I was recently discussing the 1844 LDS Succession Crisis with some friends. Although as a second gen Mormon I have no pioneer ancestors, I do sometimes wonder what I would have done had I been there. The Mormon Succession Crisis was truly unplanned, resulting in confusion, bad feelings, and schism. If you had been in Nauvoo in 1844, which faction would you have followed?
It’s easy to feel complacent about leadership succession in our current structure in the LDS church. There’s literally no room for question as it is entirely based on seniority among the apostles. God chooses successors by default, last man standing–or breathing, if not standing. There’s no voting, no campaigning. There’s not even an election like in Catholicism (and their succession model is pretty steady and predictable, but not as change-averse as our own). There are no coups, no changes to status quo. In an increasingly conservative church, this is maddening to some of us who would like to see more progressive thinking, but at least we don’t have to deal with weird left-field changes or unknown leaders assuming power. Kevin Barney, who was also in that discussion, wrote about the pros and cons of the downstream impacts from the succession crisis at BCC here.
But it could have all been very different. When the church was new, there were a lot of open questions about who should lead, and these questions led to confusion, power plays, accusations, excommunications, and schisms. There were many open questions plaguing church members.
- Did the First Presidency outrank the Quorum of the Twelve?
- Was the “prophetic gift” something genetic that occurred in the Smith family specifically?
- Should one of the quorums lead in Joseph’s absence?
- Did Joseph choose a prophetic successor based on his own prophetic gift?
The succession crisis was fueled by rumors that Joseph had, at different times, identified all of these potentials as successors (apparently he gave out succession blessings like horehound candy):
Family Members
- Hyrum Smith. He was not only the current Assistant President of the Church [1] but he was also the Presiding Patriarch. Of course, he couldn’t succeed since he was martyred with his brother.
- Samuel Smith. According to lineal succession, Smith’s younger brother Samuel was the next in line; however, he died suddenly and unexpectedly (and some felt suspiciously) a month after the martyrdom.
- William Smith. Next in line after Samuel was the last surviving Smith brother, William. He only claimed the right to succeed as Presiding Patriarch, not church President, but much later revised his claim (and with little success). He also claimed that Brigham Young had poisoned his brother Samuel in his own bid to head the church. There was no evidence of foul play, and Young denied any involvement.
- Sons of Joseph & Emma Smith. Many had heard Joseph state that his oldest son and namesake would be his successor (in 1834 and 1839), and in April of 1844, he had also prophesied that his unborn child would be named David and would lead the church as “President and King of Israel.”[2] When he died, his oldest son was still only 11 years of age, not yet ready to take on leadership of the church.
Prominent Church Figures
- Oliver Cowdery. He had been the “Second Elder” of the church from day one and jointly held the keys of the dispensation. He had also been present at all of the major events of the church’s foundation. He was later ordained Assistant President of the Church and had authority to preside over the whole church and officiate in the absence of Joseph, but he had been excommunicated in 1838.
- David Whitmer. Joseph had blessed him in 1834 to be a successor, but Whitmer had left the church in 1838.
Council Leadership
- First Presidency. Because the First Presidency was the top leadership body of the church, many members felt that leadership would naturally default to them. Since Sidney Rigdon was the only remaining member of the FP (both Hyrum and Joseph having been killed), he was the obvious choice. He returned from campaigning for the Vice Presidency in Pennsylvania (under Joseph’s instruction), and he claimed he had received a revelation that he was to serve as “guardian” of the church.
- Quorum of the Twelve. The Q12 were ordained to be traveling ministers originally but in later years had been invested with more of a governing role, and Brigham Young, as leader of the quorum, had become a particularly close confidant to Smith in his final years. Young had often taken charge in Smith’s absence during the last years of Smith’s life.
- Nauvoo High Council. The President was William Marks, and Emma urged him to succeed her husband, but he deferred to Sidney Rigdon’s superior claim. Marks, as local leader in Nauvoo, called for a conference on August 8th to decide the issue.
- The Council of Fifty. This was a group of men trusted by Joseph in his presidential bid. Some of them were non-Mormons. Smith had specifically said the Lord was ready to let him rest for a while and it was time for these men to step up. This statement could have caused further confusion, but nobody stepped forward to claim the role.
Prophetic Leader
- James Strang. He had been baptized only a few months prior to the martyrdom, but he was considered a strong candidate for succession because he claimed a prophetic call and to have visions and commune with angels. He also claimed the gift of translation (having translated ancient plates he found). Brigham Young never claimed to be prophetic instead clarifying to the Saints in the Times & Seasons newspaper: “You no longer have a prophet, but you have apostles.” Strang held a Letter of Appointment allegedly penned by Joseph Smith in the month of his death appointing him as successor. The evidence regarding the letter was inconclusive; Smith did write to Strang at the time noted, the postmark on the letter was confirmed, but some experts claimed the letter was forged. The letter is still in a collection at Yale University. Strang did not have name recognition in Nauvoo as he lived in Wisconsin. He mainly exercised his claim in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin, and at one time had support from members of the Smith family (whose loyalties seemed to change from month to month) as well as Martin Harris. [5]
In Nauvoo, at least, it initially boiled down to Rigdon’s claim vs. Young’s claim, and Young had been more visible to them in recent months due to the presidential bid that had required Rigdon to be out of state. So, like hip hop gangs in the movies, they settled this by competitive street dance off. Well, kind of–Rigdon & Young each campaigned in front of the assembled Saints on August 8, 1844 (at the meeting set up by Marks)–they campaigned the heck out of it in the few days prior. Young rode Joseph Smith’s horse through town, as a demonstration of his replacing the beloved leader (“See? Even his horse likes me! Make Nauvoo great again!”).[4] Rigdon pointed out that he alone was set apart as a “prophet, seer, and revelator” unlike the apostles, and he alone as a member of the First Presidency was a decision maker whereas they were not. He pitched Young and the Quorum of the Twelve as a substantial downgrade: unqualified functionaries, not prophetic leaders like him.
From the Wikipedia page:
After Rigdon spoke for ninety minutes, Young called for a recess of two and a half hours. When the conference resumed, Young spoke, emphasizing the idea that no man could ever replace Joseph Smith. However, he stated that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had all the “keys of the priesthood” that Smith had held. He answered Rigdon’s proposal to be named “guardian” by claiming that Rigdon and Smith had become estranged in recent years. Rather than a single guardian, Young proposed that the Quorum of the Twelve be named the church’s leadership. Rigdon declined an offer to rebut Young, asking Phelps to speak for him. Instead Phelps spoke in favor of Young’s proposal. The assembled church members then voted by common consent on whether or not to accept the Twelve as the new leaders over the church. The majority voted in favor of the Twelve. Those who opposed the vote against Young were all later excommunicated from the Nauvoo church.[Link]
There were a lot of excommunications going on at this time in the struggle for a successor. On September 8, the Common Council of the Church under the leadership of Newel K. Whitney (of the infamous tobacco stained upstairs floors) excommunicated Sidney Rigdon in absentia; he, in turn, excommunicated the members of the Quorum of the Twelve.
While exact numbers of church members at that time are not known, there were roughly 25,000. If you took 25 typical Nauvoo Mormons in 1844, here’s where they would have ended up:
- 10 would have followed Brigham Young and decided to go west in 1847.
- 1 would have followed Sidney Rigdon who founded the Church of Jesus Christ (aka Rigdonites, later Bickertonites, aka The Church of Jesus Christ).
- 2 would have followed Strang, possibly relocating to Wisconsin or one of the other areas in the northern midwest.
- 5 would have stayed behind to pin their hopes on the Smith Family’s leadership waiting for Joseph III to be old enough to take control, under the trust of Marks and other local leaders as well as his mother Emma’s guidance.
- 7 would have left the church and returned to their old faiths or followed other leaders.
Even after the conference, Brigham Young’s position as President was tenuous as there was no precedent. He was well-known in Nauvoo and seen as a leader, and those whom Joseph had inaugurated into the still secretive doctrine of plural marriage knew that Brigham was also in the know (whereas Rigdon was opposed to it, and James Strang hadn’t been to Nauvoo and wasn’t involved in it). Those who despised polygamy (or who were only aware of Smith’s public denials) were less likely to be happy with Young. Even among the Quorum of the Twelve, there was disagreement about the succession–even three years later!
On December 27, 1847, when Young organized a new First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve only had seven of its twelve members present to represent a council to decide the Presidency. William Smith, John Taylor and Parley P. Pratt were in the Salt Lake Valley and could not have known of the proceedings. This left just seven present, a majority of one meaning Young would have to vote for himself in order to gain a majority quorum vote in favor of his leadership. Young chose two of the other apostles, Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards, as his counselors in the First Presidency. This left only four members of the Quorum of the Twelve present to vote in favor of creation of the new First Presidency: Orson Hyde, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, and Orson Pratt. The Church of Jesus Christ (founded by Sidney Rigdon) views this action as a violation of church law compromising the authority of Sidney Rigdon without a majority quorum vote.[Link]
Which brings me back to my original question: what would you have done if you were around in 1844?
- Would you follow Brigham Young and the twelve to the west, accepting polygamy as part of the bargain?
- Would you consider Ridgon’s authority superior and followed him to Pennsylvania when he claimed the twelve tried to harm him?
- Would you believe Strang’s claim to the prophetic mantle was most compelling?
- Would you stay in Nauvoo, waiting until Joseph’s son reached his age of majority?
- Would you leave the movement with so much confusion?
Personally, I think I would have found Rigdon’s claim most compelling until he deferred to Phelps at the conference (and Phelps supported Young). At that point I would have given up and been one of the 7 who walked away. How about you?
Discuss.
[1] or was it Assistant TO the President? h/t Dwight Schrute.
[2] David Hyrum Smith was born November 17, 1844 and was active in the RLDS church, but did not lead it. He was a strong opponent of polygamy as was his older brother Joseph III. Joseph & Emma had twins, a male & female, who died in infancy, and an adopted daughter (Julia Murdock Smith) who lived to age 49 but was not considered for succession; her male twin died in infancy due to exposure after the mob attack on the Smith home in 1832. All other Smith children were male.
[3] From my discussion with historian John Hamer: “There’s very little hope of calculating meaningful numbers. The LDS Church today is a very organized, corporate entity that holds deeds to ward houses wherever there are congregations, and which operates a centralized membership database and archives. This is a very different situation than the early church in 1844, which was a largely vernacular, informal, amateur affair, that had no proprietary control over local branches, which were almost universally holding cottage meetings.
The situation in the schism is not that there were suddenly multiple, discrete, corporate entities, which gained custody of different branch and individual membership certificates. The way I see it is that for many years there was still one church that had multiple headquarters organizations. For a local member in Bloomington, Illinois, they may well have thought of the Twelve as the lawful successors for a time, and then perhaps James Strang, and then looked to the New Organization (the proto-RLDS organization) before ultimately setting John E. Page and Granville Hedrick.
Membership numbers in the movement continue to be problematic. Are we counting everyone in all the branches in North America and Europe who had been baptized between 1830 and 1844 and not been either excommunicated by a church court or formally withdrawn their membership to get to the total? If we have a different standard of only counting people who considered themselves Mormon at the time, or people who were actively attending a branch, how could we calculate such a thing? You can probably count the people who immigrated to Utah, but you’d need to subtract anyone who went to Utah but converted after June of 1844.
I think it’s safe to say that a majority of those gathered to Nauvoo followed Brigham Young west and that this represented a minority of those who had been baptized 1830-1844; whether it represents a majority of those who were “really, really active” is difficult to define and the answer is likely, in my view, to remain unclear.”
[4] The well known story about Young’s face taking on the appearance of Smith at the August conference is not recorded in any contemporary accounts but emerged decades later in the Salt Lake valley as individuals looked back on that day.
[5] Shades of Denver Snuffer?
Wheat & Tares 
I recently heard a 2+ hour recap of this subject focusing on how the Q12 increased power. This stuff could be a movie with an interesting plot.
I can’t even figure out which way I would go. At the moment I would say that I would lean a bit against following Brigham Young if I had seen any of his strong-arm tactics. But if I didn’t see any of his actions as strong arm, I really don’t know what I would have done. I am just amazed at how the church wraps succession up with a nice bow tied by God himself. It seems history diagrees with that. But the victors get to write history once again.
By that point it would have all been quite enough for me and I think I’d see myself as having been naive but well intended. What a mess it all was, it amazes me that the church prospered. Ultimately it feeds my testimony that we could make such a hash of it and yet progress as we have, albeit not far or fast enough for the likes of me. But my testimony would not have survived those times, and I’d have a problem taking such risks and decisions on behalf of my children .
And then there was Young’s tenure to live through… No chance for me.
I’m with you, hawkgrrrl. Rigdon was the only surviving member of the 1st pres. and in fact was the only one besides Hyrum who hadn’t been removed from his position (although Joseph tried).
To my knowledge, only the group led by Young hasn’t had succession controversy in later years, so that says something about an orderly transfer. Followers of Strang, Rigdon, and Joseph 3rd experienced debates on leadership succession.
Were there similar problems in the Young/Taylor succession, or Taylor/Woodruff and so on? I’m curious to know.
I doubt I would have continued as a member of the Church long enough to even be concerned about the succession crisis. BTW, why “horehound” candy? That stuff’s nasty.
Wow. Reading this post is perhaps the first time I’ve given 1840s Sidney Rigdon a second glance. Perhaps a product of my conventional LDS upbringing, during the pre-Internet/pre-Essays era when you could be pro-Brigham Young without much flack, I’ve hardly given any other option serious thought. My takeaway from correlated Church history as I received it in my youth is that the best Rigdon ever did was participate in D&C 76 coming forth. And even then the narrative was some variation of him being overwhelmed and carried out of the room while mighty Joseph smirked. But here I sit thinking, gee, the me living in 1844 Nauvoo may not have followed Brigham.
Of the above scenarios, I think its most likely I might have followed Sidney, at least until I heard the Utah folk were building a really cool pipe organ. I read your take on Strang and thought I wouldn’t go with him because I’m not an early adopter (of new tech or new prophets). But I image I would have hung on with one of the groups rather than dump them all and start fresh. Honestly, part of me thinks my decision would depend in part on practical matters: where is my employer heading? Is my job about to be outsourced to the Salt Lake valley or Beaver Island in Lake Michigan?
The only other scenario is if I’d been friends with Emma and her circle, and decided to hang back with her circle, waiting for Joseph III to mature. Very interesting to ruminate on this post’s hypothetical charge.
What’s so hard about this scenario is I know so much about how things turned out, how people reacted, and how movements turned out. It’s hard to try to imagine this as a blank slate.
Just to quibble a bit about your statement that Rigdon’s excommunication occurred under the leadership of Newell K. Whitney, while that may ostensibly be true, the minutes for that meeting (both during the meeting and later as published in Times and Seasons) are clear that Brigham Young and the 12 were running the show. Brigham flat out ran the meeting, which contravened the laws of the church at the time. Oh well, it was in keeping with Young’s subsequent efforts to eliminate the Quorum of 70, Stake Presidency, and Stake High Council. It was a flat out coup d’etat.
If I hadn’t have been done by that point, there is no way I would have followed Brigham, and most certainly wouldn’t have lasted his tenure.
I’ll also add that President Marks’ comments at Rigdon’s excommunication are courageous and amazing. How he was treated by Young in the subsequent two months is a disgrace and, by virtue of D&C 121, eliminated any claim Young and the 12 could have made to authority.
Cody, yes that’s true. Whitney was certainly aligned with BY and operating at his behest. And Marks was quickly silenced as well. The nail in the coffin was Phelps disaffection from Rigdon. It’s odd that Rigdon trusted him so implicitly. The real underlying power was the secretive nature of polygamy. The men in power were all secret practitioners of it whereas Rigdon was not. And since I would have never agreed to it, I would not have supported BY.
Like MH said, it’s really hard to imagine this with a blank slate. I’m still not positive I’d have accepted the missionaries in the first place. But, if I were to put myself in Nauvoo, I suspect I would’ve followed the bulk of the Q12, mainly because the Rigdon/Young standoff resulted in a majority voting for Brigham. While I have a tremendous aversion to polygamy, if I’d been aware that Joseph Smith was a practitioner (and been able to swallow that), then it likely would not have been enough to stop me. Not everyone who came to Utah agreed to personally live the practice. I’ve never been wild about the idea of dynasties, so sticking around waiting for JS III is unlikely. I don’t think I’d have followed another charismatic leader over a majority of church leaders. I’m stubborn enough to know that if I previously experienced persecution for my beliefs, I’d likely not walk away. Of course, all this presupposes that I didn’t have any bias – I’m sure whichever leaders I personally liked or I really looked up to (or was related to) would’ve influenced my decision.
This hypothetical question of who I would have followed is impossible to answer. I’m generally turned off by charismatics, and JS and BY were both charismatics during the Nauvoo period, so for me to have been there, I would already have had to overcome a nasty taste in my mouth. But presumably, I would have been used to the style of the day. What information would I have had at the time about BY? What I’ve read doesn’t make BY look very good. He was clearly convinced that JS’s martyrdom would never have happened without the disloyal church leaders (the Law brothers and others) and wasn’t going to tolerate any more dissent within the church by anybody of any importance (including Emma). He was very bombastic and demanding and wasn’t opposed to gross exaggeration and outright lying — but I’m not sure if he was so much that way in 1844.
Would I have known about polygamy? Probably by 1846/47, but 1844? Probably not. Nor would I likely have been expected to live it, so I’m not sure how relevant it would have been to me.
Personally, I think I might have liked William Marks and William Law before their disaffection with Joseph (though I know less about them, so I’m not really sure), so I might have been influenced by them. But, if I’d had spiritual manifestation to overcome my biases enough to follow Joseph to Nauvoo, I’d probably have been able to follow BY. At least in the beginning.
I think too much credit is given to Sidney being a truly viable candidate. From what I’ve read, there was sympathy for him, but he’d exhibited some mental illness and had fallen from the center of things for some time. Even though many were worried about others following him and creating a schism, I got the impression most didn’t really consider him themselves because he wasn’t in much condition to lead.
Martin, I wonder how much of the negative view about Rigdon is how he was recast later. The victors write history, after all. But yes, I recall a lot of speculating that he suffered brain trauma when he was tarred and feathered and dragged behind a horse. However, he was running as Joseph’s VP in the presidential race so he couldn’t have been as marginalised as all that. Deferring to Phelps though showed a real failure of leadership. Why not step forward himself? He obviously failed to understand that Phelps didn’t support him. When I look at some of the rites in the church he set up, though, I really do see that they were appealing. No polygamy, no temple per se, but blacks were ordained in 1912 I think (feel free to check my date on that one) and they still do the washing of feet.
I talked to John Hamer Sunday night about this very topic. He said that Rigdon had the best case to lead the church from both the legal and canonical point of view. He was listed as a trustee, along with Joseph and Hyrum in the First Presidency, and being a member of the First Presidency, which is the highest quorum in the church, he outranked Brigham Young.
Now the issue as to whether he was the best, or most charismatic leader, that’s another question. Clearly both Brigham Young and James Strang had better leadership qualities. But from a legal (US government) and canonical (scriptural) point of view, Rigdon had the best case (at least according to Hamer.)
I too listened to the “Coup d’Etat” podcast nonsense. Who were the Q12 usurping authority from? was there a meeting where they discussed this alleged takeover?
I’m pretty sure I would have really liked Emma and the Relief Society, and would have been very opposed to polygamy. But I also think women didn’t get to make many decisions back then that pertained to the whole family. So if my husband felt one or the other or still another was the best one to follow, I would have been obliged to follow his head-of-the-household decision. I think almost all women were in this boat. No doubt some agreed with their husband. But I feel for those who didn’t agree but knew they had to yield. I rather doubt most husbands at that time period counseled much with their wives about such weighty matters.
Now the me today would have gone with a vote for Sidney Rigdon, and I’m sad I would have automatically been excommunicated. The law of common consent has always puzzled me.
If deciding on who would lead the Church caused bickering among potential candidates, imagine what it probably did among families/friends.
BTW Martin: William Marks joined the RLDS and later became a counselor in the 1st Pres. w/Joseph 3rd.
THERE WAS NO CRISIS OF SUCCESSION IN 1844
Historians have been so caught up with claims and counter claims of those declaring succession rights after Joseph Smith’s martyrdom that it seemed at times seem like a crisis when in truth it was anything but. In fact, it was such a clear case of both doctrine and covenants that the confusion was little more than flak. The sure course of the church was set in 1844 before the martyrdom of the property in what’s come to be called the “Last Charge.”
In that meeting, Joseph Smith brought together a majority of the Twelve and imparted to them all the priesthood keys, powers, covenants and responsibilities that the God of Heaven had given him pertaining to this dispensation.
This is undisputed. We’ve all heard the story about how someone brought a “talking machine” into the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City during Wilford Woodruff’s administration and invited him to test it. To everyone’s surprise, he launched into his testimony of the Last Charge and how Joseph Smith sealed those priesthood powers on the Twelve, then he sealed that testimony in the name of Jesus Christ.
We also know that this power is reserved for only one at a time, for the Lord states of him who is anointed “both as well for time and for all eternity…and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred…. Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.” (D&C 132:7-8)
If one examines each of the claimants to the Church succession in 1844, not one can trace his authority back to that meeting except the Twelve. Further, Smith was told by the Lord that “the power of this priesthood [is] given for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times, which power you [Joseph Smith], hold…. For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you. (D&C 112:30-32) This was in 1837. In 1844, Joseph conveyed these keys of authority to the Twelve, the leader of whom was President Brigham Young.
Thus, regardless of who Joseph had in mind to succeed him, it’s moot. It’s 1) who had the authority when he died; and 2) it’s whoever the senior apostle is when the presiding officer dies.
One additional point. The records of the church went with the so-called Utah faction. But there is more. The keys of authority stay with the Utah church, the records went with the Utah church, and the name went with the Utah church. “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:3-4) There is no viable argument for any other restorationist church. The Utah church is the only possible successor to the Church that was restored through Joseph Smith.
There is no other claimant that has a shed of credibility.
John Roberts, there clearly was a succession crisis — the church fragmented after Joseph’s death, and it could easily have fragmented even more. Furthermore, many members of the church seemed to be rather distressed about what was going to happen next. Just because you know the right answer doesn’t mean there wasn’t a crisis.
Angela C — “I wonder how much of the negative view about Rigdon is how he was recast later. The victors write history, after all.” That is an excellent point, because maybe all the journal entries and first hand accounts that I’ve read, or that were referenced in something I’ve read, have been from Brighamites. But I seem to remember reading something from before the martyrdom that also suggested that Rigdon had been ill for an extended period of time and that he was mentally off.
Since my ancestors pulled handcarts to follow BY out west, I can only assume that would have been me as well. Their suffering and sacrifice strengthened their belief in the leadership of the church…it didn’t make them question if they were following the correct group.
Would Rigdon have required people to risk so much or sacrifice so much for the cause? Would that have been the right play for the organization that was in disarray after the death of Joseph and Hyrum? I tend to think BY was the right man for the job…however they chose to justify it.
It seems like the majority of people picked BY over Rigdon and Strang, and it seems BY was the more powerful leader. So…that makes sense to me as strong leadership was needed at the time of unrest and uncertainty and fear. It is also interesting that BY didn’t become prophet for a while after Joseph…and just led the church as the Apostle-led church. Clearly they were making it up as they were going along and doing the best they could to figure it out…as they did with all other things in the restoration of the gospel. Things unfolded in time, and God seemed to bless whatever His children came up with to ask for permission about, instead of directly getting involved to dictate the way “it must be” for the church.
The method I would least like is a family lineage. That’s probably the least inspiring to me and I’m glad we don’t believe the Smith family was more favored of the Lord than anyone else, even though I do see nepotism in the church leadership.
Now that we have order and have a succession plan in place…it makes it nice and easy and less conflict, I think.
Throughout my life, I have always believed that the fact the church has grown to a multi-million membership and financially sound validates they did something right. Not sure if that is the best way to argue which is best…but it seems to validate some things for me, and the other things I don’t have strong enough opinions about…could be any other way if it worked also.
More important is how we move forward as a people. We have current day issues that also put us in a place of choosing to follow the leadership of the church. I like to believe the Lord has a hand in how things have turned out. It may not be the only way that authority can be passed down…but if God seems to be OK with it…so am I.
Whizzbang: I don’t know what podcast you are referencing. I don’t generally listen to podcasts. As I said in the post, there was a discussion I was in a few weeks ago with some other historians and bloggers. This was a private conversation on FB and in email, not a podcast.
John Roberts: Your opener reminded me of “There are NO NEW STEPS” in Strictly Ballroom. It’s as if Brigham Young himself has come in to comment on the blog. Just being the loudest person in the room doesn’t make your statements correct. You say “This is undisputed,” but it’s clear that people disputed it–elsewise there would have been no schism. You may disagree that they were right to dispute it, but they did in fact dispute Young’s claim. Rigdon’s claim had strong argumentative merit, but he didn’t have the name recognition in Nauvoo or the leadership qualities and charisma that Young had, and he basically gave it all away by letting Phelps stump for him.
To compare Rigdon and Young to the system of US government, Rigdon was the last survivor in the Executive branch and Young was the top dog in the Legislative branch. This is a valuable comparison because it is roughly how things were operating and largely the basis for Rigdon’s argument. In the US, if the President and VP both die, then it goes to the Speaker of the House. So the difference here is that we have 3 in the FP, and Rigdon was the surviving member (and in fact was running as Joseph’s running mate in the US election too). Rigdon’s view was that he was part of the decision-making body (the Executive Branch) and that the 12 were not a decision-making body, but more functionaries as well as traveling ministers (more like the Legislative body). Young’s claim would be like putting Speaker of the House in charge–in perpetuity. Which is what we’ve done.
Angela…can we put the current speaker of the house in charge of the executive branch? I’m ready for a change. …perhaps I’m off topic.
No matter what system we use…it seems we end up with some bad eggs, and some good ones. Since that is the case, using the family blood line isn’t a great succession plan, I wouldn’t like that…the kids would feel so entitled instead of earning it through service. If Rigdon was right and it was like an “Executive Branch”…then we would need more rules and scrutiny on how 1st and 2nd counselors are picked. Right now…it is basically just up to the President to pick his counselors…so that doesn’t seem right to give that power for succession through that method.
Senior Apostle is a good system. It has worked. Brigham Young was inspired, or lucky as he fought for himself, but it has the best way of keeping long-term commitment and service as one layer of checks and balances to the system.
I love this hypothetical! How fun.
I suspect I would have followed Brigham, mainly because I had ancestors there and that’s what they did. If the question were what would I do knowing what I know now, that’s a much harder question for me and I’m honestly not sure. Since Illinois is home for me I could see just staying here and hanging out until the Reorganization came along. Doing that would have avoided that whole cluster involving polygamy that the Mountain Saints had to deal with.
I hope that I would have had the courage to be like Levi Savage, willing to sacrifice my own life to help the main body of Saints while still speaking my mind and convictions. Do what is right and let the consequence follow.
I had ancestors in Nauvoo and they were in the group that headed west. Some of them knew Joseph from journal accounts that I have read, and their first hand impression left a strong favorable impression. I assumed that at the succession they looked to someone that was closest to Joseph in certain ways…age, demeanor, familiarity with the group. In fact the whole taking on the countenance and voice of Joseph Smith, which has been debated as dubious, at least may reflect the feeling of some that BY was the closest in sum to the leadership they had in JS and allowed their feelings to be swayed to that effect. Very hard to say what I would have done with a clean slate, but I am the genetic product of my ancestors, so may likely have looked for the same things they looked for and made the same decisions they did.
Being a fan of order, I’m pretty sure I would have followed Brigham. The consistency of the Q12 having the authority to run things after Joseph’s death is both appealing and sensible. As someone said, it’s a good system. In fact, with the exception of Rigdon’s claim by virtue of being a member of the First Presidency and Strang’s wingnut claim to independent prophethood, all other reasonable contemporaneous claimants to leadership did so by virtue of apostleship: Lyman Wight, Alpheus Cutler, and so on. (I’m not counting JS III since he was just a kid, he dodged the bullet for years, and didn’t let himself be talked into it until nearly two decades later after failing in business. David Hyrum Smith, the “sweet singer of Zion,” although a counselor to his brother in the RLDS movement, spent a significant portion of his adult life in an asylum for the insane, which fact Hawk doesn’t mention.)
What’s so hard about this scenario is I know so much about how things turned out, how people reacted, and how movements turned out. It’s hard to try to imagine this as a blank slate. This is also true, as MH states – but I did, in fact, study it as a semi-blank slate at one time, while investigating the church. Both practically and, eventually, spiritually, the 12 came out on top for me.
A couple of things occur to me:
I found it hard to believe that anyone took Strang’s claim seriously. The fact that there are still Strangites today completely baffles me. The facts surrounding his claim seem to me to be invented from whole cloth; at face value, the idea that Joseph would name, by letter, some near-stranger new convert as his successor (without telling anyone else about it) is simply nuts. And, of course, as it turned out, Strang was in fact nuts.
Rigdon probably had the strongest practical claim, but even he lacked the conviction to claim the prophetic mantle despite emphasizing that he’d been sustained as one. His claim to become “guardian” of the Church put him in a weak spot. It’s also clear that he and Brigham didn’t see eye to eye, and since Joseph and Brigham did, people may have been aware of this fact and leaned in BY’s direction as a result.
As a historian, I have a much higher opinion of Brigham Young than most people here – not only as a leader, but as a human being. Polygamy is not a sufficient reason, in my book, to consign a great man to outer darkness. I don’t know that anyone else could have held the Saints together through the Exodus – and as many historians have pointed out, numbers problems notwithstanding, the largest consistent committed body of Saints from Nauvoo and vicinity did, in fact, go West. I have issues with polygamy, I have issues with racism, but I don’t expect any 19th century American to be able to see everything through 21st century eyes and be perfectly progressive. The most serious contemporaneous criticisms that could and should have been leveled against him, and in some cases were, were a tendency to bombast, a heavy-handed leadership style, and (in the case of the handcart companies) unwise counsel on starting times that got people killed on the plains. I think most of us would have liked Brother Brigham a great deal had we known him. Maybe grudgingly, but still.
New Iconoclast: “Polygamy is not a sufficient reason, in my book, to consign a great man to outer darkness.” Herein lies the rub. I agree with nearly everything you say. Brigham Young WAS a great man. He just wasn’t a good one.
Really liked the ratios of the 25 members of the church and where they would have ended up. I had no idea that the Brighamites did not even end up with half the share.
In addition to all the “facts” cited in the original posting, there is likely another factor in the decision-making that people did — the Holy Ghost may have helped some of those people in their decision-making. I doubt that most of them were single-issue voters.
Or maybe some of them were single-issue voters, in the sense that the witness or prompting of the Holy Ghost matters far more than everything else?
ji: without a doubt that’s true. Because this is a hypothetical, I don’t think the HG helps commenters with answers. I’ve always felt that we don’t get answers from the HG unless we need them. not just for fun internet discussions.
hawkgirl,
Can you provide a source for the Nauvoo ratio provided in the post?