This is a case similar to the one which precedes it--Mr. Phelps gave his allegiance to the church of Christ in Utah up to the time of his death, and the fact of his allegiance is put against the statement he is said to have made in a letter to Alpheus Cutler--mark you, we have not the letter, nor even a quotation from it. It is the life and character of W. W. Phelps against the alleged statement of Mr. Cutler.

P. P. Pratt said to D. S. Mills, now of Santa Ana, California, and to others when they were going from Utah to California, that the church would never be fully and properly organized till young Joseph was called to lead it.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. x.x.xIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

This testimony is on a par with the two quotations which precede it.

The statement attributed to Elder Pratt is contradicted by the facts of his life and allegiance to the church of Christ led to Utah by President Brigham Young.

Sister Lucy Smith, the mother of Joseph the seer, used to tell the saints who called on her that young Joseph would yet lead the church, for he had been appointed by his father.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. x.x.xIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

To controvert this testimony it is only necessary to refer to the "visions?" of Lucy Smith published in this work, where she attempts to sustain the claims of her son William to be the President of the church; and wherein she says:

The Presidency of the Church belongs to William, _he being the last of the heads of the Church, according to the lineage_, he having inherited it from the family from before the foundation of the world.[A]

[Footnote A: See pp. 19-21.]

Bishop Geo. Miller in a letter to the _Northern Islander_, in 1855, is represented as saying:

From hints and inuendoes that I heard frequently, I was induced to believe that Joseph had designated his son to succeed him in the prophetic office, and on this belief I rested... . . I had frequent attempts at conversation with Brigham Young and H. C.

Kimball, in regard to Joseph's leaving one to succeed him in the prophetic office, and in all my attempts to ascertain the desired truth as to that personage, I was invariably met with the inuendo, "stop" or "hush Brother Miller, let there be nothing said in regard to that matter, or we will have little Joseph killed as his father was;" inferring indirectly that Joseph Smith had appointed his son Joseph to succeed him in the prophetic office.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. x.x.xIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

If Bishop Miller had any testimony of any weight that Mr. Smith, the son of the prophet, had been appointed to succeed to the position of prophet and President of the church, will those who rely on his statements explain how it is that with such testimony in his possession he ran off after other leaders? First following Mr. Lyman Wight to Texas, and after quarrelling with him joining Mr. Strang in Michigan. Bishop Miller, like Lyman Wight, lost his honor, he was neither true to the church of Christ led by the Twelve after the martyrdom of the prophet Joseph, nor true to Mr. Wight, nor "young Joseph." He became a restless man after his apostasy, unstable as water. There is nothing either in the nature of his testimony or the character of the man after his apostasy which gives any influence to his statement.

This is to certify to all concerned, that we, the undersigned, heard Brigham Young, in Salt Lake City, in 1854, and in Brigham City, Utah, about 1859, when he was speaking in public meeting concerning young Joseph Smith, son of Joseph the seer, say that there was no man in the church more willing and ready than he to give the Presidency of the church to young Joseph, when the latter would come and claim it.

LOUIS GAULTER, HARRIET E. GAULTER.[A]

LAMONI, Iowa, May 26, 1892.

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. x.x.xIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

In line with this is the following:

Brigham Young, at the April conference in 1854, said that young Joseph was the man to lead the church, and that were it not for his mother's influence, he would have been in Utah long before; but he would come, and he would to G.o.d he was then in Utah to take the burden off his shoulders; he would receive him with open arms.[A]

[Footnote A: Ibid, p. 339.]

I have carefully examined the minutes of the April conference of 1854, and also all the discourses published that President Brigham Young delivered at that conference; and neither in the minutes or in the discourses can I find anything which justifies the above statement in regard to what President Young said at that conference. I take it therefore that the a.s.sertion is based upon the statement of Louis and Harriet Gaulter which precede it. If there is anything in the discourses of President Brigham Young, or the minutes of any of the conferences of the church which would bear out the case of the "Reorganized church," the writers thereof would be at great pains to publish it. The fact that they do not publish the words of President Young, but the words of others who claim to have heard him say that "young Joseph" was the man to lead the church, is pretty fair evidence that they can find nothing directly upon the point at issue in President Young's own words.

The late Arthur Millikin, who resided at Colchester, Illinois, brother-in-law to the martyr, said in a letter to young Joseph in 1868, Brigham Young said in a council, at our house in Nauvoo, shortly after your father's death, that neither Rigdon, himself, nor any other man but "young Joseph" could lead this people, when he comes of age, and no person can take it from him, and that to talk about it in public would endanger the boy's life.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saints' Herald_, Vol. x.x.xIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

Amos B. Moore, of Lamoni, Iowa, is represented as saying:

I heard Brigham Young say from the public stand, in Nauvoo, soon after the death of Joseph the Seer, that he and the Saints knew "Little Joseph" would stand in his father's place and lead the Church, but it would not do to teach it then, for their enemies would kill him as they did his father.[A]

[Footnote A: _The Saint's Herald_, Vol. x.x.xIX, No. 22, p. 339.]

Is it worth while to stop to point out the inconsistencies of this testimony? What Bishop Miller represents as having been conveyed to him in private conversation (himself at the time a trusted leader,) only in the most vague manner--by "hints and inuendoes;" and to Mr.

Millikin in the privacy of a confidential council of the priesthood, with the caution that nothing must be said about it least the boy's life be put in jeopardy thereby--what was conveyed to these parties in secret, Mr. Moore represents Brigham Young as teaching from the public stand! Yet so far recognizing the danger of having it taught as to say it must not be mentioned least their enemies kill the boy as they had his father--yet Brigham Young teaching it the while in the most public manner! I will not here write an apostrophe to consistency. I will merely put Brigham Young's reputation for common sense and discretion against the testimony of Mr. Moore.

This is the Josephite case on the matter of Mr. Smith being appointed by his father to the position of prophet and President of the church.

I have given all the testimony they have been able to rake together, and have quoted it as they give it in their own works, not a word changed, not a witness of theirs overlooked, so far as they have published their statements. And now that this testimony is before the reader, I ask him: What is its value? Look it over, there is not a direct statement at first hand in it, except, perhaps, in the case of Mr. Wight, and in his testimony, as presented by the Josephites themselves, there is such conflict as to time and place as to render it worthless. Not even Mr. Smith, the claimant himself, makes a direct averment that he was ordained by his father to succeed him as prophet and President of the church. The best he can do is to say that he was blessed by his father in the year 1844, in the presence of quite a number of then prominent elders in the church; but as to the nature of that blessing he is silent. The testimony the Reorganized church depends on is hear-say testimony only, and that of a very questionable character--of the nature of old wives' fables, and the a.s.sertions of apostates!

Following the several testimonies relied upon by Josephites to sustain their claims that "young Joseph" was appointed by his father to succeed to the Presidency, I have made such remarks as point out the worthlessness of each statement, I now wish to call attention to considerations which destroy the whole theory:

First, the silence of Sidney Rigdon in respect to "young Joseph," when he was putting forth his claims to be the "Guardian of the church," to build it up to Joseph the martyr. Had the idea prevailed at Nauvoo, as Josephites claim, that the son of the martyred prophet was to succeed his father as President of the church, what an opportunity for Sidney Rigdon, when putting forth his claims to be the "Guardian of the church!" How greatly would it have strengthened his position, if he could in truth have said: I claim the right to be the Guardian of the church until "young Joseph," whom our late prophet anointed and ordained to succeed him, shall have arrived at a suitable age to take his place. There would have been some significance to the phrase, "Guardian of the church," if Sidney Rigdon could have a.s.sumed this position. But he did not a.s.sume it, and the fair inference is that the reason why he did not a.s.sume it is because there was no idea prevalent at Nauvoo that "young Joseph" would succeed to his father's place.

Second, the silence of William Smith in respect to "young Joseph" in his controversy with the Twelve in respect to leadership. Had any idea prevailed at Nauvoo that "young Joseph" was to succeed to the Presidency of the church, this man, his uncle, would have known it; and would have strengthened his own claims at that time to the right of leadership, by proclaiming himself, as he did afterwards, in 1850, the natural guardian of the one who had been anointed and ordained to succeed to the office of President. But this he did not do. On the contrary, he claimed the place for himself by virtue of being the _brother_ of the prophet. When he failed to secure the position of leadership for himself, he followed the leadership of James J. Strang instead of supporting the claims of "young Joseph." Not until 1850 did he begin to proclaim the right of "young Joseph" to be the President of the church; and then not by any virtue of appointment from his father, but by right of lineage; and with this movement on his part originates the claims of Mr. Smith to the Presidency.

Third, Mr. Edward Tullidge, in his life of Joseph the prophet--the Josephite edition--quotes the prophet Joseph as saying:

"I told Stephen Markham," says Joseph, "that if I and Hyrum were ever taken again, we should [would?] be ma.s.sacred, or I was not a Prophet of G.o.d. _I want Hyrum to live to lead the Church, but he is determined not to leave me_."[A]

[Footnote A: Page 491.--Let it be remembered that the Josephites in this work quoted accepted Mr. Tullidge as their historian. Italics are mine. R.]

Mr. Tullidge quotes this pa.s.sage differently from what it is written in the history of Joseph Smith; what authority he has for doing it he does not say. In Joseph's own history it is written:

I want Hyrum to live to avenge my blood, but he is determined not to leave me.[A]

[Footnote A: Hist. Joseph Smith, _Mill. Star_, Vol. XXIV, p. 332.]

But though Mr. Tullidge misquotes this pa.s.sage, there is evidence in addition to his word, that Joseph did desire and even ordained Hyrum Smith to succeed him. At the October conference following the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum, and the 8th of August meeting at which the Twelve were recognized as the presiding quorum in the church, President Young in a discourse said:

If Hyrum had lived he would not have stood between Joseph and the Twelve, but he would have stood for Joseph. Did Joseph ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum. But Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph did.[A]

[Footnote A: _Times and Seasons_, Vol. V, p. 683.]

If the prophet Joseph wanted Hyrum to lead the church, as a.s.serted by Mr. Tullidge, and had "ordained" him to that position--according to the statement of President Young--what becomes of the claims made in behalf of "young Joseph" to an appointment and ordination to lead the church? In desiring and ordaining Hyrum to fill his place had the prophet forgotten the "anointing" and "ordination" of his son? This clearly disposes of the claims of "young Joseph" through any appointment by his father; for if the prophet Joseph appointed and ordained his brother Hyrum to succeed him, he did not appoint or ordain his son Joseph to do the same thing. If ever there was a case of a claim not proven, Mr. Smith's claim of appointment to the Presidency of the church through his father is that case.

Having disposed of Mr. Smith's claim to the right of the Presidency of the church so far as it is based upon an appointment through his father, let us now take up his second claim, viz:

_The position is his by lineage--his birth-right_.

There are two offices and only two, in the church which descend by lineage from father to son: the office of patriarch and that of bishop. Of patriarchs it is said:

It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the Church, to ordain evangelical[A] ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation. The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed to whom the promises were made. This order was inst.i.tuted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner.[B]

[Footnote A: "An evangelist is a patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham."--_Joseph Smith_ (Hist. of Joseph, under date of June 27, 1839).]

[Footnote B: Doc. and Cov, cvii, 39, 40.]

The revelation then traces the lineage from Adam to Noah. This pa.s.sage applies solely to patriarchs in the church, and yet Josephites attempt in their arguments to make it apply to the Presidency of the church.

They say: