Does the Reorganized Church Hold a Fulness of the Priesthood?

DOES THE REORGANIZED CHURCH HOLD A FULNESS OF THE PRIESTHOOD? On the 13th of January, 1904, an enquirer of Salt Lake City, wrote a letter of inquiry to the president of the "Reorganized Church" asking, "Do the presiding authorities or does the authority of the 'Reorganized Church' hold a fulness of the Priesthood?" The following letters were written in the course of the correspondence, which are self-explanatory, but which still leave the answer very indefinite and unsatisfactory to the reader who will rather feel that the first answer should have been, No: Lamoni, Iowa, Jan. 18, 1904. Mr. Dear Sir: — Yours of the 13th received. According to the revelation of God to the church, section 107 of the Utah edition; 104 in the one we are using, of the Doctrine and Covenants, there are in the Church two priesthoods, the Melchizedek and the Aaronic. We have both in the Reorganized Church. Both were conferred upon members composing the Reorganized Church at its reorganization, by the church in the days and under the administration of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, high priests, seventies and elders, priests, teachers, and deacons. I do not know what you may mean by the fulness of the priesthood. There can be but the two priesthoods. It is a mistake to suppose that there are different priesthoods attaching to different offices in the priesthood, though this has been done, I think to the great injury of the cause. The elders hold the same priesthood that the apostle, patriarch or prophet does. A prophet can hold no higher, neither can an apostle nor a patriarch. The president of the church can hold no higher than a high priest. His office and work may be different, but his priesthood is the same. He is chosen from among the high priests and is set to pre-

side according to the call of God, by an election or vote of the people of the church. think this will answer your request, if you will read the I section of theBook of Doctrine and Covenants referred to. I made a similar answer to this question to Franklin D. Richards, at Ogden, in the presence of my cousin, John Smith, patriarch of the Church in Utah, and he acknowledged that there were but the two priesthoods, which is evident. The Book of Mormon is said to contain the fulness of the Gospel, and yet the gospel in the Book of Mormon is but a repetition of the gospel in the New Testament; and that which is found in the Book of Covenants is practically a repetition of both. It is no more full in the one document than the other. I do not understand that there can be different priesthoods under the administration of the dual priesthoods; there can be but two. The grades of office do not make the priesthood. Yours, Joseph Smith. On the 22nd of January the enquirer made the following acknowledgement and further inquiry: Your answer to my question was duly received and I thank you for the same. I realize, though, that I did not convey the idea as I intended, for you say, "I do not know what vou mean by a fulness of the priesthood." Perhaps I should have said "a fulness of the power of the priesthood." I have always held to the idea that there are but two priesthoods —or divisions of the priesthood — the Aaronic and the Melchizedek; and that no matter what office a man holds it cannot be greater than the priesthood out of which the office comes; that an elder, a seventy, a high priest and an apostle all hold the same priesthood, but that all are not called to act or officiate in the same capacity, but that each is restricted in his movements and power, under ordinary conditions, to the office which he holds. Now, the point I desire to have made clear is this: Is there any key, privilege or power, pertaining to the salvation of man in the celestial kingdom of God, which is necessary to be held in this dispensation, which is not held by you? Or, is there any ordinance necessary in this dispensation, for the salvation and exaltation of mankind, which you cannot perform? Trusting that I have made the question clear, and that you will see fit to enlighten me upon this subject, I am yours truly,

FULNESS OF PRIESTHOOD. 515 On the 16th of February following, this reply was received: I know of no key, privilege or power pertaining to the eternal salvation of man in the celestial kingdom of God, necessary in this dispensation, which is not held by those holding the offices of the Melchizedek priesthood, which I have already assured you is held by us, and that by conferment of Joseph Smith the prophet during his lifetime. I know of no revelation on the subject more than the written articles of Joseph Smith, published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants and dated September 1 and 6, 1842, in respect to the baptism for the dead at Nauvoo, which some have called revelations; but there is nothing in the articles themselves to indicate that they are revelations. These articles refer only to baptism for the dead. The statement, "fulness of the priesthood," would carry with it the understanding that all that the priesthood when conferred would accomplish by command of God was conferred upon them in their call and ordination through the Melchizedek priesthood. I know of no other revelation authorizing the performance of any act not couched in the gospel of Christ as found in the New Testament scriptures, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations given and placed upon record during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, as essential unto salvation, except the so-called revelation on celestial marriage, the authenticity of which is of such a doubtful character that I cannot accept it, as it never reached the church in due course, as provided in the and did not see the light law, of publication until eight years after the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith —August 29, 1852. The document presented by President Young on that date and read before the people without an opportunity to examine it, or any vote as to its acceptance, has never been sufficiently identified as having come through Joseph Smith from God, and is of such character that if it had been received hy him, it would not become a tenet of the church, or a doctrine to be followed and reduced to practice, without violating the plain provisions of scripture found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and in direct contradiction to the revelations given of during the formative period of the church under the administration Joseph and Hyrum Smith. I,therefore, must reply to your question that so far as my knowlthe Scriptures given to the Church for its government and guidedge of given to the Church ance, together with the revelations which God has and which have been duly accepted, including the inspired translation of in the book of Docthe Holy Scriptures and the revelations published Covenants up to and immediately after the death of Joseph trine and there is no ordinance necessary for the "salvation and exalSmith, goes,

tation of mankind" in this dispensation, which we of the Reorganized Church do not hold the power and privilege and right to administer and officiate in. Should there be any other question in regard to this matter which you may be inclined to ask, and it be in my power to answer, I will do so. Yours, Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, February 27, 1904. President Joseph Smith, Lamoni, Iowa: Dear Sir: —Your letter of the 16th inst., in response to my question of January 22nd, was received by me a few days ago, and I thank you for the concise answer it contained. There is, however, still a mist that I would have you clear away in regard to the same question. You say that so far as your knowledge of the Scriptures given to the Church for its government and guidance goes, etc., there is no ordinance necessary for the salvation and exaltation mankind in this dispensation, of which you of the Reorganized Church do not hold the power and privilege and right to administer and officiate in. Further, that you know of no key, privilege, or power pertaining to the eternal salvation of man in the kingdom of God which is not held by you of the Reorganization. The point I wish cleared up is this: In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 107, page 304, Lamoni, 1880 edition, the following clause occurs: "For there is not a place found on earth that he may come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or that which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood." Now, according to the reading here —and have read the context— appears I it to me that there are certain keys, powers, or ordinances pertaining to the priesthood, which could not be revealed or bestowed upon the people outside of a temple of the living God. As you do not build temples and perform ordinances pertaining thereto, I wondered when and where the keys, or powers of the priesthood which were lost,or "which he hath taken away,"were received; for, as I read it, there must be a house to the name of the Most High in which these things should be received; and if there is no house, these keys, or ordinances, or "fulness of priesthood" could not be obtained. If this is so, then in the Reorganized Church you could not have a fulness of the power of the priesthood, because certain ordinances, or keys would be withheld.

— FULNESS OF PRIESTHOOD. 517 Will you, therefore, kindly give me your views on this point? I ask for information and to be set right in regard to your teachings. Very respectfully, After a wait of over two months for a reply that did not come, another copy of the above letter was sent, on the sixth of May following, which was again repeated July 11, 1904, without result. Therefore, on the 8th of the following October, another copy was sent by registered mail. In response to this, Secretary R. S. Salyards, wrote on October 12, as follows: Replying to yours of the 8th inst., addressed to President Joseph Smith: President Smith is absent from home.and will be absent for some time to come. However, your letter will doubtless receive his consideration at no distant date. He has been away a considerable portion of the season, which no doubt has delayed him somewhat in replying to your communication. Yours very truly, R. S. Salyards, Secretary. On the twenty-seventh of October, 1904, the following letter was received which summarily closed the correspondence: Yours of the 8th October, 1904, accompanying a copy of one written May 6th, received. I am not aware that I am under any promised obligation to reply to your letter, only as my time and opportunity may serve me. I have been too busy at other things to pay the attention to it that you might require. I am a pretty busy man, and can only reply to letters of the character of yours when the time and opportunity may serve. The letter of May 6th, was received. Yours, Joseph Smith.