The Church Rejected: When?

—

IMPROVEMENT ERA. Vol. VII. SEPTEMBER, 1904. No. 11.

THE CHURCH REJECTED—WHEN? BY JOHN POWELL, OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.

[Missionaries who have come in contact with the so-called "Josephite," or the Reorganized, church, have often heard the claim made by them that the need for a reorganization was that "the Church was rejected." John Powell, a resident of Salt Lake City, wishing light upon the subject, directed, late in the month of November, 1903, [and againDecember 28, 1903, the following questions to Joseph Smith, editor of the Saints' Herald, and president of the Reorganization. The reply from the editor and the rejoinder by John Powell need no further comment; they speak for themselves and make lively polemic reading. Editors.]

John Powell's Questions:

"At what time was the Church rejected with its dead; was it before or after the death of Joseph Smith the Prophet? Is the Church still rejected? If not, when and by what method was it again received? Are the dead still rejected? If not, when were they again received?"

An Editorial Reply in the "Saints' Herald," February 17, 1904:

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. The elements of mischief by which the rejection was made possible and justifiable were sown as early as in 1843, and culminated ten years later when the so-called revelation on celestial marriage was forced upon the people, after the practice of plural mar-

818 IMPROVEMENT ERA.

riage or polygamy had been carried on secretly for a number of years by Bome, and many involved in such practice. The "mystery of iniquity" had already begun its paralyzing and evil work; and the withdrawing of the protecting power of the Lord from the chief shepherds, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, suffered them to be led "as a lamb to the slaughter," marked the increase of displeasure against the Church, as a body, not as individuals. Thenceforward, the course of events progressed with more or less rapidity, until the final adoption of the so-called revelation, August 29, 1852. By an official act of a number of the men who were members of the Church at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, in conference assembled, in June, 1852, before that fatal August 29, the act of reorganization within the lines of safety was begun. This action of conference was foreseen, fostered and accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and under its direction, by revelation in tongues, interpretation, prophecy, dreams, and visions. Some of these men had sought to find the Church in the movements made by ambitious men, other than the Church in the valleys of the mountains, and had listened to the leaders of these movements in hope to discover the true fold, but the hope was vain. At length, despairing of reaching their aim by human wisdom and so-called living oracles they ' ,

sought the Lord, and by him they were directed to the written word. This was like the action of the same revealing One, who on the occasion of his being tempted by the devil resisted him in precisely the same way: "It is written." In the struggle for supremacy in leadership new devices were presented and strange claims were asserted, one of the claimants (and he the most dangerous and successful of all) went so far as to say in efltect, that the Church no longer needed to walk by the written word, that the need for the governing of the Church by the written word was passed; and that the Church was at that time and thenceforward to walk and be governed by the "living oracles," the priesthood, or those holding the priesthood, especially those claiming to hold the presidential and apostolic offices.

Baptizing for the dead was a permissive rite; or to write more plainly, the Church was permitted by the Lord to baptize for the dead under certain rules. By terms stated in the revelations this permissive rite could be performed and would be acceptable if performed in the river while the time given the Church in which the temple should be built was passing. After the completion of the temple, baptisms for the dead were to be performed in it. But if the temple was not completed

THE CHURCH REJECTED— WHEN? 819

within the limit of time the privilege to baptize for the dead was to expire and the Church be "rejected with its dead." Work continued to be done on the temple until the fall of 1845, possibly until the summer of 1846; but the building was never finished; and whatever ordinances were performed in it took place in rooms not wholly finished. The north stairway, the second or upper auditorium, and attic were entirely incompleted. The basement and the first or lower auditorium were in a manner complete; but whether finished in accordance with plans and specifications we cannot state, for we never saw these. It was rumored at the time that the plans for the finishing had been changed, but the truth of these rumors is not known to us. It is a fact, however, that in October, 1848, the temple was destroyed by fire, the entire woodwork inside being burned out, leaving the walls standing to the level of the eaves on all four sides. Later the walls fell at different intervals until only the southwest corner of the front in which was the stair tower was left, and finally this was thrown down by official order to'avoid possible injury to incautious persons. The ultimate result was that not one stone was left upon another as placed by the workmen when the walls were erected; the only exception being the walls of the well which was intended to supply the font in the base-

ment. This well was in use the last knowledge we had of the place. It seems, then, that the privilege to baptize for the dead being a permissive one, and its continuation conditional upon a contingent event which did not transpire, the privilege must have lapsed by expiration, or limitation. And, if subsequently it was to be engaged in and enjoyed by the same people, it must be restored again by revelation and command, and could not be assumed as being held over by suffrance. We do not know of any revelation or command authoritatively promulgated renewing the privilege. It is certain, however, that the rejection of the Church as an organ-

ized body, existing in quorum organization at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, did not affect those members who had been duly inducted into the Church who remained true to the covenant they entered into, "the new and everlasting covenant" which the Lord stated in a revelation given March 7, 1831, that he had sent into the world, in the following strong language: "And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messengen before my face to prepare the way before me." — Doctrine and Covenants 45:2. This is repeated in section 49, paragraph 2: "Wherefore, I say unto

820 IMPRO VEMENT ERA .

you, that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." That there needed not be doubts in the minds of the membership what the nature of this everlasting covenant was, and is, the Lord revealed again: "And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all; and they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon, and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written." — Doctrine and Covenants 83 (Utah 84) :8. The individuals who kept this covenant were accepted of him and were not rejected, nor their standing before God put in jeopardy by thfr departure of others from the faith. Whatever the ofBce in the priesthood each held, under the ordinations ordered by the call of God and vote of the Church, would remain valid. They could as elders, priests,,

teachers, etc., pursue the duties of warning, expounding, and inviting all to come to Christ,and by command of God could build up the Church from any single branch, which, like themselves, had not bowed the knee to Baal, or departed from the faith of the Church as found in the standard works of the body at the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. There were such branches. The Reorganized Church, of which the Herald is the official journal, in 1860 adopted as a rule of safe procedure that all baptisms performed prior to June 27, 1844, must be considered as valid; those persons after that date, to be accepted, must be shown to have been performed by some one who held authority in the time of Joseph and Hyrum, and ta have not been in transgression at the time the baptism was performed, or must have been endorsed by the reception of the Spirit and its certification, at the time application to be received on original baptism is made. This practically puts the rejection at the date of the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith; though no action to the effect of setting this date has been had by the Church. The Church, using the word to mean the Church rejected, has not been again received.

John PovjeWs Reply: Salt Lake City, Feb. 26, 1904. President Joseph Smith, Editor ^'Saints' Herald," Lamoni, Iowa.

Dear Sir: — Your letter of the 16fch inst. was duly received. I had almost

—

THE CHURCH REJECTED— HEN? ]' 821

come to the conclusion that for some reason my question was to be overlooked, and I am still of the opinion that the editorial of Dec. 16, 1903, was intended as the answer to the same. This opinion is confirmed because the editorial of Febuary 17, 1904, is in

many respects a repeiition of the former one. Nevertheless, I thank you for the answers, for they confirm and strengthen my belief and testimony in the truthfulness of the gospel, and in the impregnable position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. You lay great stress upon the statement that "by an official act of a number of the men who were members of the Church at tlie death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, in conference assembled in June, 1852, before the fatal August 29, the act of reorganizing within the bounds of safety was begun," and that the action of that conference "was foreseen, fostered and accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and under its direction by revelation in tongues, interpretation, prophecy, dreams and visions." But this statement proves nothing. If the Lord had an intention to reorganize, he

would have begun at the head, and not at the tip of the tail,which, by the way, was amputated. It is the same cry that was raised

by Whitmer, Rigdon, Strang and others, who, like the leaders in tlie "Reorganization," in their attempt to set up churches of their own, claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, through prophecy, visions, dreams, etc., and gave forth the same "evidence" of their favor with the Master, but what does it amount to, today? If the third volume of your Church history is reliable, we have

an account of the nature of the prophecy, visions, tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc., which were had among the "reorganizers," and a man need not be much of an observer to know what sort of a spirit they were of. We are, too, given a fair idea of the character and nature of the men who founded your organization. We learn how often they — after leaving the true channel followed every will-o-the-wisp. First with Rigdon, then Strang, Thompson or William Smith, receiving "ordinations," "power," and "authority" from these self-constituted leaders; and finally taking the honor unto themselves and centering in the "Reorganization," which is of the same doubtful source as its predecessor and begetter —Strangism. And we are asked to accept such authority For !

—

822 IMPROVEMENT ERA.

my part, I prefer something more tangible, a Church which has continually existed as an organization since the sixth day of April, 1830. Had the Church been rejected with its dead there would have been an end to all power and priesthood, for if the authority, Church was not recognized, most certainly the priesthood, and above all, the offices of the same which belong to the Church, would not be recognized by the Great Jehovah. Where are the offices, if there is no Church? If the Church was rejected, so were the branches. If the branches — or any of them — were not rejected, then neither was the Church. Your Prophet father has declared:

"I testify again, as the Lord lives, God will never acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the priesthood of Melcbizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God. "It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, and they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust." {From a sermon delivered June 16, 1844).

This does not augur well for your foundation. Your claim that baptism for the dead was a permissive rite is certainly original. If so, then all the ordinances of the Gospel are permissive rites. Your statement hardly coincides with the views of your father, for he looked upon baptism for the dead as one of the greatest of commandments, and this subject occupied his mind more than any other for some time previous to his death. (See Doctrine and Covenants, Lamoni ed., page 323), We also have his word that "these are principles in relation to the dead, and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary, and essential to our salvation,as Paul says concerning the fathers 'that

—

THE CHURCH REJECTED— WHEN? 823

they without us cannot be made perfect,' neither can we without our dead be made perfect." What could be expressed in stronger terms? Yet you say that this principle — baptism for the dead was a permissive rite ! I grant you, that the saints were given the privilege of being baptized for their dead in the Mississippi river under certain conditions; but it was the use of the river for that purpose which was permissible, and not the principle, as you express it. Speaking of the work of Elijah the Prophet, and the turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers, your father said: "It is sufficient to know * * * * that the earth will be smitten with a curse, unless there is a welding link of some kind or other, between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other, and behold, what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them can not be made perfect, neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they or we be made perfect, without those who have died in the gospel also ;/or it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times; which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam to the present time; and not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world,. but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this dispensation of the fulness of times."

Among other keys, the Priesthood pertaining to this grand work — — the uniting of the children to their fathers was conferred by the Prophet Elijah on the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple, April 3, 1836. Laying all things else aside, this Priesthood pertaining to the salvation of thedead most certainly never was conferred upon the heads of any elders of the so-called "Reorganized" church. And by your actions, you truthfully have laid no claims to such keys. On the contrary, you have discarded them by conference resolution, for proof of which see your conference resolutions of April 9, 1886.*

• The conference resolution reads: "Baptism for the dead referred to belongs to those local questions of which the body has said by resolu-

—

824 IMPROVEMENT ERA.

Elijah, in conferring the keys of this Priesthood, took partic- ular pains to inform his fellow servants that the time for the re- ception of this Priesthood had fully come: "Therefore the keys of this dispensation are committed unto your hands, and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near,

even at the doors." No! Elijah, you have made a mistake, that time has not fully €ome, nor are such keys necessary, baptism for the dead was not given as a commandment, therefore we "Josephites" have done it

away by conference resolution. Not a commandment? A permissive rite? Yet this order of

things "was ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the Gospel." If the Prophet of the greatest of all dis-

pensations is to be believed, we are further taught that when the dead, small and great, stand before God to be judged out of the books which are written, that one of those books will be the record of baptisms, etc., for the dead, which was kept according to the ordinance which God has prepared for their salvation from before the foundation of the world. Moreover, he has said, "the Saints have not too much time to save and redeem their dead, and gather together their living relatives, that they may be saved also, before the earth will be smitten, and the consummation decreed falls upon the world."* It strikes me quite forcibly that any principle of the gospel which God has prepared from before the foundation of the world, is more than a "local" or "permissive rite," and is a commandment as broad as eternity, when the salvation of millions of the children of God, who are in the "prison house," depends upon it. I

for one am certainly impressed to believe it such. In regard to your permissive rite, you state that by "terms

tion: 'That the commandments of a local character, given to the first organization of the church are binding on the Reorganization only so far as they are either reiterated or referred to as binding by commandment to this church,' — And that principle has neither been reiterated nor referred to as a commandment." Conference resolutions, page 82.

• Millennial Star, Vol. 22: 664.

THE CHURCH REJECTED— WHEN? 825

stated in the revelations, this permissive rite could be performed and would be acceptable if performed in the river, while the time given the Church in which the temple should be built was passing. After the completion of the temple, baptisms for the dead were to be performed in it. Bnt if the temple was not completed within the limit of time, the privilege to baptize for the dead was to expire, and the Church be "rejected with its dead." (My italics). My question was, when was the Church rejected with its dead? I think you have given me a clue to the day and date, provided such a thing as a rejection ever took place.And, surely, if such were the case, there would be some revelation or specific manifestation from God to the presiding authorities, or authority, which would not leave the Saints in doubt. Let us examine your statement. (a) By terms stated in the revelations, baptism for the dead would be acceptable in the river, while the temple was being erected, unless the "sufficient time" should first elapse. (b) After the completion of the temple, baptisms for the dead would be performed in that edifice, and discontinued in the river. (c) If the temple was not completed in the "sufficient time" granted, not only would baptisms for the dead in the river discontinue, but the Church would be rejected with its dead. I draw this conclusion: That if a commandment was given, before the completion of the temple, discontinuing baptisms in the river for the dead, it was to be a sign that the "sufficient time" had expired, and the Church stood rejected with its dead. Was such a command ever .given? At the close of his remarks, at a conference held Sunday, October 3, 1841, your father said: ''There shall be no more baptisms for the dead, until the ordinance can be attended to in the font of the Lord's House; and the Church meet in shall not hold another general conference, until they can said house. For thus saith the Lord." That this was the date of rejection, Lyman Wight taught, if we may accept your Church History for the statement; and his grandson, among others of your elders, has also maintained that view. (See Church History, Vol. 2: 790, and True Succession, p. 74.) Why not hold to this view, if you believe in the rejection at all, since the only object in believing in the "rejection of the

826 IMPROVEMENT ERA.

Church" is to offer an excuse for the existence of the "Reorganization"? Most certainly this view is as worthy of consideration as is the one declaring that President Young taught that the "living oracles" were more important than the written word, and therefore the Church was rejected. Or, that the belief in and practice

of plural marriage was taught, also that there could be more than one everlasting covenant, in the Gospel, therefore the Saints had gone astray! Why should we not look to "living oracles" for counsel and advice? The commandments contained in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, which are now binding upon the Saints, were first given to "living oracles," before they became the written word. The same is true of all scripture. While we look to the "living oracles" for the word of the Lord, yet we do not^ on that account, discard the written word, nor is it of no effect. The Lord said, "I am about to restore many things to the earth,, pertaining to the Priesthood,"* and things were to be "revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time; and not only this,, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world; but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings, in this dispensation of the fulness of times." I would rather have one real living prophet to guide me than to have to depend alone upon the dead letter of the law. Let me call your attention to the fact that the Redeemer did not always defend himself with the weapon, "/it is written!" Sometimes, he was compelled to change what was written, and on such occasions He said, "/ say unto thee!" and what he said became law, in preference to what had been written, and this was quite often during his ministry. If I understand correctly, your father, under the direction of the Lord, was privileged to make conditional changes in some of the ordinances of the Gospel, contrary to what was written. I also read in the Scriptures, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." This is true, too, even if the people do have the written word among them, and we read of a "famine of hearing the word of the Lord," that was to be sent from God among

Doctrine and Covenants 127; 8; sec. 28.

THE CHURCH REJECTED— WHEN? 827

the people. So I see nothing so terrible in the belief that we shoulU be governed by "living oracles" who can reveal unto us the will of God, since the Church was built upon the foundation of continuous revelation. •That President Young taught that we should discard the written word because of an acceptance of the "living oracles," I deny. For he (as all the other leaders in the Kingdom of God) upheld the written word which was received as a standard in doctrine by the Church. In relation to the completion of the temple, President John Taylor, in the fall of 1846, declared that the temple was completed, and it is a recorded fact that that building was dedicated that same year, and it is not reasonable to suppose that the building was dedicated before it was completed. Even if the temple had not been completed, there was a provision made in the revelation by which the offering of the Saints would be accepted, provided they did not cease their diligence, and were prevented by their enemies from carrying on the work. The Lord said that under such conditions their offering would be acceptable unto him. History informs us that the Saints did not cease their diligence, and their enemies did drive them and prevent them, not only in their work, but from continuing to use the building after it was completed. So your grounds are not very sure, even in an emergency of this kind. Your statement that the individuals who kept their covenants were not rejected, but were accepted of God, and their standing not put in jeopardy, is true. But the fact happens to be that those individuals were the majority who accepted the Twelve, and not the few disgruntled apostates who made shipwreck of their faith by setting up opposing churches of their own. I would infer from statements in your article that you believe,

because as early as March 7, 1831, the Lord, through revelation, speaks of sending his new and everlasting covenant into the world, that, therefore, there could be no other everlasting covenant. In section 22 (Utah ed.)I learn that baptism is a new and everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning. In sections 39, 45, 49, 101 and 133, I learn that the Gospel is an everlasting covenant. In sections 78, 82, and 104, I learn that the law of consecration is an everlasting covenant, and that the Saints were