Friday was President Monson’s funeral. When an LDS President dies, the First Presidency is dissolved. Have you ever wondered why that is the case? Historian John Hamer and apostle Lachlan MacKay of the Community of Christ discussed why that happens in the LDS Church. It’s a really interesting conversation as we discussed several succession claims.
John: One of the last acts that Joseph Smith does before going to Carthage is he had given another one of these special blessings to Joseph III and several of these where Joseph had been prophesied at one point or another that he would be in his father’s role in being prophet, but he was what? He was eleven?
Lachlan: Eleven or eleven and a half.
John: He’s eleven, so ok. He wasn’t going to be the successor at that point. What I argue, I think anyway, I think that the person who had the best claim at the point, in terms of both civil, and canon, which is to say church rules and law is Sidney Rigdon, who even though he’s been a little on the outs, he is still actively campaigning as the vice-presidential candidate in Joseph Smith’s U.S. presidential election. So Joseph Smith then Sidney Rigdon; Sidney Rigdon is the only guy left in the First Presidency.
Even though in the LDS tradition, there is this idea that the First Presidency dissolves, and then the senior most apostle always succeeds, the only reason that is the idea is because they didn’t want to have Sidney Rigdon be in charge. It doesn’t say that in the Doctrine & Covenants or anything like that. There’s no canonical, there’s no canon law that says anything of the kind. The First Presidency had been a completely distinct [quorum] in the early church tradition from the Twelve.
Lachlan: There’s nothing that says it dissolves.
John: There’s nothing that says it dissolves and also not like the First Presidency is just like three more of the Twelve or something like that. It’s a completely distinct [quorum.] Anyway, so what I say is Sidney Rigdon is the last surviving member of the First Presidency and then according to the actual incorporation like we’re talking about the Church’s possession, William Marks had signed it over to Joseph Smith on behalf of the Church. The Church is incorporated in the state of Illinois, and part of incorporation and the documents in Carthage, it says held by Joseph Smith as Trustee in Trust for the Church and my successors in the First Presidency.
Because of that, when Brigham Young does take over, he doesn’t create a new First Presidency; the Twelve just take over headquarters. It’s one of the reasons why he is not able to get title to these temples is because James Strang knows about that because he has a lot of these guys in his group. They know about this incorporation ruling. This is really complicated details, but anyway, part of the idea of it is he charges that since he is the successor to the First Presidency, he has organized a new First Presidency. This doesn’t in Brigham Young’s church until 1847, so he’s operating that way with the First Presidency, and so he says, “You don’t have a First Presidency. I have title to the Nauvoo Temple. You’re trying to sell my temple.”
GT: James Strang created a First Presidency and said that should be the successor?
John: Yeah, he did that at that point. But before that, I’ve got to dial it back. The person who was the surviving member of the First Presidency then is Sidney Rigdon. Sidney Rigdon gets outmaneuvered in this showdown between Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon. He gets kicked out of Nauvoo, or flees for his life and he goes back and reorganizes and creates a new headquarters of the church in Pittsburgh. But at that point, he suffers one of these things that all kinds of schismatic Mormon Latter Day Saint heritage churches do which is, then they start asking themselves: where did we go wrong?
We discussed some of the other leaders who wanted to take over leadership of the LDS Church in the early days. There’s a lot more people than you may recognize. I also encourage you to check out the video. John was kind enough to share some slides about the Succession crisis, and I have included them in the video.
Don’t forget to check out our conversations with Greg Prince and Jim Vun Cannon on the Succession Crisis. Earlier in the week, we discussed Kirtland Temple ownership problems. Following the Kirtland Banking Crisis in 1838, Joseph Smith left town in the dead of the night. The town of Kirtland was basically bankrupt. Because of this, ownership of the temple was claimed by several people. John Hamer and Lachlan MacKay will talk about Kirtland Temple ownership problems. It’s a little bit like a soap-opera. We’ll also hear an episode where people stormed the temple with guns and knives to try to take ownership of the temple.
Lachlan: This is the one where Joseph Smith Sr. is at the pulpit on the west end. The dissenters are concerned and hoping to take possession of the temple, and they stormed to the front with guns and knives drawn. I think this is Oliver Huntington, one of the Huntington boys said, “Them that had chicken-hearts dove out the windows for safety.”
The police are called in to restore order. They rush in and they knocked over a stove-pipe. So I just imagine soot filling the room. The best part is, after that chaos, they eject the belligerents and resume the services of the day. {Everyone chuckles}
GT: Really! Wow.
Lachlan: So I think that’s probably what you were referring to.
GT: Yeah, it must have been quite a service! {all chuckle} We don’t talk about that in the LDS tradition very often. I remember reading that somewhere and just going, “Wow!”
Lachlan: I think one of them is even—they are walking from the front to the back, in some cases over the back of the pews, so stepping from pew-box to pew-box because the aisles are full of people, so they have to walk on the top of the pew-boxes to get up there.
We also talk about some other Mormon groups: Strangites & Hedrickites and their involvement in Kirtland Temple ownership. I also update our previous conversation with Dr. Richard Bennett about Brigham Young trying to sell the Kirtland Temple! Was the Kirtland Temple turned into a sheep shed? How did the Kirtland Banking Crisis affect ownership? What else can we learn about the Kirtland Temple over the years? What are your thoughts on (1) Kirtland Temple ownership, and (2) LDS succession?
Wheat & Tares 
On the dissolution of the First Presidency, doesn’t the LDS Church cite a JS statement to the effect that “Where I am not, there is no First Presidency”? Can John and Lachlan address the status of that claim?
When I’m saying “civil or canon law,” I’m referring to legal documents. Civil law = the documents describing the early church’s incorporation in Illinois, etc. Canon law = the early church’s published rules in scripture (the Doctrine and Covenants). Any statement by Joseph Smith is a much lower standard. Joseph Jr. had multiple statements that Joseph III would be his successor; by those statements the succession is clear. The argument I made in the interview was about civil and canon law.
I’m not familiar with the quote you are referring to Left Field. Can you give more context to it?
Thanks for the quick response. I found the statement in History of the Church 2:374. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-2-chapter-27
“President Smith next proceeded to explain the duty of the Twelve, and their authority, which is next to the present Presidency, and that the arrangement of the assembly in this place, on the 15th instant, in placing the High Councils of Kirtland next the Presidency, was because the business to be transacted, was business relating to that body in particular, which was to fill the several quorums in Kirtland, not because they were first in office, and that the arrangements were the most judicious that could be made on the occasion; also the Twelve are not subject to any other than the first Presidency, viz., “myself,” said the Prophet, “Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, who are now my Counselors; and where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve.””
I can’t speak authoritatively on that text, but I can imagine several likely reasons to argue that it’s weak support for dissolving the FP. But since it’s the only text I know of that is cited, I was interested in getting your more authoritative analysis.
Probably what it comes down to is that if you accept Brigham Young’s authority, that’s how it needs to be done, because that’s how Brother Brigham came by his authority (that’s really begging the question, though). If we think that the FP survived Joseph’s death, then the authority would go to Sydney Rigdon, and perhaps we would all have to recognize the Bickerton group.
Yes it certainly comes down to what you want to argue for authority claims. I do think that Hamer/MacKay make a compelling case that the LDS dissolve the FP simply because we didn’t want Rigdon to be president, and Young’s position has become the traditional way to choose the new leader. Dissolving the FP is certainly NOT canonical, and I wasn’t aware that Strang immediately organized a FP to try to take over. It’s also interesting that Young didn’t organize FP until he was out on the plains, away from HQ in Nauvoo. It’s not to say that ignoring Rigdon wasn’t the right thing to do. From what I can tell, he was a great preacher, but a horrible leader. Certainly JS3, BY, Strang were much more effective than Rigdon ever was.
It was also interesting to hear that the FP, Seventy, Apostles, and Presiding High Council were all supposed to be equal in authority. Certainly that has changed significantly in LDS Church, and the Presiding High Council no longer exists at all in the LDS Church, although the RLDS Church maintains that quorum. I guess it’s why you see RLDS apostles at history conferences, but never LDS apostles. Apostles were originally a “travelling” council, and while I know our apostles travel, they don’t go on missions like the early apostles did. BY, WW, and almost all the other apostles were out on missions when Joseph was killed. Only John Taylor remained, and he got shot up pretty bad. You don’t see all the apostles outside of Salt Lake anymore. Benson was the last one that served a mission, as far as I can remember.
I think just about every religious disagreement comes down to begging the question. The parties to the disagreement both say in essence: “You don’t have the correct beliefs and practices because WE have the correct beliefs and practices, and just look how different your incorrect ways are from our correct ways.” If you start with the premise that religion X is right, it’s not too hard to show that religion X is right and everyone else is wrong.
It probably doesn’t count as a “mission,” but about 15 years ago, they did send two apostles overseas for a year. One to the Philippines, and one to Chile, if I recall.
To some degree you are correct, but I note that John is a member of RLDS (former LDS member) and he isn’t favoring RLDS position, it’s a Bickertonite position to some degree. He clearly notes how unstable Rigdon was as leader, so it is a bit is a dispassionate argument from John’s perspective. I will be talking more about the Bickertonite services in a few days. It sounds really interesting to attend their meetings!
I wasn’t aware of the Phillipines or Chilean apostolic mission. I’d love to hear more about that!
I wasn’t really directing that at John, but just religious perspectives in general. I actually agree that there isn’t much to go on, to make the case that the FP dissolves with the death of the prophet. But for any religious issue, the premise we start with is going to influence our conclusions. And the conclusions we favor are going to influence the premises that we choose to accept. Even if we agree to be bound by the Bible or other scripture, we still are going to be inclined to adopt a scriptural understanding based on where it leads us.
When I was an LDS missionary back in the day, I recall meeting a Bickertonite member in New Jersey and having quite a lengthy conversation. They actually had several branches just within the East Brunswick ward boundaries, but I didn’t take the opportunity to attend.
I found this on the apostles sent overseas: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/two-apostles-to-take-overseas-assignments
Without authenticated documentation designating a successor(and Joseph Smith left nothing so clear-cut) several methods could be given consideration. For example, Strang claimed angelic ordination which had roots in the restoration of the Priesthood. Frederick M. Smith, RLDS president and grandson of Joseph Smith Jr. left no designated successor. It fell to his cousin, Presiding Patriarch Elbert A. Smith, to deliver an inspired message selecting Israel A. Smith (Frederick’s brother) in 1946. The current president of the CofChrist, Stephen M. Veazey, was not designated by revelation, but selected by the Q12 in 2005 following President Grant McMurray’s resignation.