthood of my church,’’ page 578, “Life of Joseph the Prophet.” Mr. Gurley is more definite in what he gave. Here is his revelation: “The successor of Joseph Smith is Joseph, the son of Joseph the Prophet. It is his right by lineage saith the Lord your God.”

We will now see how all this agrees with the word of God revealed. through the great Prophet. The Lord says: “Behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church, excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.; * for I have given him the keys of the mysteries and revelations, which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.” — D. & C. 27:2. These words teach very plainly that no person but the Prophet Joseph was authorized to give revelations for the guidance of all, and in case he would be taken, the Lord would appoint another in his stead, an immediate successor.

“The president of the church, who is also president of the council, is called by revelation.’’ — D. & C. 99:6.

Through whom must the revelation come to appoint the president of the church — the successor in case Joseph was taken? The great Prophet answers this question: “But verily, verily,! say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift, except it be THROUGH HIM * and this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that come before you as revelations, or

The Propeietic Office commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not ot me.” — D. & C. 43*2. These words are very plain. No one shall be appointed successor to Joseph Smith in the prophetic office, “except it be through him.”

Now the President of the Reorganized Church was not appointed by a revelation through his father, but by one given by Mr. Briggs and Mr. Gurley, and as this quotation says distinctly it must be given through him, it should be plain to every one he was not appointed as God has directed, and therefore he is not the successor to Joseph Smith, in the prophetic office. Now since God rejects the revelations of every one on the successorship question except what the great Prophet gave, we must do the same to avoid being deceived, and therefore we must lay to one side the revelations of Mr. Briggs and Mr. Gurley, and all others of like character, as worthless for God has said: ‘‘You may know they are not of me.”

Now the question arises, why were these men given revelations which God says are not of him? Evidently the reason is this: They, like several others, rejected the claims of James J. Strang, the true successor of Joseph Smith in the prophetic office, When men of this class who will not accept of all the truth that is within their easy reach, come before God and ask for revelation, it might be said with iniquity in theii hearts, the Lord permits them to be deceived. If you don’t believe this is the case, just read Ezek. 14:1-8. After reading this, read 2 Thes. 2:11*12. Here we are told, “Because they received not the love of the truth, -X- * * shall send them strong delusions.”

Let me assure you, men who will not have the truth are as likely to get a revelation from the wrong source, for a strong delusion, as anything else.

Yes, it was Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley, each with a revelation that we have already shown, God had nothing to do with, that kept persuading Young Joseph from 1856 to i860 to take up the presidency of the Reorganized Church. He finally accepted of it, and then the question came up, who would ordain him? If the testimony of Elder Whitehead was true about his father ordaining him, why didn’t he tell it at, or before this? Then, in such a case, they would have said he was already ordained. The case is plain, he did not get that story invented for several years after this, so they thought it necessary to get someone to ordain the prospective Prophet.

According to the history of their church, he was ordained by “William Marks, Zenos H. Guiley and others,” on the 6th day of April, i860, at Amboy, 111. These men were not satisfied with ordaining him to the same priesthood they claimed to hold, for they claim to have put him in the same office his father held; that is, prophet, seer, revelator and translator — several steps higher than any of them ever held. The absurdity of such a claim is apparent. Can a stream rise higher than its fountain? Everybody knows it cannot. Neither could these men ordain Joseph to a higher position than they held themselves. It has now been shown how Young Joseph was ordained successor to his father in the prophetic office. Now let us see how God said this must be done. After the Lord said distinctly that the successor to the Prophet Joseph lO must be appointed ‘‘through him,” as already shown, He went on to say, “for verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me, shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before.”—D. & C. 43: 2.

This revelation was given Feb., 1831, and about six months before this. Sept, 1830, D. & C., Sec. 26, is recorded what Joseph told them before on this question. This section says plainly he was ordained by men who had become angels. And this is the only thing Joseph ever told tehm at any time about this. And God says in the above revelation that the successor to Joseph must be ordained as Joseph was — by angels.

We have now found that Young Joseph’s ordination to the prophetic office at Amboy, 111., in i860, is contrary to the pattern given by his own father. It has also been shown that his call and appointment to that office is all contrary to the law of God. So he is nothing more than a man made prophet, because he was not placed in that office as the Lord has directed. The Prophet Isaiah has said, “to the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” — Isa. 8:20.

Elder Heman C. Smith, the Reorganized Church historian, tells us in his book, “True Succession in Church Presidency,” page 141, that in regard to selecting the twelve apostles in Joseph the Seer's time, “a committee was appointed by revelation, consisting of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, D. & C. 16:6, to which Martin Harris was subsequently added, and to them the Lord gave authority to select the twelve according to specific instructions given. In the year 1835 the twelve

:(Pr0phki^i(D Office

were selected, by these mem” This statement is correct, but^letHiis examine the next sentence: “Neither of the. three, though they were in a general sense apostles, were^ ever members of the quorum of the twelte, and. though they did not then, nor thereafter hold any' office equal to it, yet they ordained) these men apostles of the quorum of the twelve and gave them^their charge/’ This sentence says, neither of the three held any office equal to that of the twelve. This is not true.

D & C. tells us, “Joseph Smith, Jr., was

called of God and drdainect an apostle of Jesu^ Christ, to be the first elder 'of this church; and t6 Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God APOSTLE of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church.” From this it can be se^n that Olivef- Cowdery was an apostle; ^yes^,, of a higher degre^^ than one of the twelve, for he was at this time the second President of the Church.

i ^

Let us now see what authority David Whitmer had. D. & C. 16:3 says: “And now Oliver Cowdery I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmerj, by way of commandment, I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called with that same calling with which he was called.'’ This revelation plainly states that David Whitmet was called to an apostolic office equal to that of Paul, that is, one. of the twelve, and we have already shown that Oliver Cowdery was called to a higher apostolic office than this. ,

Now about the ordination of these men. Oliver Cowdery was ordained by Joseph the Seer, D & C. 17:1. By reading D. & C. 42:4 you wilt see that it was not allowed for any one to act in the office to which he was called, “except he be ordained by some one who hath authority, and it is known unto the church that he has authority, and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.” With such words as these to go by, it is easy to see that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitiner, and Martin Harris were ordained to the office to which they were called. Now with such evidence as all this to go by, is it not surprising that the Reorganized Church historian would deliberately tell us in his book, as already noticed, that these men did hold an office equal to one of the twelve? Yet they ordained the twelve and gave them their charge. This makes another contradiction found in the publications of that church.

Of course the object this historian has in view in making such a statement, that the men who ordained the twelve in 1835 stood in a lower office than that of an apostle, which we have shown to be wrong, is to justify the ordination of Young Joseph, in i860, by William Marks and Zenos H. Guiley. In this case, these men claimed to have ordained their President to a good deal higher priesthood than either of them ever held. That the less can ordain the greater is contrary to all the scripture we now have. Nothing of this kind was ever done by God’s direction. Cases of this kind are only found in the history of man made churches and man made prophets. A similar case to this is on record in regard to Brigham Young. He wanted to become president of the church in the fall of 1847, so he got his followers to vote him into that office, “Life of Brigham Young,” page 188. After all, what would be the difference between being voted in president of the church, and being ordained to that office by men who did not have authority to give it? None at all. In either case the parties would be acting in an office they did not hold.

After the author of “True Succession In Church Presidency/' on page 141, made the statement that the men who ordained the twelve apostles in 1835 did not stand in so high an office themselves, yet they ordained them; then he tells us, to this quorum of twelve thus chosen and ordained, God delegated the authority, “to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church.” The latter half of this sentence he quoted from D. & C. 104:30. But when he introduced these words he said nothing about what is mentioned just before this in the same section, par. 12, which says, “The twelve are a traveling, presiding high council to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the first presidency of the church.” This makes quite a difference. If it is true, as the writer of this book evidently wishes its readers to believe, that the twelve apostles have authority “to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church,” and no one over them, then why didn’t the Josephites all follow Brigham Young? He was president of the twelve at Joseph’s death, and had a majority of the apostles to side with him. According to their own teaching here, Brigham and his brother apostles were the men to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church.

The author of “True Succession In Church Presidency,” an official work of the Reorganized Church, in his book, on page 143, quotes from “Church History,” vol. i, p. 244, “Times and Seasons,” vol. 5, par. 624, that Joseph the Seer “called a general council of the church, and was acknowledged as president of the high priesthood, according to a previous ordination at a conference of high priests, elders, and members, held at Amherst, Ohio, on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1832.” Then he goes on to say, “This was before there was a quorum of twelve apostles. Thus does it appear that President Joseph Smith and his father were ordained by the same authority, viz., by those holding the office of high priest; and in addition to this, President Smith’s ordination was participated in by those who were regularly called and ordained to the office of apostle.” To say the least, such teaching as this is very misleading. You can see by this offigial work of the Reorganized Church that they want us all to believe that their president was ordained by the same authority as his father. In fact they try to make out that he was ordained to the prophetic office by a little better authority than his father, the great Prophet; because they claim it was participated in by those who were regularly called and ordained to the office of apostle.

Now when the Reorganized Church historian tells us all that is quoted in the preceding paragraph, he very willingly forgot to tell us that Joseph, the Seer, stood in the prophetic office on, or before the 6th day of April, 1830, the day the Church was organized, D. & C. 17:1. This was nearly two years before this alleged ordination at Amherst, Ohio. So whether there was any truth in this latter ordination or not, it would make no difference. The Prophet Joseph Smith tells us plainly how he came into the prophetic office. He says he was at first ordained to the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist, D. & C. 26:2. After this he was ordained to the Melchisidec priesthood by

“Peter, James and John, [angels], whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you.”^ — D. & C. 26:3. These words are so plain that they need no explanation. Yet as plain as they are, the author of “True Succession In Church Presidency,” tells us, as already noticed, “Thus does it appear that President Joseph Smith and his father were ordained by the same authority,” and it is the prophetic office he is discussing in his book. He also very willingly forgot to mention in his book, that D. & C., 43:2, says that the successor to Joseph the Seer must be appointed “through him,” and “ordained as I told you before” — by angels. “O consistency, thou art a jewel!”

The publications of the Reorganized Church often claim for their president that he is entitled to the prophetic office by right of lineage. This is not true, for the good reason this office does not go by lineage. There is not one case on record from the first page of the Bible to the last where a man who held the prophetic office was succeeded by his son in the same office. The best proof they can find for their claim on this question is in D. & C. 107:18, where it says: “And as I said unto Abraham, concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto you my servant Joseph, in thee, and in thy seed, shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.” You will notice here that the blessing God gave to Joseph, and his seed after him, was that by them the kindred of the earth would be blessed. Now the kindred is, at the most, only one tribe of Israel. But the favor God pronounced upon Abraham was that he and his descendants were to bless the kindreds of the earth. This includes the twelve tribes of Israel.

i6

The Bible in speaking of this matter says: “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” — Gen. 22:18. Now, all L. D. Saints know, or ought to know, that the ministry of the Church in apostolic days, as well as these latter days, are descendants of Abraham. So the prophets of God / are descendants of Abraham, and they hold the right to bless all the nations — all the kindreds; for they have “all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.” — D, and C. 104:42.

Now since a man in the prophetic office has a right to bless all the kindreds — all the nations — he could not come of the seed of Joseph the Seer, because as already shown, the seed of Joseph was only given to bless “the kindred” — one tribe of Israel, not all of them. So this favorite text of the Reorganized Church, in D. and C. 107:18, in place of supporting the lineage theory actually opposes it.

Let us now call your attention to what the book of Mormon says. In this book we are informed that the Lord revealed it to Joseph, the son of Jacob, that “A seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word which shall have already gone forth among them. Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their father in the latter days.’’ — 2 Nephi 2:2. These words are also recorded in Gen. 50:30-31, Inspired Tran.

All Latter Day Saints agree that the Seer spoken of in this quotation from the Book of Mormon was fulfilled in the calling of Joseph Smith to the prophetic office. Did he write the commandments of God as this quotation specifies? Yes, says every Latter Day Saint.

Did the choice Seer of the latter days do a good work in explaining “the word of God which had already gone forth among them?” We all believe he did. What was this word which had already gone forth among them? Every school boy knows it was the Bible, and that it was the only word of God had among men previous to the days of Joseph the Seer. So the Bible could not be the fulfillment of the words of this prophecy, “Judah shall write.” The Bible was had among men for many hundred years before even Joseph the Seer wrote.

Now you will notice Judah was not to “write” until Joseph the Seer “wrote”; therefore to fulfill this part of the prophecy it requires a prophet of the tribe of Judah. And the writings of Joseph and a prophet of the tribe of Judah “shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines,” etc. Now from the fact that Joseph the Seer is to have a successor of the tribe of Judah in the latter days, it shows clearly that the prophetic office does not go by lineage.

We will now call your attention to one or two points in the Inspired Translation of the Bible in regard to the question before us. In Paul’s letter to the Hebrews he said: “For this Melchisedec was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent.’’ — Heb. 7:3, Inspired Translation. It was the priesthood of Jesus, or the prophetic office, Paul was discussing when he made use of these words. It is plainly to be seen by them that this office is without father, without mother, without descent; therefore it does not go by lineage.

Now turn to Gen. 14:26-29, Inspired Translation and you will find these words: “Now Melchisedec was a man of faith, * * and thus having been

approved of God he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch, it being after the order of the Son of God, which order came, NOT by man, nor the WILL OF man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God; and it was delivered unto men by the calling of his owm voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name.” These words are very plain in stating that this high priesthood comes not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother, but pf God; that is, by the will of God. So according to this text it is impossible for the prophetic office to go by lineage. In fact, in no way has man anything to do with conferring it. It comes not by man, nor the will of man; but by the will of God, and He confers it upon whomsoever He will by “the calling of his own voice” and angelic ordination. It is self-evident that this is the way God gives this priesthood, for man has nothing to do with it. Now this quotation should be the end of controversy in regard to the prophetic office, for it is given by revelation from God through the great modern Prophet.

We have now, in a limited manner, found that the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, and Inspired Translation all agree that the prophetic office does not go by lineage, and that this latter book is very distinct on this question. To me it is astonishing that the leading men of the Reorganized Church would teach that the prophetic office goes by lineage when it is contrary to the word of God. Those two texts just quoted from the Inspired Translation are very distinct in opposing this false doctrine, yet they keep right on teaching this error. They are the ones who print this Bible, so they should know of those scriptural texts. The common elders of the Reorganization might not know that the Inspired Bible and the other books oppose this question as they do, but many of them teach it, like their leaders, so they are following their leaders on this lineage theory, and not the written word of God.