I enjoyed Hawkgrrrl’s post on the Succession Crisis. This week I posted an episode to learn the RLDS perspective on the Succession from an RLDS perspective. Jim Vun Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency of the Remnant Church told me the RLDS Church formed earlier than I knew.
GT: One of the things I want to talk a little bit about is the Succession Crisis. As you know Joseph Smith, for those of my listeners who aren’t super familiar with church history, Joseph Smith was killed in 1844 in the Carthage Jail. As I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, I believe it was another 15 or so years before—Joseph Smith III was just a young boy. He was probably about 14 or so?
Jim: Yeah, that’s correct. He was a young boy.
GT: So it took about 15 years or so before Joseph Smith III felt called of God and then the Reorganized Church started in 1860. I believe it was April 6, 1860?
Jim: Actually that’s an interesting point. It actually started in 1852.
GT: Oh!
Jim: We actually had met together, a number of people during the Succession Crisis had come together. They organized at the apostle level, so the Second Presidency level if you will. They had the church until the prophet came forth, and so when young Joseph came, he felt compelled to come. That’s part of what he said, “I come by a power not of my own,” and he came to the church. It was in April 6, 1860 and so forth. Most people do look at that as the beginning, but honestly it was 1852, October of 1852 where they held the first general conference of the church at that point.
Similarly, following the 1984 revelation where women got the priesthood on the RLDS Church, 16 years later the Remnant Church was begun.
GT: I’m just wondering when you look at that period I guess between 1844 and 1860, did you feel kind of the same way in 1984, and I believe it was about 2000 when your church organized?
Jim: Yeah, it was very much. I wasn’t there for the very beginning of the Remnant Church. I was the one reading after and talking to people about it, but I believe it was the same feeling when Frederick Niels Larsen came forth, it was a very similar experience and he felt like he was coming with a power not his own, and he came to the church, and the church accepted him as the prophet, seer, and revelator of the church.
When you have a new church, and a new prophet, you get a lot of new revelations!
GT: How many have you had since 1984?
Jim: Considering our church started about 1999-2000, about 18.
GT: About 18, wow. That’s about one a year.
Jim: Yeah, pretty much.
GT: Can you about what are some of those revelations that you’ve had since 2000?
Jim: A number of those revelations are directional. As far as revealing doctrine, per se, so like when you look at Joseph Smith, Jr. and you look at his revelations, there’s a lot of doctrines that he’s revealing that we see there.
Gather to Missouri Now!
Some of these revelations tell the saints to gather to Missouri.
Jim: Our revelations as we call them from the Remnant Church forward, you’ll see a lot of direction around building community, so we were to go and build community in eastern Jackson County and so we’re doing that again, and we have done that.
GT: So you’re gathering to Missouri.
Jim: More or less. Yes, we are already in Missouri. Those of us there are starting to build that because we believe that Zion is a literal place, and that it is the kingdom of heaven on earth where God the Father will dwell and so we are trying to do the best we can.
…
GT: That’s an interesting idea. It seems like in the LDS Church when I was growing up there was this talk about returning to Missouri but I’ll bet in the last 20 years you don’t hear that in the LDS Church anymore. Nobody talks about going back to Missouri anymore. We’re very happy in Salt Lake. We’re building Zion where we are. That’s interesting to me. I do believe that’s something with the Community of Christ as well as the Remnant Church. That’s a big piece of your doctrine and theology is gathering to Jackson County. Is that correct?
Jim: Correct, yes. If you want to look at what really, of all the different groups that are out there, that is a defining point. How you define the kingdom changes a lot of things. It really does. As you look at it, some believe that there’s nothing you can do. They look at it as Zion’s going to show up one day. If you’re worthy then you get to go in. If you’re not worthy, you’re not going to get to go in.
We believe that we can actually build Zion and it’s a process that we go through and that at some point we’ll become sanctified to where it will be the Zion that is spoken of.
Do you wish the LDS Church had more revelations, or is this simply the function of a new church to get more revelations than an established church? Why do you think the LDS Church doesn’t emphasize gathering to Missouri anymore?
Wheat & Tares 
Mr. Cannon’s comment “revelations as we call them” alludes to the Community of Christ calling their additions to the Doctrine & Covenants “inspired documents”. Speaking of which, how many of the RLDS revelations does the Remnant Church include in their canon of scripture, and when was the rejection point; 1984 or earlier?
Since being LDS since 1999, I too feel that the importance of Missouri has been neglected or at least put on the back burner by the Church. There have been improvements in recent years. The Mormon era of Missouri has a lot more historical details for visitors, and the Temple in Kansas City is awesome.
It wasn’t until 1856 that an effort was made to invite Joseph Smith 3rd to accept leadership of the “new organization”. A letter was prepared and two Elders traveled to Nauvoo to present it to Joseph. According to his own words, he rejected the invitation, but assured them that he wouldn’t be going to Salt Lake either. Joseph had been visited a few weeks prior by LDS Elders with an invite to re-locate to Utah.
“how many of the RLDS revelations does the Remnant Church include in their canon of scripture, and when was the rejection point; 1984 or earlier?” That’s a great question! I suspect they are quite similar until 1984, and at that point it probably diverges quite a bit. In a future interview, I asked about baptism for the dead, and it sounds like it was de-canonized in 1970, and I think the Remnant Church follows that de-canonization.
The LDS Church has been purchasing real estate in Missouri for decades. We are quietly preparing for a physical return to the Centre Place, while trying to prepare a Zion people (the pure in heart).
The LDS church is doing everything the Lord wants it to. Every temple is built as instruction from on High, and the church in the tops of the mountains had what no other splinter group has: 1) the Keys of the Kingdom given in the last charge, and 2) the records of the early church. The so-called Utah Church also carries the name given by the Lord himself. “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
The Church continues to enjoy revelation and the ministering of angels. To think that the Church of the final dispensation would be stagnating somewhere, existing as a remnant, is inconceivable. Temples are being built. Missionaries are carrying the gospel to the whole Earth, work for the dead is going forth as we execute the priesthood keys given by Elijah in the Kirtland Temple. Isn’t it time that the Reorganization, the Remant, the Temple Lot and the others put aside their prejudice and return to the fold and receive of the true priesthood? To receive it and to exercise it, one needs the Keys that were given to Peter and later to Joseph Smith and the Quorum of the Twelve, keys that were given for “the last time.” And the Lord has said that “only one” can exercise these keys on the earth at a time. Were these keys that were delivered by Peter, James and John, and Elijah, and Moses not being exercised this day, the whole Earth would be smitten with a curse. And Judah would not be gathering to Jerusalem.
How could the RLDS or any other church have received these keys? They were never given to Joseph III or anyone else except the Twelve, and they went to the tops of the mountains and built the Temple to the Most High. We’re nearing 200 temples on the Earth now. Don’t you people want to be part of it?
I’ve been pondering how to respond in a charitably Christian way to John Roberts’s lengthy comment to an interesting and worthwhile discussion begun by the OP. To his conclusion: “We’re nearing 200 temples now. Don”t you people want to be part of it?” my short answer is: No, absolutely not.”
Certainly, I respect what faithful LDS do in their temples and the central role it plays for them. I also respect what various adherents do in Buddhist, Hindu, and Shinto temples as well as why Muslims go on pilgrimage to Mecca.
Generally, I try to keep my inner passive-aggressive voice under control, but I’m allowing it some latitude here by saying I prefer to be part of a faith community that values the leadership and ministry of people regardless of gender, orientation, ethnicity, and nationality. Or that rejects an institution that tells people they can belong and participate only if its hierarchy considers them worthy. My church has been guilty but we’re trying to repent and move forward in response to divine grace.
One final, completely separate note: I agree with Mark (that alone will shock him and others) that the total Missouri experience should have a greater profile. By the same token, I wish we in Community of Christ valued the experience of our spiritual ancestors who trekked across southern Iowa and camped at Winter Quarters. More than a few of them ended up with the “New Organization” (RLDS) because they (a) went west with Brigham Young, didn’t like what happened there, and walked all the way back or (b) refused to go in the first place and settled down in southwest Iowa, eastern Nebraska, and northern Missouri awaiting further light and truth.
I’m not sure why John Roberts is so defensive about the LDS faith. Is it too much to ask to learn a little about our Mormon cousins to find out their perspective on things?
We accept up to section 144 of the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants, which is the last revelation Isreal A. Smith gave.
MH: Only the Utah LDS and its splinter groups claim that Joseph Smith remained a true prophet throughout his life. All others, by necessity for their validation, say that at some point he became a “fallen prophet”. The time of that varies, but most center around Nauvoo and the ordinances revealed there.
When one visits Independence, or researches the number of “Mormon sects” found there, it can be very bewildering. An outsider could see bickering and rivalry among them and wonder “which of these churches is right?’ So I think I understand where John Roberts is coming from.
Morgan Wigle’s comment means the Remnant Church rejects RLDS prophets beginning with W. Wallace Smith in 1958.
MAG: Far from true. The Remnant Church does not believe that Joseph Jr. was ever a fallen prophet nor does their doctrine need him to “by necessity.” It is a widely held believe outside the LDS Church that Brigham Young was a fallen Apostle that introduced the Nauvoo era doctrine in Joseph’s name years after Joseph’s death. The Nauvoo era doctrine greatly differs from all the other earlier teachings of Joseph Smith so it’s not a hard sell. The LDS Church chooses to believe that God is progressive and Joseph was just expanding and evolving his understanding with God but the Remnant LDS belief set is that God does not change and therefore never introduced these doctrines to Joseph to begin with. Simple as that.
This is all besides the point. I’m not here to argue who is right or wrong nor do I think that is the intent of this blog to sort out such “bickering and riverly.” You can either acknowledge that there are other LDS denominations out there that are trying to do a work for the Lord as well and work to understand each other or you can point the finger at everyone who doesn’t believe like you and turn everyone else into a rival.
Sorry to come across as defensive, guys. I just wonder how can this issue can not be settled by now.
The RLDS has to explain where the Church was between 1844 and 1860. And when the Church was not on the earth, where was it?
The Remnant, the CofC, the faithful Reorganites and other groups should either renounce Joseph Smith or understand that the so-called Utah Church is and has always been the Church that Joseph established.
On March 19, 1897, President Wilford Woodruff was shown one of the new “talking machines” and asked if he’d like to say something. He could have said something like, “Mary had a little lamb…” but instead said:
“I bear my testimony that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God, ordained of God to lay the foundation of His Church and Kingdom in the last dispensation and fullness of times. I bear my testimony that in the early spring of 1844 in Nauvoo, the Prophet Joseph Smith called the Twelve Apostles together and he delivered unto them the ordinances of the Church and Kingdom of God; and all of the keys and powers that God had bestowed upon him he sealed upon our heads. He told us we must round up our shoulders and bear off this Kingdom or we would be damned. I am the only man now living in the flesh who heard that testimony from his mouth, and I know this is true by the power of God manifest to him.
At the meeting he stood on his feet about three hours and taught us the things of the Kingdom. His face was as clear as amber, and he was covered with a power that I have never seen in any man in the flesh before.
“I bear testimony that Joseph Smith was the author of the endowments as received by the Latter-day Saints. I received my own endowments under his hands and direction, and I know they are true principles. I not only received my own endowments under his hands, but I bear my testimony that Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, George A. Smith, John Taylor, and other brethren received their endowments under the hands and direction of the Prophet Joseph, and also my wife, Phoebe, Bathsheba Smith, Leonora Taylor, Mary Smith and others whose names I cannot recall now.
“The Prophet Joseph laid down his life for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ, and he will be crowned as a martyr in the presence of God and the Lamb. In all his testimonies to us, the power of God was visibly manifest in the Prophet Joseph.
“This is my testimony, spoken by myself into a talking machine on this the nineteenth day of March 1897, in the ninety-first year of my age. Wilford Woodruff.”
To navigate the waters of the succession crisis, one need only follow the Keys of the Kingdom given to these men, the records of the Church and the apostles God chose through Joseph Smith.
The keys of the Church include those given by Peter, James and John, Elijah and Moses. Where are those keys today? Utah. Where are the records of the Church from the beginning? Utah. And where is “him who him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity…by revelation and commandment…”?
“[For] 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.”
There should not be a crisis of succession. The keys shine through the mists in only one direction, and in all my years of following the RLDS and other sects, the signpost always leads to the Church with the name the Lord commanded and prophesied, saying, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
If the name Joseph Smith means anything to the remnants, isn’t it time for them to follow the Keys and the apostolic authority?
“I just wonder how can this issue can not be settled by now.”
John, this is not an argument. Note you are literally arguing with nobody. You are welcome to your testimony. That should threaten neither you nor any readers here. Please don’t tear down another person’s faith.
I’m not sure why you are so defensive about this. Why is this post so threatening to you that you have to defend the church?
This is an attempt at understanding Mormon cousins. Why can’t you simply learn about other branches of the restoration?
“All others, by necessity for their validation, say that at some point he became a “fallen prophet”.”
Mark, I specifically asked Jim if he believed Joseph was a fallen prophet. Here was his response. (Note this will come up in a future interview when I ask him about his beliefs in polygamy.)
JR: What Wilford Woodruff said means absolutely nothing to anyone outside of the LDS. You seem to be looking at those outside the LDS Church as if they are actively rebelling against it. They claim no authority from the LDS institution. They claim to be the true Church from 1830 and that the LDS Church broke off of the true church when they rejected the authority of Joseph Jr. when they rejected the true doctrine as well as rebaptized and reordained every member and priesthood. This is not a question of loyalty. This is much more complicated than that. It’s about doctrine. It’s not as easy as you are making it out to be or else there wouldn’t be other religions and everyone would be LDS. Clearly it’s not that easy seeing the diversity of sects.
They also do not believe the Church’s existence hinges upon the presidency and/or Q12. They believe that Joseph Jr was given the keys to the kingdom and would not ever pass those keys:
“Section 90:2 Therefore, thou art blessed from henceforth that bear the keys of the kingdom given unto you; which kingdom is coming forth for the last time.
3 Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come;
4 Nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to another, yea, even unto the church.”
RLDS president Joseph Smith III when asked about keys to the kingdom, said he only had the oracles and the keys remained with his father. The keys were given to unlock the kingdom, once it was unlocked “for the last time” then why would you need to pass the keys to someone else? What do keys mean to you?
The RLDS did not begin in 1860 but in 1852. They do not see that the spiritual entity of the Church ceased to exist without a president but it continues to exist with any faithful priesthood of authority. They do, however, see that the institution of the Church was in apostate after 1844 and thus did not exist until 1852 when it reorganized, hence the name. Not re-restored but reorganized. Same could be said of the 570AD to 1260AD “wilderness” period of the Church. Did the Church cease to exist when Christ and Apostles died? No. The Church continued till 570 when it reached full apostasy.
Mind you, the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints still has the exact part of the name you infer is divinely inspired. As well as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I don’t think it’s a right approach to keep undermining these other churches. We can seek to understand all sides of the equation or try to act like the others are rebellious and irrelevant. The problem the LDS has with this attitude is that no authority exists outside of their Church. The RLDS can trace their priesthood back through Joseph Jr back to Christ same as the LDS and they both claim to teach the restored gospel. It’s a little silly to act like one or the other is 100% invalid.
AlexVC: I’m not bearing my testimony here, Alex, I’m trying to ascertain what it is that I see that everyone in these schismatic groups can’t. Mormon history didn’t just begin in 1844. We know everything Joseph Smith wrote and said about priesthood keys and authority. The last charge wasn’t done in a vacuum. It’s not even disputed by the schisms.
No, the sixty-four dollar question is why do these schismatic historians and theologians act as though the Keys mean nothing? The ancient prophet Malachi even acknowledged that if Elijah failed to come as prophesied, that the entire earth would be smitten with a curse. It’s a major Jewish prophecy to this day and is the sole reason the Kirtland Temple was built. If it means nothing to the RLDS, why not give it to the LDS church? Jesus appeared and accepted it, then Elijah and Moses appeared to restore the propesied keys of binding the hearts of the fathers to the children and bringing back the scattered remnants of Judah to their homeland, and to gather Israel from the North. They speak of gathering the saints to Missouri, but seemingly have no interest in the keys that start people moving. (Remember it was Elder Orson Hyde who was sent by Joseph Smith to Jerusalem, to the Mount of Olives, to exercise the keys Moses restored in the Kirtland Temple. He was sent again by Brigham Young and the first time he had a magnificent vision. But that was when he was an apostle under Joseph Smith, so we can believe that, I presume.)
DOES GOD BRING FORTH DISASTERS?
My point is that God doesn’t bankroll disasters. We have seven dispensations, seven denoting completeness: 1) Adam, 2) Enoch, 3) Noah, 4) Abraham, 5) Moses, 6) Jesus and 7) Joseph Smith. To think that Smith, the head of the greatest dispensation of all time, could be a fallen prophet, is ludicrous. But even if true, even many RLDS see that their own leadership is in a state of apostasy today, and they yearn for God to deliver them.
Nephi, in the Book of Mormon, tells us of an event in our day: “For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also unto destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.” (1 Nephi 14:7).
The event will separate the people of God from the wicked. And it will be a time of choosing. My own beliefs and convictions mean little in this debate. I simply have noticed that all the schisms, whether the RLDS, the Temple Lot faction or those who make up the polygamous groups all have one thing in common. They must take the holy equation and remove from it the keys of authority and the prophesied name of the Church given by revelation.
You say retaining part of the name is good enough. I’ve never seen prophecy work like that. And that Joseph III said he only had the oracles, and that the keys remained with his father. (The keys were given to unlock the kingdom, once it was unlocked “for the last time” then why would you need to pass the keys to someone else?)
HOW THE KEYS WORK
The answer to this shows that Joseph III had no idea how and what the keys worked or what they are.
Let’s say I decide to, on my own volition, to ordain a woman in the LDS church. I call a press conference and there in front of everyone I attempt to ordain her the first woman elder in the Church. But it would never work. Why? Because Elder Roberts doesn’t have the keys. I may have the authority, but that’s not enough. My bishop must approve because he holds the keys of the Ward, and he can’t authorize it without the approval of the Stake President, who holds keys over the bishop. And the Stake President can’t approve it because…and so it goes all the way to the President of the Church, who is the only one on the earth who has all the Keys and is responsible for their use. That’s why Adam-Ondi-Ahman is going to be held, for Adam is responsible for all keys and their stewardships. And all keys will be delivered back to Christ, whose right to rule will be confirmed.
RLDS PRIESTHOOD
You state the RLDS can trace their priesthood back through Joseph Jr back to Christ the same as the LDS, and that they both claim to teach the restored gospel. “It’s a little silly,” you say, “to act like one or the other is 100% invalid.”
But that’s why, whatever happens, we can never accept the RLDS priesthood. When those who had been given the priesthood left the Church in 1844, they didn’t lose that priesthood (unless they were excommunicated), but they lost the ability to fully exercise it. They could still give blessings, but they lost the ability to pass it on for reasons stated. That’s why RLDS attempts to ordain women failed, or to have female apostles. Those who rightfully held the Keys didn’t approve further ordination, therefore they were not sealed on Heaven or on Earth.
Right now, President Monson possesses all the keys of this dispensation and what he seals on Earth is sealed in Heaven. Joseph III’s theory fails because if Jesus had unlocked the Keys of his dispensation, why would he need to confer them on Peter? And why did James and John possess them? Yet all three passed them on to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
THE LAST CHARGE
Finally, why did Joseph Smith hold this 3-hour meeting in which he passed the Keys on to the apostles? Wilford Woodruff wasn’t the only one there or who made a record of it. And we wouldn’t know a quarter of the things we know about the early Church or Joseph Smith had it not been for Wilford Woodruff. But even if he was just one of two who was there (and there were many more there who attested to it, why would he lie?) This man’s journal was pure gold when it came to knowing what Joseph Smith, Jr. taught and when.
Without priesthood keys there is no control. If one unlocks all the doors to the Kingdom and leaves, he may discover later that he’s been robbed!
The Fallen prophet theory doesn’t apply in every group, just a rejection of some of Joseph’s teachings. For instance, who knew that the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) accepts revelations to the church only through 1831? That means no 1st Pres./Patriarchs/High Priests.
I ‘m quite sure I could attend a service in the Remnant church and feel the spirit of my RLDS upbringing. But perhaps learning what each group is teaching/testifying NOW, as well as how people are responding to them in the present, is more important.
I feel like even if the main LDS church had more revelations, they wouldn’t necessarily be all that great.
I think establishing a new church presents a greater need for revelation. But if we claim *continuing* revelation, I expect even an established church should have regular revelation. It seems we’ve switched to continuing inspiration in recent years, though, rather than a traditional expectation of bigger revelation.
I see the lack of Missouri talk as a result of our decreased emphasis on the last days and imminent apocolypse. Food storage is phrased more in terms of the vicissitudes of mortality rather than surviving doomsday scenarios.
Andrew S » I frequently hear LDS members say they wished the Church would receive revelation like it did in the early days. The implication, of course, is that they don’t think the spigot is on or, if it is on, nothing’s coming out. I’d truly love to see a poll among the members of the various churches as to whether they think their churches are receiving revelation from God and, if so, what type.
I’ve read a number of “revelations” in the RLDS Doctrine & Covenants, and the language is, to me, strained and reaching. I believe they’re trying desperately to receive it, but they’ve virtually run God or of their church — now they want the same type of dialog with Him that they had during the days of Joseph Smith, Jr.
President Grant Mc Murry resigned his calling, as did Wallce B. Smith and W. Wallace Smith. Frederick M. Smith tried to resign his calling but the conference wouldn’t accept it, and early in Joseph Smith III’s leadership a dissatisfied segment of the church tried to have him replaced by one of his brothers, David H. Smith. So five out of seven rlds “prophets” have had a crisis of confidence, either within or without. “Not a very good track record!” (David Gibson, https://mormonheretic.org/2009/06/09/interview-with-the-community-of-christ/ )
Say what you want about the LDS church, its prophets and apostles certainly don’t seem to be plagued with these sorts of doubts and misgivings. To the contrary, their testimonies are those of men who know their callings are of God. I remember their rejection of the Book of Abraham was a major point of disagreement. It was like an albatross around my neck as it was universally condemned by Egyptologists. Since that time the Book of Abraham has made a 180° turn, and now recent finds in Egyptology have virtually vindicated Smith’s translation. This point alone should be turning the heads of the RLDS. (And BTW, I usually refer to the believers in Joseph Smith as the RLDS and those who want to cease all connection with the Book of Mormon as CofC.)
Mark Gibson » As you noted at MORMON HERETIC, the RLDS leadership seems to have suffered grave doubts regarding their callings. Retirements from the Church presidency would be scandalous in the LDS church.
If we believe in prophets, it stands to reason the revelation received today would be the same as it was anciently. If called to be the prophet-president of the Church, then failed to receive revelation, including angelic ministrations, I think I’d most likely retire as well.
Do you know of any claimants to voices, angelic ministrations, theophanies, etc., amongst the RLDS or other schisms? The LDS church had them, but tends not to talk of them. Joseph Smith never had any problems with talking about visions and revelations, but nowadays they’re written down and stuck in the archives. I don’t know why.
I don’t doubt that many LDS church members wish the church would receive revelation like it did in the old days. But I see a lot of liberal/progressive types hoping for this under the assumption that revelation would liberalize the church, and I don’t think there is any reason to believe that. If anything, revelation would entrench traditionalist views.
((I’m not really sure that the BoA had any more credibility with a secular egyptologist audience than it ever has, but I’m not really interested in arguing over that.))
Rich Brown » “…I prefer to be part of a faith community that values the leadership and ministry of people regardless of gender, orientation, ethnicity, and nationality. Or that rejects an institution that tells people they can belong and participate only if its hierarchy considers them worthy.”
I’m sorry to have offended you with my opening post. I thought I was writing to an audience that accepted Joseph Smith, Jr. as a prophet. Most of my contact with RLDS members have been the ones who believe it to be in a state of apostasy and are angry.
As someone who believes the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, I have read a fair number of articles by RLDS dissidents who are waiting for the Lord to come and put His House in order. I thought they were my audience as most people who believe as you do honestly don’t consider there to have been a significant succession crisis.
Like it or not, Joseph Smith was not disposed to give women the priesthood to women, not do I believe the LDS Church will ever ordain women. Many stalwarts in the RLDS Church are of a like mind. It’s not that we would have been against it had it been done from the beginning; it’s just that it is seemingly opposed to what we see as the order of Heaven, nor are we able to change it. If we believe the Church is subject to political whims, then it wouldn’t be God’s church. If Joseph Smith were a true prophet of God, however, then my point about the priesthood keys is a valid point. We know enough concerning Smith’s teachings regarding the priesthood keys to set aside Josph III’s hasty dismissal of them. So, too, the scripture designating the name of the Church.
OTOH, if you’re right, none of it makes any difference. The end result, a politically correct church, is what ultimately counts.
I believe most LDS and RLDS are comfortable with their ideas of what “that other church” is or is not. I’ve been on both sides of the fence and occasionally I’m able to refute incorrect notions. In my experience, LDS people are more receptive to an attitude adjustment.
John Roberts: There are many concepts in both churches that I don’t regard as right/wrong, but one is better than the other. For instance, the process of calling priesthood in the RLDS was comparable to Ward/Stake callings in the LDS. More selective, no regard to age, and no preconceived time period in a particular office.
“I thought I was writing to an audience that accepted Joseph Smith, Jr. as a prophet.”
I think you are writing to an audience that accepts Joseph as a prophet. But we’re not interested in you bashing denominations that also revere Joseph as a prophet. That is rude and unChristian behavior. Your “language is, to me, strained and reaching.”
MH » I’m sorry you feel that way, MH. When I read the article that generated these comments, the emphasis was on the succession “crisis” that, of course, began in 1844. I’ve followed the RLDS church since the days of Wallace Smith, the grandson of the prophet, and though my frustration may have been excessive, my points, I believe, are valid.
The way I see it, if these schisms had valid foundational arguments, it would be one thing. The number and manner of revelations are interesting, granted, but the whole hairy ball of wax ultimately comes to rest on authority. The arguments, at least for the RLDS, centered on a Smith descendent carrying the Church to its prophetic destination. Yet today, it’s simply thrown into the same black hole that has consumed everything else the RLDS didn’t like, or which they find inconvenient.
Jews through throughout the ages looked for the coming of Elijah the prophet, who would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and vice versa. The fulfillment was a major part of church history. Yet with a simple vote, the Reorganized Church relegated it to nothing. It vanished into the great black hole.
Had Joseph Smith not emphasized keys, authority, order rather than confusion and so forth, I suppose looking at the various revelations and weighing their content might be a way of determining the direction the Church should be following. I’d hoped one day the churches could work something out, but the rift instead seems to be growing.
I really didn’t come here to bash, but to make the two defining points that are still twisting in the wind. Some undeniably have no problem with the direction their church is heading. They _want_ to ordain women to the priesthood, to the apostleship, and they don’t want to be encumbered by the Book of Mormon and the revelations by Smith.
John,
I am active LDS.
I have only heard you defending the LDS faith, but you are not telling the whole picture. Certainly there are legitimate points of questioning Young’s line of authority. I have heard several interviews with John Hamer, and he claims that scripturally and legally, Sidney Rigdon had the best claim to leadership, and Brigham usurped Rigdon’s authority and invented claims that the apostles were to be in charge. If you’ll remember, the First Presidency is higher than the Twelve in authority. If you know church history, the Apostles were EQUAL IN AUTHORITY with the High Council. Brigham used the High Council to fill vacancies of the Twelve, then mysteriously dissolved the High Council, which no longer exists in the LDS Church, but does exist in the RLDS and Remnant churches. I think there is a legitimate argument about succession. I didn’t mention the fact that James Strang claimed not only an angelic ordination (much as Joseph Smith did), but translated plates and had a letter of succession from Joseph Smith. I would have to concede that if the angelic vision were true (and I’m not saying it is), it would trump any of Brigham Young’s claims, much as the angelic visit to Joseph Smith trumped anyone else’s claims to authority.
If I may express a schismatic point of view just to challenge your thinking. Many LDS (William Law, Signey Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery) did not accept polygamy as early as 1838 in Oliver’s case, and as late as 1844 on William Law’s case. They became troubled by it, and questioned the authenticity of the revelation. Many modern LDS equally are virulently against polygamy. Many in the RLDS tradition accept Joseph as a prophet, but reject polygamy. Many modern LDS reject polygamy, but accept Joseph as a prophet. Many in the RLDS, upon learning of the Martin/Willie handcart disasters viewed this as God showing his displeasure with Brigham Young, and rejecting Brigham Young as a prophet. Once again, the Nauvoo Temple was not finished in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, and was hurriedly dedicated. Note that the temple was destroyed. Isn’t this an indication the temple was destroyed and rejected by God? Our own D&C says that if the temple was not completed, God would reject us as a church. Many RLDS believe God rejected the LDS Church. Of course, many are still upset with Brigham’s fiery rhetoric that laid the foundation for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, both in 1857 as well as 2017.
So once again, I support the LDS Church, but I’m not going to cast aspersions for other groups to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. I think there is room for men to disagree about the succession crisis. You are welcome to your opinion, but I don’t appreciate bashing these good brethren from other denominations. If they attacked our church, you would rightly claim these as anti-Mormon charges. Don’t be an anti. They are my friends, and I don’t appreciate rudeness by way of anti-RLDS, anti-Strangite, or anti-Remnant rhetoric towards my friends just as I wouldn’t tolerate anti-Mormon rhetoric.
MH » Thank you for your thoughtful reply, and though I may have disagreements with the various churches that broke away in the ensuing years after 1844, I’ve only been critical of them so far as they’ve drifted from the teachings and practices of Joseph Smith.
As far as the claims of Sidney Rigdon goes, I’ve often thought he was dealt with a bit harshly in our history. He was an indefatible in defense of the Church, but in July of 1832 he began teaching that the Keys of the Kingdom had been taken from the Church. Both Joseph and Hyrum rebuked him regarding this and Joseph replied saying, “no power can pluck those keys from me, except the power that gave them to me!” He added, “But for what Sidney has done, the devil shall handle him as one man handles another.” A short time later, this was fulfilled. According to Philo Dibble: “About three weeks after this, Sidney was lying on his bed alone. An unseen power lifted him from his bed, threw him across the room, and tossed him from one side of the room to the other. The noise being heard in the adjoining room, his family went in to see what was the matter, and found him going from one side of the room to the other, from the effects of which Sidney was laid up for five or six weeks.”
Rigdon was, from then on, frequently at odds with Joseph and once the prophet accosted him violently when he countermanded an order Joseph had given. The two remained at odds for much of their remaining time together. In 1843, Joseph discovered evidence that Rigdon had been conspiring with his enemies to secure his (Smith’s) arrest. Rigdon made such an impassioned reply that the conference gathered to hear his case acquitted him. Although Joseph welcomed him in retaining his position, he told the conference, “I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. You may carry him, but I will not.”
Rigdon was, throughout the history of the Church, frequently at odds with Joseph. I have to credit Providence that he and J. Jessie Strang did not gain control of the Church. Strang had not even been a member of the Church very long when Joseph was murdered. The critical page of his letter from Joseph (purporting to make him his successor) appeared to those who saw it to have been tampered with. My chief criticisms of Strang is that Joseph never made such intentions known to the Church and, most importantly, Strang was, in my view, a fraud who ended up dead. His alleged translations of other works never went anywhere and, had either he or Rigdon’s claims have been true, the Church would have followed them, not Brigham Young. Strang also was not present at the Last Charge.
Whatever else one says about Brigham Young, he was always loyal to the prophet. Regarding the Nauvoo Temple, endowments were given and Brigham Young and others were instructed in the temple rites and the endowment. I see the temple’s destruction by wind and fire not as a rejection of the temple, but as a means of destroying it because of desecration. Certainly not as a rejection of it as a temple.
I understand how people could be confused by the various claimants to church leadership. Regarding the handcart disasters, I believe the Church did a video on that. Brigham Young couldn’t be in charge of everything and I don’t see how he could be culpable in the handcart disaster. When the saints needed to leave, the river was frozen solid. When the people needed food, quail landed in their camps and allowed themselves to be captured and eaten and when they reached Utah, there was the miracle of the seagulls. I see all those as evidence that God was with his people.
I think one has to have faith enough in God that his purposes will not fail. In other words, I don’t believe Moses could have failed in his appointment a to lead the children of Israel, nor do I believe that Brigham Young could have robbed the rightful claimant of God kingdom.
I believe President Young was the right man to lead that kingdom.
And I believe the account by President Lorenzo Snow that Jesus Christ appeared to him in the Salt Lake Temple and gave him specific instructions on how the transfer of power should be conducted. “He instructed me to go right ahead and reorganize the First Presidency of the Church at once and not wait as had been done after the death of the previous presidents, and that I was to succeed President Woodruff.”
He told his granddaughter:
“He stood right here, about three feet above the floor. It looked as though he stood on a plate of solid gold.'”
“Grandpa told me what a glorious personage the Savior is and described His hands, feet, countenance and beautiful White Robes, all of which were of such a glory of whiteness and brightness that he could hardly gaze upon Him.”
From then on, that’s how it’s been done in the Church. One would have to reject the testamonies of all those who attended the Last Charge, dismiss the miracles, the fact that the majority of the Twelve and the records of the Church went with Young and the account of Lorenzo Snow. And most importantly, they have to dismiss the temples, missionary work, work for the dead — all major elements introduced by Joseph Smith.
Finally, I reiterate that I don’t think God’s plans will fail. They have a way of working out.
John, would you feel the following statement was respectful?
“[Joseph Smith] was, in my view, a fraud who ended up dead.”
I am sorry but I will not continue a conversation with someone so disrespectful. This despite repeated requests to improve your language.
I’m not sure I understand.
I thought you were “active LDS.” Wasn’t Strang’s movement shown to be based on false claims, and that He was killed after declaring himself king of Beaver Island? So you’re telling me you’re LDS-S? I honestly want aware there were any living followers of the man. Or that there was such a religion.
As for your question: would I feel it was respectful to say, “[Joseph Smith] was, in my view, a fraud who ended up dead.”
I’m not sure it would be disrespectful as I’ve encountered many people…many, many people…who have said that (or something downright disrespectful) about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, etc., etc.
I’ll be totally honest with you, MH. I have a THICK skin that has served me well over the years. And I know (and am even friends with) people who think I’m a gone gump for believing the Book of Mormon and what not. And I’ve never taken their negative opinions as offensive. I figure it’ll all come out in the wash.
But like I said, until I read your post, I thought the Strangite religion was dead as a doornail. And I didn’t say that to offend you. But put yourself in my position just for a moment. Strang, to me, is ancient history. Except for Wiki, all I got was this write-up by Daniel Peterson (https://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-james-strang-plates-notes-from-dr-peterson/) of any substance.
After years of reading various views, I’ve become more convinced the Book of Mormon events took place in Mesoamerica. There’s no snow mentioned in the book, the area in the northern U.S. never had a population that would support the numbers in the book. There also is no volcanic activity that could cause the destruction in 3 Nephi. No poisonous snakes that could cut off an entire track of land, summer and winter. If the Book of Mormon is true, it almost had to be in Mesoamerica, but that would create serious problems for Strang’s claims, would it not?
Just on what little I know, nothing Strang ever produced bore witness that he was appointed by God (that I know of). He had not a single witness who saw an angel or shared a vision. Unlike the Book of Mormon, there is no external evidence. And there’s nothing in the Bible or Book of Mormon prophesying of his coming. Finally, his work was unproductive. No temples, no missionary work and no keys of authority. (Even if his letter of appointment had been genuine, that’s not enough. He had to receive the proper authority under the ancient law of witnesses (two or more)).
I was able to locate a copy of the BOOK OF THE LAW OF THE LORD, which I believe was supposed to be part of the PLATES OF LABAN. One problem I noticed immediately was the past in Chapter 12 on baptism for the dead:
“At every Temple, which thou shalt build unto the Lord thy God, by his Commandment, shalt thou make a fountain for the baptism of the living for the dead. (29, 121)
“2. And for these shall you be baptized: every one of you, according to your several rights, and in your several orders, according to consanguinity, sex, and primogeniture, shall be baptized for any deceased husband, wife, or posterity; or any progenitor, to the third and fourth generation; or any brother, or sister, whom he in faith believes has received the gospel in the spirit. (63, 302)”
The obvious problem is that baptism for the dead is a strictly New Testament practice and would not be found in the plates of Laban in the Book of Mormon. There’s no reference to baptism for the dead anywhere in the Book of Mormon, either. The preaching to the dead didn’t even begin until Christ went to the spirit world.
Please don’t take these points negatively. It’s not personal and you should know that. Joseph Smith never took it personally, nor did he never discouraged questioning, probing. I haven’t sought out any anti-Strang websites and if there was any evidence for it, I would happily change my mind. By evidence, let’s consider Chapter 36, which states that there are four degrees of Apostles: “The first Degree is that of Lawgiver, and is Apostle, Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator. This Degree is sole, and gives the word of God as from his own mouth.” If any ancient document from either the Old or New Testaments (apocryphal) were discovered that backed this up, that would be a bullseye. Joseph Smith had many bullseyes in the Book of Mormon, and this has worked in his favor, but I’d need to see some evidence that Strang didn’t just make these things up.
I would be the first to change my mind if Strang was able to produce evidence that established him as a servant of God. But you shouldn’t be offended because someone has an opinion different than yours. I thought you were LDS (Utah) and wouldn’t have used the word “fraud” if I’d known you were a believer in the man. But I’ve seen nothing to show me he was a prophet.
Let me ask you a question at least. Don’t you think that if there was a succession crisis, that God wouldn’t intervene and cause the right man to end up on top? (In this case Brigham Young?) Do you think the Lord would really allow one man to hijack an entire dispensation? It’s true that President Young had his detractors, but Moses also had his critics. It’s just that God chooses the weak and fallible to bring about His greater good.
Mormon Heretic » I’m sorry, but what did I possibly say that was disrespectful? I was talking about J.J. Strang. You said you were LDS, so why would my observation bother you? I took it that it would be something you’d agree with.
Or do you believe Strang was chosen by God as Joseph Smith’s successor? And that his letter of appointment was real? Why would Smith turn over the Church to someone who was virtually unknown and who had no keys of authority and that it would be done in the shadows instead of before the whole Church? Joseph Smith told his close associates that he had finished his work and was ready to be taken. He certainly believed the Church was in good hands with the Twelve.
People who aren’t LDS tell me frequently that they think Joseph Smith was a fraud. I don’t get offended — it’s their opinion. Fortunately, there’s quite a bit of evidence to support the fact that Joseph Smith wasn’t a fraud. If you, for whatever reason or reasons, think Strang was of God, I’m open to hear them.
But please don’t get offended because someone doesn’t think like you. That’s why we have discussion boards.
As a historian and an active member of the LDS Church, I am fascinated by the histories and faith journeys of our Restoration cousins. I actually participated fairly actively in a listserv group a number of years ago which was comprised of many different “flavors” of Restorationist, although I believe I was the only Brighamite. (This was mostly due to the sort of unthinking isolation that John Roberts has demonstrated in his comments here; the “why would we even talk to these heretics?” view.) This was about the time that the Restoration Branch movement was really starting to draw people out of the RLDS church, the name changed to CoC, Grant McMurray resigned, and there was great upheaval in our 2d-largest branch of the movement. All of which went largely ignored by anyone connected with the Utah church, of course.
But it’s interesting. My personal feelings about the truth, or otherwise, of various succession claims or which church currently bears the stamp of approval notwithstanding, it’s not hard to see and understand the sincerity with which so many Restoration Saints of all traditions embrace their roots and current beliefs. This leads to some wonderful and enlightening conversations and explorations between people whose common grounds are deep and whose differences are worth exploring respectfully.
I’ve had fascinating conversations with CoC Saints about the prophetic callings of their leaders, with fervent testimony borne. I once had a great 30-minute chat with V. Lee Killpack, apostle of the Remnant Church, about the establishment of that organization. At that time, their Q12 led, but he told me that a Joseph Smith descendant was almost ready to accept the mantle and emerge to lead the church as prophet. It was a chance meeting on a sidewalk in Independence, but Elder Killpack’s willingness to speak freely with me was a great blessing to me.
I’ve sat beside a campfire at a Civil War reenactment and discussed church history with a good friend, raised in the Reorganized tradition, who is also a direct descendant (4g’grandson) of Joseph Smith. He considers himself agnostic, but his father is unhappy with the direction the CoC has taken in the deemphasis of the Restoration tradition and what he considers its “Protestantization.”
I’ve traced the remaining original buildings of the Cutlerite settlement in Clitherall, Minnesota; few of that movement remain, but there is a CoC branch in the town which is the result of the absorption of many remaining Cutlerite Saints in the early 20th century.
And overall, I’ve found that when I encounter hostility or an unwillingness to talk on the part of members of other parts of the Restoration movement, it is almost always due to the negative impressions and interactions they’ve had with LDS members. This is truly unfortunate.