ORIGIN OF THE "REORGANIZED" CHURCH. (continued 2)

5. In a vain effort to blind the readers of the Saints' Herald the "defender" tries to make it appear that I state here that Zenas H. Gurley left the "Reorganized" church; but from the way he writes it, it is evident that he doesn't himself believe that any such attempt was made. Zenas H. Gurley, Sen., died August 28, 1871, and in speaking of his family in 1886—fifteen years later—it is obvious that the reference does not include him. That Mr. Gurley left them when he got on the other side, I have my reasons to believe, but at no time in the entire publication has he been confounded with his son of the same name. The son is mentioned but once and then only incidentally and unavoidably in connection with the withdrawal of Jason W. Briggs from the "Reorganization." The family of Zenas H. Gurley mentioned here consisted of his wife Margaret, sons Zenas H. (who was one of their "Apostles") Edwin H., and their wives. The attempt of the writer of the "defense" to throw dust in the eyes of the readers of the Saints' Herald as he has done here and at many other points, is contemptible.

6. In the "defense" that appeared in the Saints' Herald, June 30, 1909, in answer to this, the statement is made that, "Those were received whose original baptisms had been performed either previously to 1844 or by men who held authority previous to 1844." This declaration helps their cause not at all, for whatever authority any of those men who were active in these various "factions" may have held, when in the Church, they could not take it with them, when they withdrew. Moreover, action was taken against them and they were divested of all authority by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from which their authority came. And what authentic proof have they to offer that these men had authority in the Prophet's day? Zenas H. Gurley, and Jason W. Briggs were confessedly, the two most active and most noted in this work of the "Reorganization." Mr. Gurley, it is true, was senior president of the 21st quorum of Seventy at Nauvoo before he left the Church, having been ordained under the direction of President Joseph Young. He claimed it was by virtue of this office in the Priesthood that he officiated originally in the bringing forth of the "New Organization," in 1852. (True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, page 56). Yet the president of the "Reorganization" himself repudiates that authority. (See section on Succession, subject Properly Ordained?)

It is claimed by the "Reorganization" that Mr. Briggs was an Elder in 1842, but that also is mere sayso, there is no authentic record for it. In proof of this I submit the following correspondence.

Salt Lake City., Feb. 21, 1905.

Mr. Heman C. Smith, Church Historian, Reorganized Church.

Dear Sir: The 3rd volume of the "History of the Reorganized Church," page 737, states that Jason W. Briggs was ordained an Elder in 1842. Will you kindly inform me who ordained him and the date of the ordination; also the authority on which the statement of the ordination is made, and oblige?

Very respectfully, JOSEPH F. SMITH, JR.

The reply dated Lamoni, Iowa, Feb. 26, 1905, is as follows:

Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr. Salt Lake City, U.

Dear Sir: Yours of February 21, is at hand and contents noted.

Replying we will say we are not able to inform you as to who officiated in the ordination of Elder Jason W. Briggs to the office of Elder; nor can we give you the date any nearer than the year 1842.

The authority upon which the statement was made is the sworn statement of Elder Briggs in the Temple Lot Case. See Plaintiff's Abstract, page 393.

Very respectfully, HEMAN C. SMITH.

In the formation of the "New Organization" (now the "Reorganization") Mr. Briggs acted by virtue of the office of High Priest. Mr. Gurley says they had "two High Priests (Mr. Briggs being one of them) and one senior President of the Seventies." (The Seventy being himself). See True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, page 56. And in the "revelation" given by Mr. Deam it was stated that "It is my will that you respect authority in my Church, therefore let the greatest among you preside at your conference." (True Saints' Herald, Vol. I, p. 55). Mr. Jason W. Briggs was chosen to preside (p. 57). Where did he get his authority as a High Priest by which he had the right to preside? From James J. Strang. The Voree record of conferences, April 8, 1846, contains the following: "Resolved unanimously that Jason W. Briggs be ordained a High Priest. Ordination under the hands of President James J. Strang and William Marks."

7. In reply to this the Reorganite "defender" declares that I have not been fair to Mr. Briggs, that if he believed "even one section out of what was in excess of one hundred, both as to its genuineness and authenticity, it would necessarily follow that he believed to an extent in the mission of Joseph Smith through whom it was given, in that case Joseph F. Smith, Jr., could not truthfully use the language he did in describing Briggs' attitude toward the Standard works of the Church." * * * * Mr. Briggs denied the plenary inspiration of the sacred books; but that is neither a denial of the authenticity, or of the partiality of their inspiration."

This is a mere quibble. Mr. Briggs denied the gathering of Israel; temple building and the ceremonial endowments therein; the salvation of the dead through the temple ordinances, which the Prophet Joseph said was "the burden of the Scriptures;" the law of tithing and of consecration, the only law by which Zion could be redeemed and built; the right of Joseph Smith or any other man to be a sole mouthpiece of God to the Church; the plenary inspiration and consequent absolute authority of the Scriptures; and the revelation on temple building. What else he did not believe is not stated; but if there is any fundamental principle in the mission of the Prophet Joseph, or in the Scriptures that he did believe, surely he ought to have full credit for it!

8. The writer of the "defense" also very peevishly objects to the statement that Mr. Briggs was unstable to the last. He says: "If unstable and discontented to the last, he could not have been stable and contented for a generation preceding the 'last'. If stable and contented for upwards of thirty years preceding the last (1886,) then Mr. Smith uttered an untruth, then he reflected a falsehood, when he said Briggs was 'unstable' and discontent 'to the last.' Why not tell the truth about him even though an 'apostate?' I see no excuse for reflecting on his stability any part of his life. If he stepped momentarily aside from his path in the early part of his life it was because his north star was obscured by a cloud he could not avoid; but as soon as the cloud disappeared and his guiding star was again visible, he resumed his pathway. No lack of stability there. * * * * Joseph F. Smith, Jr., should tell the truth, even about the dead."

Another quibble. This is rather a severe arraignment to come from a member of the "Reorganized" Church, which organization has been from its beginning so energetic in maligning the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both living and dead, accusing them of every wickedness under the sun, even going so far as to accuse President Young of being an accomplice in the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (See R. C. Evans, in Toronto Star, of January 28, 1905, and Saints' Herald, Vol. 32:190.)

Well, let us see wherein we have wrongfully accused Mr. Briggs. He joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1841; failed to gather at Nauvoo when commanded; left the Church in 1846 during the exodus, "because he had no root;" joined James J. Strang in 1846 and remained with him until 1850; left Mr. Strang and followed William Smith until 1851; left William Smith and joined with Zenas H. Gurley in the "New Organization of the Church," which finally resulted in the forming of the "Reorganized" Church; remained with this organization until 1886, when he withdrew from it and died at Harris, Colorado, January 11, 1899, rejecting the work he performed in all these organizations. Moreover, he was "ordained" April 8, 1846 to the office of "High Priest" by James J. Strang, and declared that Strang was Joseph Smith's legal successor as this letter will show:

"The following letter was written in answer to one from Mr. Briggs of Wisconsin. His letter is too scurrilous to appear in print, therefore we publish only the reply of Mr. Bacon."

"Beaver Island, July 18th, 1851.

"Mr. Briggs:

"Sir: Some time since I received a letter from you in which you claim to take the liberty to write to me, on the ground that our acquaintance had been such as to forbid personal enmities; and, therefore, you would carry out the precept: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you;' and that I was less orthodox in the pretenses of Strang, etc., than some others. * * * * * I will not notice the argument, powerful as it may be, which you assert you have found upon examination, touching the letter of appointment. But what examination can this be, in which you have found out that you spoke that which was not true? When you declared in public congregations, at your own fireside, and at the fireside of your neighbors, that Joseph Smith wrote with his own hand the 'Letter of Appointment' (for you saw him in vision) and your surprise and faith in the 'knocking spirits' of New York, from the fact that they (the spirits) asserted the same?"

He represented the Beloit and Prairie branches of Strang's church at the conference held in October, 1848, (Voree Record) and traveled quite extensively for that cult from 1846 to 1850. When he joined William B. Smith he acknowledged him as Prophet and leader, was ordained by William B. Smith, an "Apostle." After he left William B. Smith and joined Zenas H. Gurley he claimed to have a revelation embodying the very things he repudiated when he withdrew from the "Reorganization."

To Mathias F. Cowley, in the presence of others, Mr. Briggs, a short time before his death in answer to the question whether the "revelation" he received in 1851 was true or not, said: "You know we learn by experience. I would not like to claim it to be a revelation now, but it is just as good as any revelation that was given to Joseph Smith."

Although he remained with the "Reorganized" Church for thirty years, if this record does not show that he was unstable of character at the beginning all the way through and "to the end," pray tell, what does instability mean!

9. The members of the "Reorganized" Church in the beginning laid great stress on the statement that the Prophet Joseph Smith was smitten by the shaft of death (D. & C. 85th sec.) for putting forth his hand to steady the ark of God, and that his successor should be the "one mighty and strong," the Lord should send, "holding the sceptre of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints, whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God."

Mr. Briggs in his "revelation" says the Prophet's successor should be one mighty and strong and one of his seed, and for years the claim was made that Joseph Smith the present head of the "Reorganization," was that personage. This is emphatically declared in the "Successor," (revised edition) and in various numbers of the "Saints' Herald" and other of their publications. This is from page 66, Vol. 17, True L. D. S. Herald: "God foreknew the character of sister Emma—that she would be faithful and true to him who had called her—and he elected her to be the mother of the successor of the Martyr—the "one mighty and strong," who is "to set in order the house of God, (i. e., the church; see I. Tim. iii. 15; I. Pet. iv. 17; Heb. iii. 6), and arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints; the man who shall lead them (the Saints) like as Moses led the children of Israel, (which was by direct revelation from God), and who, when sent of God, would find the Saints in 'bondage,' from which they should be 'led out' by power, (of God) 'and with a stretched out arm.'"

That's the way they formerly gave it; but they have been forced to recede because their president has not come up to this standard of the one spoken of in the Prophet's revelation. Therefore they have, since 1900, resolved:

"Whereas, we have received no divine communication authorizing any particular interpretation of the revelation before us; and as the Reorganized Church has never taken action upon the matter;

"Resolved, that we leave it an open question, to be decided as God may develop His purposes among us, while we acknowledge the leading features in it to be prominently characteristic of Jesus Christ." (From a letter by Joseph Smith of the "Reorganization" in my possession—J. F. S., Jr.)

This is rather a hard jolt to Mr. Briggs' "revelation."

10. The Reorganite "defender" says, "Also, we wish Mr. Smith to note, that the Lord in the same connection says, 'If my people will hearken to my voice,' they shall not be moved out of their place. Were they moved? Yes, they were cannonaded from Nauvoo, their enemies scattered them, some of them went to Utah. Was it because they "hearkened," or because they had not hearkened?"

He misinterprets the Scriptures. Thus do they read:

"And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place" (verse 45). Who these servants were that the Saints should "hearken" to, the Lord informs us in verses 124 to 129 of this same section. "First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith, to be a Patriarch unto you, * * * I give unto you Joseph Smith, to be a presiding elder over all my Church. * * * I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon, and my servant William Law. * * * * I give unto you my servant Brigham Young, to be a President over the Twelve traveling council, which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature; They are—Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, William Smith, John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, George A. Smith." These were the general authorities who were to be "hearkened" to. And the people hearkened to the Prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith until their death, then the right of presidency fell on the shoulders of the Twelve. The faithful Saints "hearkened" to them and helped them to build the Temple. But the unfaithful rejected these servants whom the Lord in this revelation gave to the Church for the Saints to hearken to, departed from Nauvoo, refused to comply with the command of the Lord to build His house, and were consequently moved out of their place in the Church into the "Reorganization." The moving "out of their place" did not refer to the location (Nauvoo) but to their place in the Kingdom of God; or, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And all who refused to obey this commandment and hearken to these servants were removed from the Church. "But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them. And it shall come to pass, That if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, (i. e., hearken to "the voice of these men whom I have appointed") I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promise which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord." (verses 46-7).

11. The Reorganite response to this is as follows: "Not by any means, no such an indication. We have seen that they were diligent in May 1842—not up to. The corner-stone of the edifice had been laid April 6, 1841, over a year from the date of the quotation. Room for a great deal of lagging between those two periods of time."

"The next quotation is from Hyrum Smith (no reference) at the April Conference, 1844, who speaks of, as Joseph F. Smith [Jr.], puts it, the 'willingness of the Saints to do the work as late as 1844.' Yes, but he does not say they had been willing afforded time up to 1844. From May 1842, to April, 1844, (nearly two years), afforded time to be guilty of lethargy and to falter enough to incur the penalty the fiat of the Lord had fixed."

Such miserable, puerile, balderdash set forth as argument, is disgusting. Nevertheless it is characteristic of the "defense" writer who, throughout, argues in this fashion, failing to present the quotations he attacks for fear his readers will discover his dishonorable methods. He was afraid to present to his readers the quotation from the remarks of Patriarch Hyrum Smith and the quotation from the Prophet wherein he said:

"Never since the formation of this Church was laid have we seen manifest a greater willingness to comply with the requisitions of Jehovah, a more ardent desire to do the will of God; more strenuous exertions used or greater sacrifices made, than have been SINCE the Lord said, LET THE TEMPLE BE BUILT BY THE TITHING OF MY PEOPLE!"

The reasons he did not give these quotations is, that he knew his readers would see his trickery and deception. Then he goes on to argue that the Saints were not diligent in September 1841, because the Lord said at that time: "Let the work of my Temple, and all the works which I have appointed unto you, be continued on and not cease, let your diligence and your perseverance, and patience, and your works be redoubled, and you shall in no wise lose your reward." (My italics). Therefore, he argues, "they were not sufficiently diligent at that time," because they were commanded to redouble their works. "That at least makes one positive break in Mr. Smith's chain of diligence."

Let us see: their works that were to be redoubled were not confined to the building of the Temple, and the context of this revelation (see sec. 127) proves that they were in favor with the Lord and had been diligent and patient and persevering in their works. We have seen too, from the Prophet's own words, that "laboring with their might" meant one-tenth of their time or means—a tithing of the people, which is all the Lord had asked of them, and this could be redoubled without any thought of lethargy or lack of diligence. There is no sense in the Reorganite "defender," being unreasonable, technical and peevish in this matter to win a point for a dilapidated cause. There is sufficient evidence given in this book; and it is not all that could be given by any means, to show that the Saints labored faithfully, diligently, and did all that the Lord required of them until they had completed the Temple; and that, too, while they were being harassed, persecuted, and in every way opposed by their enemies. All these facts the "defender" very carefully avoids.

Another thing. Who was it that failed to be diligent and to labor with their mights in building the Temple? Those scattered members who refused to go to Nauvoo when commanded, and afterwards,—if we may accept Reorganite testimony—became the nucleus of their Church! Those who fled from Nauvoo with James J. Strang, Sidney Rigdon and William Smith; forsaking the Church; refusing to assist in the completion of the Temple; opposing the building of that edifice; even prophesying that it would not be built, and blocking the progress of its erection! Notwithstanding the Lord declared to Parley P. Pratt in a revelation just following the martyrdom—which is accepted by the Reorganites as genuine—"Go and say unto my people (not rejected) in Nauvoo, that they shall continue to pursue their daily duties and take care of themselves, and make no movement in Church government to reorganize or alter anything until the return of the remainder of the quorum of the Twelve (not rejected). But exhort them that they continue to build the House of the Lord which I have commanded them to build in Nauvoo." (My comments and italics). Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, page 371). Notwithstanding this commandment, some forsook Nauvoo and refused to assist in building the Temple, and these were the ones who afterwards became active members of the "Reorganization." It will take more evidence than a lot of innuendos, accusations, and downright sophistry to prove that the Lord rejected those who labored diligently on the Temple, according to His command, and accepted those who rejected the Temple, and refused to assist in its erection.

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.

14. The Reorganite "defender" at this point carefully avoids the evidence and argument presented here, and argues at great length attempting to prove that the Church was rejected because the Lord said He was "about to restore many things to the earth pertaining to the Priesthood." The Lord said: "I deign to reveal unto My Church, things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulnesss of times." The "defender" says these things were not revealed, nor restored to the Church; that no revelations that were kept hid from before the foundation of the world, pertaining to the Priesthood in the dispensation of the fulnesss of times, have been revealed from heaven; therefore the Church was rejected with its dead. He says their Doctrine and Covenants contains no such revelations; that no such revelations are to be found in our edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; and, therefore, he concludes, no such revelations have been given to us, or the Church; so the Church must have been rejected.

He asks me to answer the following questions: "Now let us ask, Mr. Smith: Have any such revelations been received? Name them. Where are they and what are they?"

I have taken this matter up under the head of "Temple Building and Ceremonial Endowments Therein." All that is necessary to say here is this: If the Lord kept things hid from the world since before the foundation thereof was laid and now has revealed them to His people, they are not intended for the world and necessarily will not be found in the written word. Such revelations have been revealed unto the Church in the Temples of the Lord; but I shall not name them. If the Lord saw fit to keep them from the world, yes, and from the dispensations past, He does not intend to reveal them to the world now; neither to the scoffer and the unbeliever in His works. Let our friend read Matthew 7:10-12, as it is given in the Holy Scriptures: "And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet. For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you."