by

EDWARD T. COUCH

Of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

BOYNE CITY, CHARLEVOIX CO., MICH.

September, 1908

CHAPTER I.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REORGANIZED CHURCH
A MAN MADE PROPHET.

[page 3]

We are well aware of the fact that the elders of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do much good in advocating the first principles of the gospel, and getting the people to be able to understand the great truth, that God has spoken to men in these latter days by a great Prophet, and has restored to the earth the gospel of Apostolic days. But when they say, as they often do, that James J. Strang was a false prophet, and that Joseph Smith, who is now, and has been for many years President of their church, is a prophet of God, and that he holds the same degree of priesthood as his father, they are saying too much, a good deal more than they are justified in. Both the present Joseph, and James J. Strang claim to be the true successor in the prophetic office to Joseph Smith, the great modern Prophet who was shot June 27th, 1844. Let us examine the claims of these two men.

We will first take up the claims of the present head of the Reorganized Church. He was about twelve years old when his father, the great Prophet was killed. He did not, nor any one in his behalf, make any claim to be his father's successor for several years after this sad event. About the

[page 4]

year 1856 to 186o, Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley came to Joseph and wanted him to take up the claim to be his father's successor in the prophetic office. The following is his reply as given by himself: "Will I ever have anything to do with Mormonism? If so, how and what will it be?" These words are quoted from "Life of Joseph the Prophet," page 757, a book that is printed and sold by the Reorganized Church, and of course they are willing to take evidence on the question before us from their own publications.

Again we are told in this book, on page 760, "In the fall of the year 1856 three events occurred that had much to do with my course religiously, and aided me to decide the question, what part of my father's work, if any, was I to take?"

Once more Joseph tells us, "I believed that He who enabled my father to decide * * could enable me, if He would, to decide whether I should, or should not, have anything to do with Mormonism; and if so, what?"--Page 762.

From time to time the conversation with Mr. Briggs and Mr. Gurley went on, and the present Joseph again tells us on page 768, "I did not then know whether I should ever be called to take any part in that work, (his father's gospel work,) but that if I were, I was ready, and that it would have to be made clear to me, as well as to others what that work was."

This makes four testimonies quoted from "Life of Joseph the Prophet," in which the present Joseph up to this time, made no claim to be his father's successor. From the fact that Joseph was at this time about 26 years old, "and did not know then that he ever would have anything to do with Mormonism,"

[page 5]

it shows conclusively that he was neither appointed, nor ordained by his father.

We will now call your attention to what the President of the Reorganized Church said of his father about twenty-three years after this. It is this: "He [his father] could not ordain and induct a successor while himself lived."--Young Joseph's letter to J. B. Price, in the Saints Advocate of Sep., 1883, vol. 6. Joseph was right in this; his father could not ordain and induct a successor while he lived, or there would be two heads to the church at the same time. This makes the fifth statement in which he disowns any ordination by his father to the prophetic office.

Now let us see what Elder Whitehead of the Reorganized Church has told us. He said, "he saw Newell K. Whitney, Hiram Smith, and Joseph Smith anoint and ordain Young Joseph a prophet, seer and revelator in 1844, in a room over Joseph's store in Nauvoo."--Saints Herald, June 27, 1885, page 413. This statement is also in the Josephite tract, No. 17, called "The Successor," page 9. This tract was circulated about fifteen years ago. It is also put on record in "True Succession In Church Presidency," by Elder Heman C. Smith, page 47. It is very easy to see that this Whitehead testimony says, Joseph Smith, his brother Hiram, and Newell K. Whitney anointed and ordained Young Joseph a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. It is also very easy to see that this one statement contradicts the five made by his own Prophet and President, as already shown; so this makes five contradictions.

We will now see what God has spoken by the great modern Prophet: "But verily, verily, I say

[page 6]

unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift, [the prophetic office] except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead."--Doctrine and Covenants 43:2. This revelation says, Joseph the Prophet shall not have power, except to appoint his successor, while Elder Whitehead says he ordained him. This is the sixth contradiction this Whitehead testimony is the cause of.

Now, dear reader, which will you believe? Will you believe the founder of the Church when he says by revelation from God that he shall only have power to appoint, not ordain, his successor, and the four testimonies of Young Joseph that he did not know that he ever would have anything to do with his father's work, and another by him that his father could not ordain and induct a successor while he lived, or will you believe this false statement which originated with Elder Whitehead? But what astonishes me about these contradictions is that the leaders of the Reorganized Church, who certainly must know that they exist, still keep publishing the Whitehead testimony, and several of the elders tell it wherever they go. Of course the common members of the Church are not so much to blame if they believe it, for they hear this side of the question from the elders, and not the other.

When Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H, Gurley went to Joseph, the son of the Prophet, in the year 1856, to get him to accept the presidency of the Reorganized Church, they both claimed to have a revelation by which he was called to the prophetic office. Of course they finally succeeded in getting

[page 7]

him to accept it. The following is Mr. Brigg's revelation: "In mine own due time I will call upon the seed of Joseph Smith and will bring one forth, and he shall be mighty and strong, and shall preside over the high priesthood of my church," page 578, "Life of Joseph the Prophet." Mr. Gurley is more definite in what he gave. Here is his revelation: "The successor of Joseph Smith is Joseph, the son of Joseph the Prophet. It is his right by lineage saith the Lord your God."

We will now see how all this agrees with the word of God revealed through the great Prophet. The Lord says: "Behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church, excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.; * * * for I have given him the keys of the mysteries and revelations, which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead."--D. & C. 27:2. These words teach very plainly that no person but the Prophet Joseph was authorized to give revelations for the guidance of all, and in case he would be taken, the Lord would appoint another in his stead, an immediate successor.

"The president of the church, who is also president of the council, is called by revelation."--D. & C. 99:6.

Through whom must the revelation come to appoint the president of the church--the successor in case Joseph was taken? The great Prophet answers this question: "But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift, except it be THROUGH HIM * * and this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that come before you as revelations, or

[page 8]

commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me."--D. & C. 43:2. These words are very plain. No one shall be appointed successor to Joseph Smith in the prophetic office, except it be through him."

Now the President of the Reorganized Church was not appointed by a revelation through his father, but by one given by Mr. Briggs and Mr. Gurley, and as this quotation says distinctly it must be given through him, it should be plain to every one he was not appointed as God has directed, and therefore he is not the successor to Joseph Smith, in the prophetic office. Now since God rejects the revelations of every one on the successorship question except what the great Prophet gave, we must do the same to avoid being deceived, and therefore we must lay to one side the revelations of Mr. Briggs and Mr. Gurley, and all others of like character, as worthless for God has said: "You may know they are not of me."

Now the question arises, why were these men given revelations which God says are not of him? Evidently the reason is this: They, like several others, rejected the claims of James J. Strang, the true successor of Joseph Smith in the prophetic office, When men of this class who will not accept of all the truth that is within their easy reach, come before God and ask for revelation, it might be said with iniquity in their hearts, the Lord permits them to be deceived. If you don't believe this is the case, just read Ezek. 14:1-8. After reading this, read 2 Thes. 2:11-12. Here we are told, "Because they received not the love of the truth, * * * God shall send them strong delusions.

[page 9]

"Let me assure you, men who will not have the truth are as likely to get a "revelation from the wrong source, for a strong delusion, as anything else.

Yes, it was Jason W. Briggs and Zenos H. Gurley, each with a revelation that we have already shown, God had nothing to do with, that kept persuading Young Joseph from 1856 to 1860 to take up the presidency of the Reorganized Church. He finally accepted of it, and then the question came up, who would ordain him? If the testimony of Elder Whitehead was true about his father ordaining him, why didn't he tell it at, or before this? Then, in such a case, they would have said he was already ordained. The case is plain, he did not get that story invented for several years after this, so they thought it necessary to get someone to ordain the prospective Prophet.

According to the history of their church, he was ordained by "William Marks, Zenos H. Gurley and others," on the 6th day of April, 1860, at Amboy, Ill. These men were not satisfied with ordaining him to the same priesthood they claimed to hold, for they claim to have put him in the same office his father held; that is, prophet, seer, revelator and translator--several steps, higher than any of them ever held. The absurdity of such a claim is apparent. Can a stream rise higher than its fountain? Everybody knows it cannot. Neither could these men ordain Joseph to a higher position than they held themselves. It has now been shown how Young Joseph was ordained successor to his father in the prophetic office. Now let us see how God said this must be done. After the, Lord said distinctly that the successor to the Prophet Joseph

[page 10]

must be appointed. "through him," as already shown, He went on to say, "for verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me, shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before."--D. & C. 43:2.

This revelation was given Feb., 1831, and about six months before this, Sept., 1830, D. & C., See. 26, is recorded what Joseph told them before on this question. This section says plainly he was ordained by men who had become angels. And this is the only thing Joseph ever told them at any time about this. And God says in the above revelation that the successor to Joseph must be ordained as Joseph was--by angels.

We have now found that Young Joseph's ordination to the prophetic office at Amboy, Ill., in 1860, is contrary to the pattern given by his own father. It has also been shown that his call and appointment to that office is all contrary to the law of God. So he is nothing more than a man made prophet, because he was not placed in that office as the Lord has directed. The Prophet Isaiah has said, "to the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."--Isa. 8:20.

Elder Heman C. Smith, the Reorganized Church historian, tells us in his book, "True Succession in Church Presidency," page 141, that in regard to selecting the twelve apostles in Joseph the Seer's time, "a committee was appointed by revelation, consisting of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, D. & C. 16:6, to which Martin Harris was subsequently added, and to them the Lord gave authority to select the twelve according to specific instructions given. In the year 1835 the twelve

[page 11]

were selected by these men." This statement is correct, but let us examine the next sentence: "Neither of the three, though they were in a general sense apostles, were ever members of the quorum of the twelve, and though they did not then, nor thereafter hold any office equal to it, yet they ordained these men apostles of the quorum of the twelve and gave them their charge." This sentence says, neither of the three held any office equal to that of the twelve. This is not true.

D & C. 17:1, tells us, "Joseph Smith. Jr., was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; and to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God AN APOSTLE of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church." From this it can be seen that Oliver Cowdery was an apostle; yes, of a higher degree than one of the twelve, for he was at this time the second President of the Church.

Let us now see what authority David Whitmer had. D. & C. 16:3 says: "And now Oliver Cowdery I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by way of commandment, I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called with that same calling with which he was called." This revelation plainly states that David Whitmer was called to an apostolic office equal to that of Paul, that is, one of the twelve, and we have already shown that Oliver Cowdery was called to a higher apostolic office than this.

Now about the ordination of these men. Oliver Cowdery was ordained by Joseph the Seer, D & C- 17:1. By reading D. & C. 42:4 you will see that it was not allowed for any one to act in the office to which he was called, "except he be ordained

[page 12]

by some one who hath authority, and it is known unto the church that he has authority, and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church." With such words as these to go by, it is easy to see that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris were ordained to the office to which they were called. Now with such evidence as all this to go by, is it not surprising that the Reorganized Church historian would deliberately tell us in his book, as already noticed, that these men did hold an office equal to one of the twelve? Yet they ordained the twelve and gave them their charge. This makes another contradiction found in the publications of that church.

Of course the object this historian has in view in making such a statement, that the men who ordained the twelve in 1835 stood in a lower office than that of an apostle, which we have shown to be wrong, is to justify the ordination of Young Joseph, in 1860, by William Marks and Zenos H. Gurley. In this case, these men claimed to have ordained their President to a good deal higher priesthood than either of them ever held. That the less can ordain the greater is contrary to all the scripture we now have. Nothing of this kind was ever done by God's direction. Cases of this kind are only found in the history of man made churches and man made prophets. A similar case to this is on record in regard to Brigham Young. He wanted to become president of the church in the fall of 1847, so he got his followers to vote him into that office, "Life of Brigham Young," page 188. After all, what would be the difference between being voted in president of the church, and being ordained to that office by men who did not have authority to give

[page 13]

it? None at all. In either case the parties would be acting in an office they did not hold.

After the author of "True Succession In Church Presidency," on page 141, made the statement that the men who ordained the twelve apostles in 1835 did not stand in so high an office themselves, yet they ordained them; then he tells us, to this quorum of twelve thus chosen and ordained, God delegated the authority, "to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church." The latter half of this sentence he quoted from D. & C. 104:30. But when he introduced these words he said nothing about what is mentioned just before this in the same section, par. 12, which says, "The twelve are a traveling, presiding high council to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the first presidency of the church." This makes quite a difference. If it is true, as the writer of this book evidently wishes its readers to believe, that the twelve apostles have authority "to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church," and no one over them, then why didn't the Josephites all follow Brigham Young? He was president of the twelve at Joseph's death, and had a majority of the apostles to side with him. According to their own teaching here, Brigham and his brother apostles were the men to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church.

The author of "True Succession In Church Presidency," an official work of the Reorganized Church, in his book, on page 143, quotes from "Church History," vol. 1, p. 244, "Times and Seasons," vol. 5, par. 624, that Joseph the Seer "called a general council of the church, and was acknowledged as president of the high priesthood, according

[page 14]

to a previous ordination at a conference of high priests, elders, and members, held at Amherst, Ohio, on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1832." Then he goes on to say, "This was before there was a quorum of twelve apostles. Thus does it appear that President Joseph Smith and his father were ordained by the same authority, viz., by those holding the office of high priest; and in addition to this, President Smith's ordination was participated in by those who were regularly called and ordained to the office of apostle." To say the least, such teaching as this is very misleading. You can see by this official work of the Reorganized Church that they want us all to believe that their president was ordained by the same authority as his father. In fact they try to make out that he was ordained to the prophetic office by a little better authority than his father, the great Prophet; because they claim it was participated in by those who were regularly called and ordained to the office of apostle.

Now when the Reorganized Church historian tells us all that is quoted in the preceding paragraph, he very willingly forgot to tell us that Joseph, the Seer, stood in the prophetic office on, or before the 6th day of April, 1830, the day the Church was organized, D. & C. 17:1. This was nearly two years before this alleged ordination at Amherst, Ohio. So whether there was any truth in this latter ordination or not, it would make no difference. The Prophet Joseph Smith tells us plainly how he came into the prophetic office. He says he was at first ordained to the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist, D. & C. 26:2. After this he was ordained to the Melchisidec priesthood by

[page 15]

"Peter, James and John, [angels], whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you."--D. & C. 26:3. These words are so plain that they need no explanation. Yet as plain as they are, the author of "True Succession In Church Presidency," tells us, as already noticed, "Thus does it appear that President Joseph Smith and his father were ordained by the same authority," and it is the prophetic office he is discussing in his book. He also very willingly forgot to mention in his book, that D. & C., 43:2, says that the successor to Joseph the Seer must be appointed "through him," and "ordained as I told you before"--by angels. O consistency, thou art a jewel!"

The publications of the Reorganized Church often claim for their president that he is entitled to the prophetic office by right of lineage. This is not true, for the good reason this office does not go by lineage. There is not one case on record from the first page of the Bible to the last where a man who held the prophetic office was succeeded by his son in the same office. The best proof they can find for their claim on this question is in D. & C. 107:18, where it says: "And as I said unto Abraham, concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto you my servant Joseph, in thee, and in thy seed, shall the kindred of the earth be blessed." You will notice here that the blessing God gave to Joseph, and his seed after him, was that by them the kindred of the earth would be blessed. Now the kindred is, at the most, only one tribe of Israel. But the favor God pronounced upon Abraham was that he and his descendants were to bless the kindreds of the earth. This includes the twelve tribes of Israel.

[page 16]

The Bible in speaking of this matter says: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. "--Gen. 22:18. Now, all L. D. Saints know, or ought to know, that the ministry of the Church in apostolic days, as well as these latter days, are descendants of Abraham. So the prophets of God are descendants of Abraham, and they hold the right to bless all the nations--all the kindreds; for they have "all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church."--D. and C. 104:42.

Now since a man in the prophetic office has a right to bless all the kindreds--the nations--he could not come of the seed of Joseph the Seer, because as already shown, the seed of Joseph was only given to bless "the kindred"--one tribe of Israel, not all of them. So this favorite text of the Reorganized Church, in D. and C. 107:18, in place of supporting the lineage theory actually opposes it.

Let us now call your attention to what the book of Mormon says. In this book we are informed that the Lord revealed it to Joseph, the son of Jacob, that "A seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word which shall have already gone forth among them. Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing

[page 17]

peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their father in the latter days."--2 Nephi 2:2. These words are also recorded in Gen. 50:30-31, Inspired Tran.

All Latter Day Saints agree that the Seer spoken of in this quotation from the Book of Mormon was fulfilled in the calling of Joseph Smith, to the prophetic office. Did he write the commandments of God as this quotation specifies? Yes, says every Latter Day Saint.

Did the choice Seer of the latter days do a good work in explaining "the word of God which had already gone forth among them?" We all believe he did. What was this word which had already gone forth among them? Every school boy knows it was the Bible, and that it was the only word of God had among men previous to the days of Joseph the Seer. So the Bible could not be the fulfillment of the words of this prophecy, "Judah shall write." The Bible was had among men for many hundred years before even Joseph the Seer wrote.

Now you will notice. Judah was not to "write" until Joseph the Seer "wrote"; therefore to fulfill this part of the prophecy it requires a prophet of the tribe of Judah. And the writings of Joseph--and a prophet of the tribe of Judah "shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines," etc. Now from the fact that Joseph the Seer is to have a successor of the tribe of Judah in the latter days, it shows clearly that the prophetic office does not go by lineage.

We will now call your attention to one or two points in the Inspired Translation of the Bible in regard to the question before us. In Paul's letter to the Hebrews he said: "For this Melchisedec was

[page 18]

ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent."--Heb. 7:3, Inspired Translation. It was the priesthood of Jesus, or the prophetic office, Paul was discussing when he made use of these words. It is plainly to be seen by them that this office is without father, without mother, without descent; therefore it does not go by lineage.

Now turn to Gen. 14:26-29, Inspired Translation and you will find these words: "Now Melchisedec was a man of faith, * * * and thus having been approved of God he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch, it being after the order of the Son of God, which order came, NOT BY MAN, NOR THE WILL OF MAN; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God; and it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name." These words are very plain in stating that this high priesthood comes not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother, but of God; that is, by the will of God. So according to this text it is impossible for the prophetic office to go by lineage. In fact, in no way has man anything to do with conferring it. It comes not by man, nor the will of man; but by the will of God, and He confers it upon whomsoever He will by "the calling of his own voice" and angelic ordination. It is self-evident that this is the way God gives this priesthood, for man has nothing to do with it. Now this quotation should be the end of controversy in regard to the prophetic office, for it is given by revelation from God through the great modern Prophet.

[page 19]

We have now, in a limited manner, found that the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, and Inspired Translation all agree that the prophetic office does not go by lineage, and that this latter book is very distinct on this question. To me it is astonishing that the leading men of the Reorganized Church would teach that the prophetic office goes by lineage when it is contrary to the word of God. Those two texts just quoted from the Inspired Translation are very distinct in opposing this false doctrine, yet they keep right on teaching this error. They are the ones who print this Bible, so they should know of those scriptural texts. The common elders of the Reorganization might not know that the Inspired Bible and the other books oppose this question as they do, but many of them teach it, like their leaders, so they are following their leaders on this lineage theory, and not the written word of God.

We have already called your attention to the statement of Elder Heinen C. Smith, in his book on page 143, in regard to the men who ordained the present Joseph Smith in 1860. He says "the ordination was participated in by those who were regularly called and ordained to the office of apostle." It is generally known that it was William Marks he had reference to who was the apostle who took the lead in that ordination. Now, if William Marks was all he claimed for him, which we have good reason to doubt, then think of it! An apostle, one of the twelve, ordaining a man to the prophetic office. 0, such an inconsistency! A deacon might about as well undertake to ordain an elder, as an apostle to ordain a prophet; yet this is the kind of a prophet of God

[page 20]

the Reorganized Church has. Now this is in direct opposition to the Inspired Translation, Gen. 14:26-29, which says, this high priesthood "comes not by man, nor by the will of man; but of God," as already explained.

We have now examined the principle claims that the present Joseph has to the prophetic office, and have shown by the scriptures, and their own publications that God had nothing to do with putting him there. He came into that office according to the commandments of men, so he is only a man made prophet. The words of Daniel are applicable here. "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting." One of the balances the Lord uses to weigh the claimants to the prophetic office is found in D. & C. 43:2. It teaches that the successor to Joseph the Seer, must be "appointed through him," and "'ordained as I told you before;" that is, by authority from heaven. Not one, of the many, who claimed to be the successor to the great modern Prophet met with the requirements of this revelation, but James J. Strang. So it ill becomes the President of the Reorganized Church, or any of his elders, to cry, delusion! false prophet! at anyone else.

The present head of the Reorganized Church has claimed to be in the prophetic office, since the year 1860. There is nothing in any of his few revelations but any ordinary man could easily teach without making any claim of revelation about it. He has not brought to light one truth, no, not one! that was not had among men previous to his prophetic career. If you had a boy and you sent him to school for a year and he learned nothing, you would conclude there was something wrong with

[page 21]

him or his teacher. So we conclude that there is something wrong with the President of the Reorganized Church, for he claims to be in the prophetic office, not for a year only, but for 48 years, yet he has learned nothing--has made no progress in the prophetic office--has not brought to light one truth that was not known among men before. And that there are a great many of the lost truths of the past, and "things that have not been revealed since the foundation of the world," going to be revealed in this dispensation, is taught in D. & C. 110:18. Now if he were a prophet of God, as he believes he is, but he isn't, he is deceived, the Lord would reveal some of these great truths through him.

CHAPTER II.

JAMES J. STRANG THE SUCCESSOR.

After the death of Joseph Smith in June, 1844, several claimed to be the true leader of the church. This being the case, it will be necessary to examine carefully what the Lord has revealed through the great Prophet in regard to his successor to avoid being deceived.

In a revelation to Oliver Cowdery, given through the great Seer, we are told: "Behold, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church, excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.; for he receiveth them even as Moses, and thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him

[page 22]

* * * and thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church, for I have given him the keys of the mysteries and the revelations, which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead."--D. & C. 27:2.

This revelation teaches very plainly that no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this Church, excepting Joseph, until the Lord shall appoint unto them (the church) another in his stead. These words are also very clear in stating that God would appoint an immediate successor to Joseph, if from any cause he ceased to act in the prophetic office on earth. The same thing is taught in D. & C. 34:4, so it is not necessary to quote it here.

"The president of the church, who is also president of the council, is appointed by revelation."--D. & C. 99:6. These words are so plain that they need no explanation.

Through whom should the revelation come to appoint the successor? "But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift (the prophetic office), except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead, and this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; and this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received, and shall receive, through him whom I have appointed."--D. & C. 43:2. This revelation makes it plain that

[page 23]

Joseph shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead, and the appointment must be through him. These words also teach that the successor must come in at the gate and be ordained as he told them before. Now the only thing he ever told them before on this question was that he was ordained by authority from heaven.

Joseph tells us be was ordained to the higher priesthood by "Peter, James and John [angels] whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you."--D. & C. 26:3, and the previous revelation says the successor to Joseph must be ordained as he told them he was.

First--We have now found that God's law says none but Joseph was to give revelations for the guidance of the whole Church while he lived.

Second--That in case Joseph should cease to act in the prophetic office on earth, the Lord would appoint another in his stead"--an immediate successor.

Third--"The president of the church, is appointed by revelation."

Fourth--The revelation to appoint the president, the successor to Joseph, must come "through him."

Fifth--That Joseph was not to ordain his successor; that he must be ordained as he was--by authority from heaven.

Of the many that claimed to be successor to the great modern Prophet, not one, but James J. Strang met with the conditions that the law of God has in the above revelations so distinctly specified.

On the 27th day of June, 1844, a little after five o'clock in the afternoon James J. Strang was visited

[page 24]

by an angel and ordained by him to the prophetic office. At this time he lived near Burlington, Wisconsin, and made this remarkable event known to the family where he then boarded the same day. The result was, that in a few days it was told in every direction, for many miles around, that Mr. Strang claimed to have been ordained by an angel to the prophetic office. Now, dear reader, you surely know that no person who is blessed with common sense would tell such a thing, if it was not true, for the good reason that the only pay he got for doing so was to be mocked and laughed at by the most of the people.

That the successor to Joseph the Seer was ordained as he said he was is in exact harmony with the law of God, is already shown. Now right here is another point that should not be overlooked. It was nearly three weeks after Mr. Strang stood in the prophetic office, and all his neighbors for miles around knowing he made this claim, before it was known that Joseph Smith was dead. You know there were no railroads nor telegraphs; in that locality in those early days. Yes, after that sad news was learned it proved to be on the same day, and the same hour of the day, and even the same moment that James J. Strang had his angelic ordination, that Joseph was shot. This is a great truth in favor of the divine calling of his successor that time never can, nor never will, obliterate.

Now, as already noticed, the Lord had given a revelation stating that the successor to Joseph must be "appointed through him." Did anyone receive such an appointment? Yes, one man, and only one. Who was he? The true successor in the prophetic office--James J. Strang. It was he

[page 25]

alone that received, as the law of God requires, an appointment through Joseph. This letter of appointment of James J. Strang by Joseph Smith was dated June 18th, 1844, and it was received by him at Burlington, Wis., several days before it was known that the great Prophet was dead, and it was made known to the public the same day it was received. This makes another strong evidence in favor of the true successor, in exact harmony with the law of God.

But there is another important text bearing on the question before us which should not be overlooked. It is recorded in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, March, 1833. These are the words: "Verily I say unto you, the keys of the kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come; nevertheless, THROUGH YOU shall the oracles be given to another; yea even to the church."--D. and C. 87:2

There are some of the Reorganized Elders who try to make it appear that the appointment of a successor through Joseph the Seer, as taught in D. & C. 43:2, was conditional; but the same thing is taught in the above revelation, and there are no conditions about it. "Through you, (Joseph) shall the oracles be given to another." Well, what are the oracles? According to Webster's dictionary the word oracles means, "the communications or revelations of God to his prophets." Now it should be remembered that Webster had reference to prophets in olden times, therefore he says prophets, the plural. But in the text before us the oracles are to be given to "another"--another man--another prophet, in the singular number you know.

[page 26]

Now, let us quote the above words again, and instead of saying oracles, we will introduce the meaning of the word. Nevertheless, through you, Joseph, shall the communications or revelations of God be given to another--to another prophet--the successor to Joseph the Seer. And this prophet is to give the oracles--the revelations of God--"yea even to the church."

The above revelation is unconditional. Just as sure as Joseph would be taken away, through him shall the oracles be given to another. Was there no person appointed through Joseph to receive the oracles? and by him to be given to the church? If not, then the words of the founder of this latter day dispensation have fallen to the ground. Where! 0 where is there a man who was appointed through the great Seer that received the oracles? James J. Strang was the man, and the only man who ever claimed to have been appointed through Joseph, as this revelation, and others have required.

We have now found that of the many who claimed to be the successor of Joseph the Seer--"the shepherd, the stone of Israel," Gen. 49:24, not one met with the conditions, in appointment and ordination, that the law of God requires, but Mr. Strang. This has now been shown in a limited manner.

James J. Strang made his claims to the prophetic office known in every direction, and gave every one who doubted it a good chance to discuss the matter with him in either a public or a private manner. Not a man met him on the question. Not even Brigham Young or any of his followers would dare to accept the invitation which was given to them in particular. Now you would naturally

[page 27]

think that the great majority of the saints would rally to his support when he gave such undisputed evidence of his divine calling. But did they do so? Many did, but not the majority. It has always been the case that the majority would rather have false prophets, or what are called in our day, man made prophets for their leaders, and the latter days are no exception to this rule. There was a good supply of these man made prophets at the time of Joseph's death, and there is a good supply of them now.

Mr. Strang was an Elder of the Church for about six months before the death of Joseph. He received his patriarchal blessing under the hands of Hyrum Smith, who said he was of the tribe of Judah. He proved to be an able advocate of the gospel of Christ. He, like his predecessor, had the Urim and Thummim and did considerable at translating some of the lost scriptures of the past. So he has written some of the commandments of God. He gave evidence that he held the keys of the oracles of God. This is something not one of the so-called successors to Joseph even claimed to do, to translate some of the lost scriptures of the past, although it is a part of the duties of the prophetic office. So in this duty, as well as all others, he was in harmony with the law of God, and they fail.

On page three of James J. Strang's "Prophetic Controversy" he tells us he was called to the prophetic office by "the voice of God," and we have already found he was ordained by an angel. Now this is in exact harmony with the teachings of Gen. 14:26-29, Inspired Translation, in regard to how men are called and ordained to the prophetic

[page 28]

office. This was shown in the first chapter. Now how is it that he got in harmony with this text; if his claims are not true? That Bible was not printed at that time; nor did he have access to the manuscript of it.

James J. Strang, like Joseph Smith, was accused many times of breaking the laws of the land. He was given trial and every time honorably acquitted. He was like him in another respect. He was hated by many that ought to have been his friends, and finally met with his death by the hands of this class of men in the year 1856.

CHAPTER III.

THE CLAIMS OF BRIGHAM YOUNG.

Lately I have read the claims of Brigham Young, to be leader of the church after Joseph's death, as they are presented by Brigham H. Roberts in a work which he wrote, "Succession in the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," No doubt this is an official work. On page four he tells us that William Marks and Sidney Rigdon had a visit and the former appointed August 8th, 1844, for a conference at which time Sidney Rigdon spoke to the people assembled on that occasion and offered to be a guardian to the church. After he sat down Brigham Young addressed the people. He said: "I will tell you who your leaders or guardians will be. The twelve--I at their head! This was with a voice like the

[page 29]

voice of the Prophet Joseph. I thought it was he, and so did thousands of others who heard it. This was very satisfactory to the people, and a vote was taken to sustain the twelve in their office, which, with a few dissenting voices, was passed."--Page 7. B. H. Roberts quotes these words from the journal of Elder Wm. C. Stains, who it is said was present at that meeting.

Now it should be plain to every intelligent man that this vote of the people on that occasion did not confer on Brigham Young any more priesthood than he held previous to this time. At the time of the death of Joseph Smith he was leader of the twelve apostles.

On page 93 of B. H. Roberts book he says: "Let us now proceed to the proof that Joseph Smith, the prophet, did not take the keys of authority with him from the church when he fell a martyr to the truth, but that said keys of authority remained with the church, more especially with the twelve. On March 8th, 1833, the Lord said to Joseph Smith; verily, I say unto you, the keys of the kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come, nevertheless, through you, shall the oracles be given to another; yea, even to the church."

Very true, this quotation proves that Joseph did not take the keys of the kingdom from the Church when he died. Through you, Joseph, "shall the oracles be given to ANOTHER." And B. H. Roberts evidently well knows that the "another" was not the twelve, for in the above quotation he says, the keys of authority remained with the church, more especially with the twelve. But he would like to have the Utah saints, and every other saint,

[page 30]

believe that these words appointed the twelve. Well, if this were true, then there would be twelve prophets, seers, revelators, and translators--successors to Joseph Smith. This is too inconsistent for any thinking man to believe,

In D. & C. 27:2, and 34:4, the Lord says, if Joseph would be taken, "another will I plant in his stead," Sec, 43:2 teaches the same thing, and so does this text, Sec. 87:2. This makes four testimonies that "another" would be successor to Joseph. Now another means one man--not twelve, and we have already shown that James J. Strang was that one man.

On page 96 B. H. Roberts tells us that Elder Woodruff said that Joseph the Prophet said to the twelve apostles, "Upon your shoulders the kingdom rests, and you must round up your shoulders and bear it; for I have had to do it until now." Well, even if Joseph did say all this to the apostles, it did not give any of them any more priesthood. And neither Brigham Young, nor any of his associates were ever ordained by any proper authority to anything higher than that of apostle. Now right here it should be stated that the twelve apostles are "under the direction of the presidency of the church."--D. & C. 104:12.

For a few years after the death of Joseph the Prophet, Brigham Young and his associates claimed to be leaders of the church in the manner stated. In the fall of 1847 he wanted to have a presidency over the twelve, so he got his followers to vote him to be head of this first presidency, "Life of Brigham Young," page 188. From this time on he claimed to be in the prophetic office, or President of the church. Now every thinking man ought to

[page 31]

be able to see that this vote of the people did not confer any priesthood.

We have now, in a limited manner, shown the principal points put forth by B. H. Roberts in behalf of B. Young's claim to the prophetic office, and have shown by his official work and the word of God that he was not put into that office in harmony with the pattern given by revelation through Joseph the Seer; so he never was in the prophetic office. He was put into it by a vote of his followers, and not by angelic ordination, as the law of God requires.

In the Salt Lake "Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel," page 287, we are told that Joseph Smith, in speaking of the prophetic office, said, "all the prophets had the Melchisedec priesthood, and were ordained by God Himself." With the teachings of Joseph in this Compendium, agrees what he gave by revelation recorded in Gen. 14:26-29, Inspired Translation. The prophetic office comes "not by man; nor the will of man; * * but of God," and He confers it upon whomsoever He will by His angels. Neither Brigham Young, nor any of his successors in the prophetic office came into that office in harmony with the teachings of this Compendium just referred to, a book that is printed and sold by them, but by a vote of their followers. That they came into their office by being chosen, or voted in, is acknowledged in a letter received by J. 0. Long from a prominent man in Salt Lake City, in reply to the question, "Was Brigham Young ordained to be President of the Church? If so, who ordained him?" Shortly after, John B. Clark received a similar letter from another prominent man of that city, in reply to the

[page 32]

same question. This letter teaches that ordination to the prophetic office is not done by them, but their chief apostle is chosen by the people or voted in, when his predecessor dies. This information we got from pages 152 to 154 of Elder Hemen C. Smith's book in which these letters are printed in full.

Now here is the prophetic office question all in a few words. The Utah Saints take a man, they call an apostle and elect him to be their president, or what they call a prophet of God. When he dies, his successor is voted in the same way.

The Reorganized Church, we have shown, took their president and got a man who called himself an apostle to ordain him to be what they call a prophet of God.

James J. Strang, the true successor, was called by the voice of God, appointed through Joseph the Seer, and ordained by an angel, as we have already shown. So he is in harmony with the law of God on this question, and the others are not.

After the death of Joseph Smith, ten of his apostles, Brigham Young at their head, set themselves up to be leaders of the Church, but the other two supported the true successor. These ten usurped the authority God had already conferred upon James J. Strang, who stood in the prophetic office immediately after Joseph's death. So Mr. Strang was head of the first presidency of the church at this time. These apostles, according to God's law were under him, D. & C. 104:12, but they rebelled against him and succeeded in getting several of the saints to follow them and their man made prophet.

We of the true faith believe the time is close at

[page 33]

hand when many of the Utah L. D. Saints and of the Reorganized L. D. Saints will see the error they have made in following man made prophets, and they will unite with us, the true Saints of God, under the leadership of a real prophet of God, that will yet be raised up in fulfillment of D. & C. 100:3

CHAPTER IV.

PROPHETS OF GOD TEACH ALIKE.

In days of old it was a common thing for the Israelites to accept false prophets for true ones, and reject real prophets of God, and these latter days are no exception to this rule. The reason for this is because there are so many who do not know how to distinguish between the true and false, or man made prophets. If you do not know the identical marks that should be on a good bank note, you are as likely to accept counterfeit money, if it was offered you in payment for a debt due you, as genuine money. It is a good deal the same in regard to man made prophets and man made teachers of religion. The best way to know true prophets and true teachers of religion from man made ones is by revelation from God. The next best way is to compare their teachings with the scriptures. If they don't agree with that, you may know they are not real men of God. Man made prophets and teachers of religion always teach some things that are true, especially popular truths, and some things contrary to the scriptures.

[page 34]

Prophets of God and real men of God teach alike all through the world's history. That this is the case may seem strange to some, so it will be well to offer some explanation.

If you will turn to Gen. 5:44, Inspired Translation, you will find these words: "And thus the gospel began to be preached from the beginning, being declared by holy angels, sent from the presence of God; and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost." This shows that they had the gospel of Christ in the beginning of the world, and if you will read Gen. 6:5, from the same Bible, you will see that they had written scripture at that time.

All righteous men in the beginning of the world obeyed the gospel of Christ. This is how Abraham became so righteous, because he obeyed the gospel which preceded him from the beginning. In Psalms 105:8-11 we are told God "hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel, [in the days of Moses], for an everlasting covenant." From this it is plain to be seen that the gospel code of laws Abraham lived by "were commanded to a thousand generations;" and that this code of laws is called "an everlasting covenant." Only a small part of these generations are gone by yet. See Matt. 1:17

If you will read Deut. 7:8 9 you will see that Moses well knew that the gospel, or everlasting covenant was commanded to a thousand generations. He learned this from the scriptures which preceded his day. They were extant then, but

[page 35]

since that time they have been lost for many hundred years. Moses taught the people this gospel, and because they were very rebellious, the added law, or law of Moses, was afterwards added to the original. A part of both these codes of laws is recorded in the books of Moses.

According to the scriptures, the added law, or law of Moses, was to be in force till Christ came--not till He died, as commonly believed. He came when He began His public ministry. That the added law ceased then, that all Jesus taught was to be kept up, for what He taught was the gospel that was from the beginning, and that prophets of God teach alike; is already explained in a work called, "The Everlasting Covenant, or Prophets of God Teach Alike." This work can be had free from any of our faith. For this reason, only a very limited account of the important subject of this chapter will be given here.

It was Jesus that said: "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."--Matt- 5:18. What law was Jesus speaking of here? It was the gospel law, or code of laws. The prophets of God before Christ taught the gospel laws, because they were commanded to a thousand generations and the prophets and apostles after Christ taught the same laws for the same reason, and because Jesus said, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

If you will read Matt. 9:18-19, Inspired Trans., you will find these words: "Then said the Pharisees unto him, why will ye not receive us with our baptism, seeing we keep the whole law? But

[page 36]

Jesus said unto them, ye keep not the law. If ye had kept the law, ye would have received me, for I Am HE WHO GAVE THE LAW." Now we have already found that the gospel law was taught from the beginning, and as Jesus has said, it was "He who gave the law;" therefore it is evident that it was He who revealed the law, the gospel law, and sent angels from heaven, from time to time, to make the plan of salvation clear and plain to His servants the prophets, all the way back to the days of Adam.

Yes; it was after, the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" because the world was created, see Job 38:4-7, and before men lived on this earth, that the gospel law, or plan of salvation was arranged in the pre-existing state. See Gen. 3:1-4, Inspired Translation.

Is it any wonder that after Jesus came to this earth and began His public ministry He taught the same gospel law that He had been revealing from heaven for at least 4,000 years?

Is it any wonder that the apostles and prophets of God after Christ teach the same as their Divine master and the prophets before Him, for with God and Christ "there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning?"

Is it any wonder that the resurrected Savior said to His apostles, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations * * to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," Matt. 28:19, 20. According to this text all that Jesus taught, was to be kept up. It made no difference whether it was spoken before His death or after. See also Matt. 7:24-27; John 12:48; Acts 3:22, 23.

[page 37]

The apostle John taught this subject the same way for he told the saints of his day to obey "the commandments which ye heard from the beginning."--2 John, verses 5 and 6; 1 John 2:24.

We have already shown in this chapter that "the everlasting covenant" was commanded to a thousand generations." Now all L. D. Saints know that while the whole Christian world was teaching that most all the old laws were done away with when Christ died, the Lord by revelation through the great modern Prophet said: "I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning."--D. & C. 49:2. From this it is plain to be seen that what Joseph Smith taught was only a reproduction of the same gospel that was from the beginning, and we have already shown that the Apostolic dispensation was a continuation of the gospel that was from the beginning.

It should be understood that Joseph Smith did not introduce all the laws that belong to the "everlasting covenant." He said that much of it was yet to be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time."--D. & C. 11o:18.

Let us now call your attention to a few of the words of the Apostle Paul that are recorded in his letter to the saints at Ephesus. He speaks of them as "fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord."--Eph. 2:19-2I.

The most of people know that in putting up a

[page 38]

large frame building it is very necessary that every part of its structure must be accurately framed. If this is not done the building cannot be put together until the defective parts are framed over again.

Now Paul uses this as an illustration for the saints of God. He says they are built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets--the apostles of his day and the prophets who preceded him--Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. This shows that the apostolic dispensation was fitly framed with all the former ones; all centered in the teachings of the chief corner stone--Jesus Christ.

Now God is the great architect of this gospel building. He gave various dispensations throughout the world's history. So prophets of God, and true men of God in all these dispensations taught alike. They taught in harmony with what God has revealed, and will yet reveal. So that in the judgment day, when this gospel structure is put together they will all fit, because they have been fitly framed. But men who "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" need not expect to be placed in that great gospel building, not till they are fitly framed.

[page 39]

CHAPTER V.

THE MARRIAGE QUESTION.

This work would not be complete without a chapter on this subject. There is a good deal of misunderstauding among our Roman Catholic and sectarian friends on this question, and also among many who believe they are the true Saints of God. In order to assist them to better understand this subject from a true scriptural standpoint, and to do as the Apostle Peter said, "Be ever ready to give a reason for the faith that is in you," I will write a few thoughts on this subject, although it is a very delicate question to write upon.

Like many L. D. Saints, I was brought up by sectarian parents, and I believe it was the hardest thing I ever did in my life to get humble enough to get in harmony with what God has said on this subject, and consent to be baptized among the true L. D. Saints. But the Lord has already well repaid me for all this, for I have been blessed by His Spirit all along, and have "grown in grace and in a knowledge of the truth" these many years.

In the preceding chapter we have shown, in a very limited manner from the Bible and the revelations of the great modern prophet, that prophets of God teach alike. They all taught "the everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." The Book of Mormon teaches the same thing. In the third chapter of the book of

[page 40]

Jacob there is a beautiful illustration of the dealings of God with the house of Israel. Only a condensed account of this will be given here.

Here the Prophet Zenos compares the house of Israel to a "tame olive tree," which at first brought forth good fruit, but after a while it began to decay. "The Lord of the vineyard and his servant," primed it, and it began to put forth "young and tender branches." Some of these were planted in "the nethermost part of the vineyard," some in one place and some in another. The Lord of the vineyard and his servant also grafted into the tame olive tree, some of the branches of "the wild olive tree." After a while they went to look at the fruit. They went to see the "mother olive tree," and four other places, which shows that portions of the house of Israel were planted in four places, besides the land of Canaan. The last one of these young and tender branches that the Lord of the vineyard and his servant went to visit was the Nephite colony. They found nearly the whole vineyard was bringing forth bad fruit. Then the Lord of the vineyard and his servant said, we will "graft in the young and tender branches into the mother tree," and bring them together again; "and they shall be one." After awhile they went to visit the vineyard for the last time, before the end, and they rejoiced because they got good fruit, "even like as it was in the beginning," verse 115.

Now for the explanation. The tame olive tree is the house of Israel, or "mother tree." So the Bible is the mother scripture, because it was produced where the mother tree grew; while the Book of Mormon is a branch scripture. And as the branches are all to be "grafted into the mother

[page 41]

tree," so the Book of Mormon must be joined to the Bible and harmonize with it.

You will also notice it was "the Lord of the vineyard and his servant" that did all the pruning. This means it was the same code of laws were used all through the world's history to produce good fruit--righteous men. You will also notice it was the aim all through to bring forth good fruit righteous men, "even like as it was in the beginning."

We have now found by the Book of Mormon that God's laws to govern men in righteousness in the latter days, are even like as it was in the beginning.

It has also been shown from the Bible, in a limited manner, that the gospel of Christ, or everlasting covenant was given in the beginning of the world, and was commanded to a thousand generations from the time of Abraham, and for this reason the gospel of Christ, before and after His earthly mission, was the same.

We have also called your attention to the fact that the great modern Prophet introduced "the everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning," and that this latter day dispensation must agree with all the former ones. So the books all agree that the laws of God for the salvation of men in the latter days are the same as in the beginning, and all through the world's history.

Every Bible student knows, or ought to know, that the laws of God to govern the important subject of marriage are a part of the gospel of Christ. We will first examine what the Book of Mormon teaches on this subject. Turn to Jacob 2.29-32.

[page 42]

large edition. It is a monogamic law with a provision. Here is the law: "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none," This is the provision. "For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise, they shall hearken to these things." Evidently the Nephite colony upheld this law while they existed as a nation. But the law on this question in the land of Canaan, the place where "the mother tree" grew, remained the same as it was from the beginning.

Now we have already found that the branch scripture--the book of Mormon, is to be grafted into the mother scripture--the Bible. For this reason its teachings must harmonize with the Bible. Besides all this, the Prophet Joseph has said, "the elders, priests, and teachers of this Church shall teach the principles of my gospel which are in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon," D. & C. 42:5. We have already examined what is taught in the Book of Mormon on the subject before us, so we will now look at what is taught in the Bible on this question.

We will first call your attention to what is taught in Gen., 20th ch. Here we are told that Abimeleck, by a misunderstanding, took Sarah, Abraham's wife, to his own house. From the account given of Abimeleck he was evidently a righteous man. But God warned him in a dream to restore Sarah to her husband, Abraham. And the scripture says: "Abraham is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live," verse 7. Verse 18, Inspired Tran. says: "So Abraham prayed unto God; and God healed Abimeleck, and

[page 43]

his wife, and his maid servants, and they bare unto him children.

Now it looks as if God was well pleased with Abimeleck for having these women, for He told him to get His Prophet, Abraham, to pray for him. "So Abraham prayed unto God," and God answered his prayer, and his wife and his maidservants became fruitful again. Now this text is quoted from the Inspired Translation, so you cannot say it is a mistranslation.

The good book speaks highly of Abraham as a righteous man. Now every Bible reader knows that during the life time of Sarah he took her maid Hagar, and raised a son by her. Afterwards he begat Isaac by Sarah. Paul says: "Therefore there sprang even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude," Heb. 11: 12. From the facts in the case, all of which space will not permit to be quoted here, it is evident that God miraculously lengthened out the life time of this good man, for he was 100 years old when he begat Isaac, and as good as dead then; and 137 years old when Sarah died. So he would be a good deal nearer dead at that age, only for the Lord prolonging his days.

Then what did this righteous man Abraham do? He married Keturah and raised by her six sons, and had at least two concubines, enough to be in the plural number. "Unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts and sent them away," Gen. 25:6, Inspired Translation.

Now bear in mind that Hagar did not count as one of these two concubines, for her son, Ishmael, and Isaac, Sarah's son, were there at the death and

[page 44]

burial of Abraham, but the sons of these other concubines were sent "unto the east country," before the death of this good old patriarch, Gen. 25:5, 6.

We have now found that this righteous man Abraham had a wife and one concubine in his younger days, and a wife and at least two concubines in his older days, yet God says of him, "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws," Gen. 26:5, Inspired Translation. So the Inspired Translation, the most perfect Bible that is had among men, as well as the James Translation, tells us that Abraham had all these women just mentioned, and it also tells us that he obeyed God's laws.

Now right here it should be remembered that Abraham was obeying the laws of God, or gospel of Christ, that was taught from the beginning of the world. And for proof on this point we will refer you to D. & C. 83:2, which in speaking of Moses and the priesthood, (but this was not the prophetic office) says: "which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro; and Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb," and from him it is traced back to the time of Abraham. "Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek; who received it through the lineage of the fathers, even till Noah; and from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers; and from Enoch to Abel, * * who received the priesthood by the commandments of God by the hand of his father Adam." So Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, Caleb, Jethro, and Moses were all members of the same Church--the Church of Christ. This revelation makes a connecting link between Adam and Moses.

[page 45]

It should also be remembered that all these great men were living in harmony with the pre-Mosaic scriptures, all of which have been lost to the world for many hundred years, as well as much other scripture. But the time is close at hand when all these scriptures will be restored to the people of God, during "the times of the restitution of all things," Acts 3:21. When this is done we will have the original laws which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Abimeleck, and all the ancient worthies lived by; several of which had more than one wife; to govern us in righteousness on all points, marriage included. And, remember, we have already shown that the laws Abraham lived by "were commanded to a thousand generations." Only a small part of those generations have gone by yet.

The Bible represents Jacob to be a man of God, and gives him credit for having uttered a remarkable prophecy, see Gen. 49:22-26. Now every Bible student knows that he had two wives and two concubines, and raised children by all of them. Yet the Lord was well pleased with Jacob and his big family, for we are informed He came and talked with him and said, "be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins," Gen. 23:11, Inspired Translation. This is another example of a righteous man living by the gospel of Christ that was "from the beginning."

Moses was a great man of God. The apostle Paul tells us he "esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt * * By faith he forsook Egypt," etc. Then where did this righteous young man go? He went to the

[page 46]

land of Midian and married Ruel's daughter, Ex. 2:16-21. In a little while after he had another father-in-law named Jethro. After this he was called to the prophetic office. Soon after this he married his third wife, an Egyptian woman.

Moses became a great Prophet of God, yet there is nothing in his writings by which a man was limited to one wife, but the reverse was sometimes the case. For instance, "if brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to wife * * , that his name be not put out of Israel," Deut. 25:5-6. According to this law that God has given, it makes no difference whether the next brother, or nearest relative was already married, he was required to take the widow of his dead brother to be his wife. Now you cannot make out that this was the law of Moses, or added law, for this same law was in force in Judah's time, about 400 years before this; see Gen. 38:7-11; therefore it was a part of the gospel law that was from the beginning.

It is plain to be seen that this God-given law conflicts with the doctrines of the Reorganized Church, for it teaches, under no considerations shall any widow marry any man, if he already has a wife! Thus that church sets at naught what God has said, and establishes a man made law in its stead.

Moses well knew that the Israelites would want a king over them, so he told them, "thou shalt any wise set a king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose; * * but he shall not multiply horses to himself, * * neither shall he multiply

[page 47]

wives to himself," Deut. 17:I5-17. From these words it can be seen that Moses allowed a king of God's choice the privilege of having the same number of horses as of wives, and the same number of wives as of horses. It would be inconsistent to say that a king could have only one horse.

The scriptures speak highly of Gideon as a man of God. He is spoken of in Judges sixth to eighth chapters inclusive. The Lord by his hand delivered His people from their enemies, the Midianites. God was with him for with 300 men he defeated the hosts of the Midianites. Now the scriptures say of him, "Gideon had three score and ten sons of his body begotten; for he had many wives," Judges, 8:30, Inspired Translation. This is another example of a righteous man with more than one wife.

The Lord by revelation through the Prophet Samuel chose David, the son of Jesse, to be king of the Israelites. "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward."--1 Sam. 16:13. About this time the Philistines made war upon the Israelites, and their leader, a giant named Goliath, defied the men of Israel, and they were afraid of him. But this righteous young man David heard of it, and he said, "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God." David had faith in the God of Israel and he went to meet Goliath and smote him with a stone he threw with a sling. Then the Philistines fled and the army of Israel defeated them with great slaughter.

[page 48]

Soon after this he married Michael, Saul's daughter, 1 Sam. 18:27.

It was only a short time after till this good, young man married Abigal, Nabal's widow, and also "Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives," 1 Sam. 25:42, 43.

We have now found that David had three wives. We have also shown that the Spirit of the Lord was in him, for Samuel the Prophet ordained him king of Israel a short time before this, "and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward." So he was such a righteous young man that the God of Israel wanted him to have more wives. So He gave him his "master's wives into his bosom," after Saul's death. Some time after this he sinned in taking Uriah's wife. God sent Nathan the Prophet to reprove him for this, and Nathan said to David; "thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; and I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom," 2 Sam. 12:7, 8, Inspired Translation.

We have already shown that David was a God chosen king, and that the scripture says of such, "he shall not multiply horses unto him, * * nor shall he multiply wives unto him," Dent. 17:16, 17. Now some of the Reorganized elders say of this text, "twice one are two; this is multiplying wives, therefore it is wrong for a king to have more than one wife." This interpretation of this text in Deut. is not correct. It is the plural and not the singular that God has forbidden to be multiplied into a great number. And for positive proof that this is the true understanding of

[page 49]

this text, we have but to refer you to David. He already had three wives, and we have shown that God gave him several more."

Solomon broke God's law by multiplying the plural into vast multitudes, into hundreds, and also by marrying women of strange nations, and in his older days he went into idolatry, and fell away from God. David broke God's law by taking Uriah's wife, but he sincerely repented, and if you will read I Kings 11:33-36, Inspired Translation, you will see that God accepted of his repentance, and as God has accepted of his repentance, we should do the same.

"And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all the days of Jehoida the priest. And Jehoida took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters."--2 Chron. 24:2, 3, Inspired Translation. Now turn to verse sixteen of this chapter, for it says, and they buried Jehoida "in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, both towards God, and toward his house."

So the Bible translated by revelation from God, says that Jehoida, God's priest, gave Joash two wives; yet it says he did right towards God. And the same Bible also says, that Joash although he had two wives, did right all the days of Jehoida the priest. But if the Reorganized elders were to express their belief on this text they would say that both Joash and Jehoida did wrong. Thus their belief conflicts with the word of God.

In all such texts as this both Bibles read alike, but we quote from the Inspired so no person can say that any of the texts on this subject are a mistranslation.

[page 50]

If you will read Hosea 3:1-3, You will find that God told Hosea the prophet to take a wife. According to the dates given in the Bible this was 785 B. C., and at the very same time he already had a wife, Hosea 1:2. He married these two wives the same year, by the Lord's direction; so the Inspired Translation says; and the first wife was not dead either, for he raised at least three children by her.

This is good proof that God told one of His prophets to have more than one wife. Now you know the Apostle James tells us that with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning," James 1:17. So according to this text, the Lord is just as likely to tell His prophet in our day to have two wives, as He did in days of old.

We have now found that several righteous men in Old Testament days had more than one wife, and we have good reason to believe that in the land of Canaan and the surrounding nations it was of common occurrence for this to be the case. During the days of Christ and His apostles there was no dispute between them and the unbelieving Jews on the question before us, for the good reason that the marriage law went right along in the Christian Church as it had for thousands of years, with the exception that divorces were granted for no cause but adultery, see Matt. 19:3-9; and the death penalty for the same cause may have been annulled.

The main question of dispute between the apostles and the unbelieving Jews was not the wife question, but that Jesus was the Christ, and that He rose from the dead. There were several men in the land of Canaan with more than one wife at that time, and there is nothing, on record to show that Jesus or His apostles ever condemned any of

[page 51]

them on this account. Now the men who had more than one wife were just as likely to believe the preaching of the apostles, as the men with one wife. And if they did, and repented, and believed on Christ, they would be baptized into the Church. Now you know that Jesus said, for no cause but adultery should men put away their wives. So if they did not do this there would be polygamic families in the Apostolic Church.

The various sectarian churches that have missionaries in India have put the following on record: "The Calcutta Missionary Conference, consisting of the various societies which have missionaries in that vicinity, after frequent consultations and much consideration on the subject of polygamy as it exists in India, were unanimous in the following conclusion. If a convert before he becomes a Christian has married more wives than one, in accordance with the Jewish and primitive Christian Churches, he will be permitted to keep them all," "India, Ancient and Modern," p. 601. The object of introducing these words is to show that the leading men of the various sectarian churches acknowledge that in the Apostolic Church there were men with more than one wife.

The Apostle Paul wrote these words: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."--1 Cor. 1:10. Now, dear reader, it is to be hoped that you are in the same mind and in the same judgment with the Apostle Paul in all points of the Christian faith. If you are, you will speak of Abraham, Jacob, Moses and

[page 52]

Gideon, who were men with more than one wife, as righteous men, for Paul does so in Heb. 11 ch. If you do not feel to call them righteous men, then you can safely conclude, you are divided from the mind and judgment of that noble Apostle, and not "fitly framed" in harmony with his teachings.

No less than eight times in the twenty-third chapter of Matt. did the Savior pronounce woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees for not teaching the scriptures correctly. This is the last one. "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them that killed the prophets. "--Matt. 23:29-31.

There is a good lesson for all to learn from these words. Garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous means to speak well of the ancient righteous men, but if they lived in our day, or Apostolic days, they would be persecuted, and perhaps killed. We will first apply the words of this text to Apostolic days. The Apostle Paul speaks of Moses as a righteous man in Heb. 11:23-27. Well, if Moses was a good man as Paul recommends, then he would accept of him for a member of the Apostolic Church, if he was alive then, or Paul would be garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous. No one would say he was hypocritical, therefore he would accept of Moses, and we have already shown that he had three wives, and permitted some others to have more than one.

Again: Paul mentions Gideon as a righteous

[page 53]

man, Heb. 11:32. And we have already shown that he had seventy sons and "many wives." Now which will you do? Will you say Paul would cast out Gideon, if he lived in his day? or accept of him? You know that if St. Paul would cast him out, he would be doing the same as the Scribes and Pharisees. But Paul was a noble advocate of the gospel of Christ. He would accept of Gideon although he had several wives, for a member of the Apostolic Church, if he lived in his day.

Again: the Apostle Paul includes David among the list of righteous men, Heb. 11:32. And we have already shown that he had three wives, and God gave him some more, and forgave him of his great sin. So Paul either accepts of David for a member of the Christian Church, if he was alive in his day, or he would be building the tombs of the prophets, and garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous; so the only alternative then is, that Paul accepts of David, if he did have several wives, for a member of the Church.

On the day of Pentecost the Apostle Peter preached to the people and quoted from the Psalms of David, and gave him credit for having prophesied of the coming, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Acts 2:21-34. Here is a part of his sermon: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, * * therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."

Now from the fact that Peter quotes from the prophetic words of David in his sermon, and calls him a patriarch and a prophet, it is plain to be

[page 54]

seen that he acknowledges him to be a man of God, a righteous man. Now was Peter garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous, or would he permit David to be a member of the Church, if he was alive then? It would be very inconsistent to accuse Peter of doing what the Scribes and Pharisees did in this respect; therefore Peter, as well as Paul, accepts of David for a member of the Apostolic Church; there is no other alternative.

The Apostle Matthew put this on record. That Joseph and Mary took the child Jesus and went into Egypt, "and was there until the death of Herod: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, out of Egypt have I called my son," Matt. 2:15. What prophet did the Lord speak by that Matthew refers to? It was the prophet Hosea, for Matthew quotes these words from Hos. 11:1. So the Apostle Matthew endorses him for a prophet of God, and we have already shown that Hosea had two wives at the same time. So Matthew would accept of Hosea for a member of the Apostolic Church, if he was alive in his day, or he would be doing the same as the Scribes and Pharisees.

No one would accuse Jesus of garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous. So whoever He accepts of, He would do the same by them if they lived in His day. Well, He recommends Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be men of God, Matt. 8:11-12. And we have already shown that Abraham and Jacob had more wives than one at the same time, yet Jesus would accept of them for members of His Church, if they lived in His day, and says they are fit for heaven.

There is nothing strange in Jesus accepting of

[page 55]

men with more than one wife for members of His Church, for we have already shown that "He gave the law," the gospel law that was from the beginning that they lived by, Matt. 9: 19, Inspired Translation. He revealed it from heaven in the days of Adam, which from the time of Abraham "was commanded to a thousand generations."

We have now found that Jesus and His Apostles accepted of the ancient worthies for members of their Church. This makes a connecting link between Adams' day and the days of the apostles. The Apostle Paul mentions several of these righteous men in Heb. 11th Ch. He concludes this chapter by saying, "they without us should not be made perfect," verse 40. Well, who are the "us" Paul refers to? It is himself, Peter, James and John, Jesus and Matthew, and all the faithful saints of that day. So according to the teachings of Paul, all the ancient worthies, several of which had more than one wife, and us--Jesus and the apostles--were all members of the same church--the Church of Jesus Christ of Former Day Saints.

After Apostolic days apostacy set in to an alarming extent, and in the course of time the great apostate Church had control of many nations of the earth. It was she that changed the laws of God--"the everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning,"--until there was scarcely enough left of the original gospel to make a shadow. All kinds of false doctrines have been palmed off on the people for the truth for hundreds of years. The reformation of 400 years ago has brought with it the blessing of religious liberty, but has succeeded in discarding very few of these false doctrines--these pious lies.

[page 56]

The great apostate Church changed the laws that God had given to govern the important subject of marriage, as well as many other God-given laws. Yes; she says, there shall be nothing but monogamic marriages under any and all circumstances for every man, and the ministry of the Church shall not marry at all. But we have shown that this was not the law that righteous men lived by in Apostolic days, and for thousands of years before. The various sectarian churches have adopted the same law to govern marriage as the oldest Christian Church has, with the exception that they allow their ministers to marry, and the Reorganized Church has adopted the same law as the sectarians.

Now Roman Catholic people believe they are God's true Church, so they feel to oppose any who differ from them. The various sectarian churches believe that any of them is the church of Christ for their ministers have been taught from infancy to believe this, so they oppose any who differ from them. Both Catholic and Protestant denominations believe their ministers are real men of God. But all L. D. Saints know that they are all badly deceived. Then let all who call themselves L. D. Saints be careful lest some of them get deceived, as well as our Roman Catholic and sectarian friends, for they differ among themselves since the death of the great modern Prophet. It would be well if all men would take the advice of Jesus: "First cast the beam out of your own eye, then you can see clear to cast the mote out of your brother's eye."

It has been shown in this chapter that there was a connecting link between Adams' day and the

[page 57]

Apostolic Church. And it was shown in the first chapter of this work that Joseph Smith was ordained to the prophetic office by Peter, James and John. This makes a connecting link between the Apostolic Church and the latter day dispensation. Now the Prophet Joseph tells us he only just introduced this latter day gospel. Here is what he said: "For it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times; which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole, and complete, and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed, from the days of Adam even to the present time."--D. & C. 110:18.

From these words it can be seen that the Prophet Joseph only introduced this latter day gospel, and that he said much of it was to be revealed from the days of Adam, even unto the present time. This quotation also teaches that this dispensation is to be welded and joined together with the former ones. From all this it can be seen that the latter day gospel is to grow, and develop, by the Lord revealing the lost truths of the past, until it agrees and harmonizes with all the former dispensations.

Now, we have already shown that the Apostolic, and former dispensations were all the same Church, and that there were several polygamic families in it, as well as monogamic. Therefore this latter day dispensation will continue to grow and develop till it is the same; for if it was strictly monogamic, it could not be "welded" with the former dispensations, nor "fitly fraimed" with them. To me it is surprising that the elders of the Reorganized

[page 58]

Church fail to see this. If Joseph Smith, James J. Strang, or no other man had said one word about this up to the present time, it would come just the same, for God has commanded "the everlasting covenant," or "everlasting gospel," to continue for a thousand generations.

In D. & C. 26:2-3 we are informed that several of God's great men of the past came as angels to visit Joseph the Seer. Each was sent with a heavenly message to instruct him so that be could build the Church and have it fitly framed according to the pattern given long ago, and instruct him to teach in harmony with the prophets of God who preceded him. Among the angelic visitors Joseph had was "Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham." We are not told what message they brought, but let me assure you, if the angels Abraham and Jacob were sent to tell Joseph Smith about the marriage laws, they would tell him of the laws on this subject they lived by, which permitted them to have more than one companion at the same time, for they well knew that these laws were to last longer than the earth will in its present condition.

For several years there has been a good deal of controversy between the Reorganized L. D. Saints and the Utah L. D. Saints in regard to the teachings of Joseph the Prophet on the question of plural marriage. The former have gone to a good deal of trouble and expense in bringing the testimony of dead witnesses, and what few living ones there can be found, to prove that Joseph the Seer never taught it. The latter have gone to an equal amount of expense to bring the testimony of dead and living witnesses to prove that he did teach it.

Well, thank the Lord, we of the true faith don't

[page 59]

have to go to all this trouble to know what Joseph would teach on this question in the latter part of his ministry; if he taught in regard to it. When the great latter day Prophet organized the Church, he did so in harmony with the pattern given long ago. Well, in regard to the question before us, the pattern was also given long ago. We have shown it to be monogamic and polygamic marriages in the Church of Christ. Now remember, Joseph Smith was none of your man made prophets that would "speak smooth things to the people," but a real Prophet of God. So, if he taught in regard to this question, he would teach according to the pattern. And now if you have any further doubt about it, just think of Jesus sending His angels, Abraham and Jacob to instruct him. Also think of it, that the gospel from the beginning that these good men lived by, that became angels, "was commanded to a thousand generations," Psalms 105:8, 9

But I would not say that Joseph Smith officially taught plural marriage, but that he knew it was going to come, so that the latter day gospel would be in harmony with the former day gospel, and that he told some of his leading men about it, I firmly believe. In the days of Joseph the Seer, the Church was accused of polygamy. Did they deny it? No. They said, "we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again," D & C. 111:4. It is easy to see that this is only an evasive answer to the charge of having more than one wife. If there was nothing of it, it would have been written, every man should have but one wife, and every woman but one husband, for you know these words

[page 60]

are not revelation. But it was put on record, "every man should have one wife, and every woman but one husband."

But if there was not a word said about this in the days of Joseph Smith, nor even up to the present time, it would come just the same, for the next prophet of God would teach it. The laws to govern marriage are a part of, the gospel of Christ, so the laws to govern this question in these days will be the same as in former days, for the gospel is the same. So you may just as well make up your mind that the true L. D. Saints will "grow in grace, and in a knowledge of the truth," till they are in harmony with the Church of Christ of Former Day Saints on this, and all other gospel questions.

In the second chapter of this work it was made plain that James J. Strang was the true successor to Joseph Smith in the prophetic office. The Lord by him brought to light several truths, besides what He revealed by Joseph. For this reason, we of the true faith teach all that Joseph revealed, and what has been revealed by his successor; therefore we have progressed more in a knowledge of the truth than any other L. D. Saints.

The Reorganized L. D. Saints aim to teach all that was brought to light in the days of Joseph the Seer, but they scarcely succeed in doing that. The main points of difference between us and them is the successorship question, the Sabbath day, and the women question. That the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath of the Apostolic church is already explained in a work called, "The Sabbath and the Restitution," which can be had free from any of our faith. Now from the fact that James J.

[page 61]

Strang pointed out this truth, it is one point in his favor that he was a true Prophet.

But the main point of difference between us and the Reorganized Church is the subject of this chapter. Now James J. Strang was strongly opposed to any one having more than one wife for four or five years after he was in the prophetic office. But the Lord showed him that it was not contrary to His will, and that he was going to restore by him the laws that were given to govern this question before the days of Moses.

You know the Apostle Peter thought it was wrong, to go into the house of Gentiles, or eat with them, but the Lord showed him his error. And Peter in referring to this afterwards, said, "What was I that I could withstand God?" Well might Mr. Strang express himself the same way. It is not often that you find among the great men of the earth one with enough courage and honesty to teach an unpopular truth, but such a man was James J. Strang. He was required by the authorities of heaven to teach the marriage law of "the everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning," and he did so. He was a true Prophet, therefore he taught according to his pattern already given. Some of his leading men went back on him for this; and some of the leading men in Joseph's day went back on him. The best reason that can be given for all this is, they were not willing to "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

So the latter day gospel is now "welded," and "fitly framed" with the Apostolic, and former dispensations, as far as the marriage laws are concerned. But the elders of the Reorganized Church say,

[page 62]

delusion! false prophet! Strang had more than one wife! therefore he was a false prophet! But why don't the Reorganized elders blame Jesus and His apostles for this? We have already shown that they had men with more than one wife for members of the Apostolic Church. So if James J. Strang had more than one wife he was in harmony with the Apostolic Church. He sacrificed his feelings to get in harmony with the teachings of Jesus on this question. Now from the fact that the Reorganized elders call Mr. Strang a false prophet on this account, they are witnesses against themselves that they are not in harmony with Jesus Christ, "the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Ye are not fitly framed with Jesus, or ye would not talk as ye do on this question.

When the elders of the Reorganized Church preach to the sectarians they represent themselves to be God's true ministers, and if they speak of us at all, usually it is to say, Strang was a false prophet, and they who believe in his divine calling are false teachers. The trouble with you Reorganized elders is, ye do not look at us from a true scriptural standpoint. You know that Jesus had only one Church in this world, and we have shown that it was polygamic in several cases, and that this strict monogamic law ye hold to was introduced by the great Apostate Church. It has been palmed off on the world for the truth for hundreds of years, and ye have not yet got rid of this pious lie.

You take a man who wears spectacles; if they fit his eyes, and are made of clear glass, everything he

[page 63]

looks at appears to him in its natural color. But if he puts on spectacles with blue glass, everything he sees looks blue to him. Now the objects he looks at have not changed at all. The trouble is with the kind of spectacles the man uses. You Reorganized elders are like the man with blue spectacles on. Now take off these apostate spectacles that have been palmed off on the world and you, and put on a pair made of good clear glass--the Apostolic faith; then you can see clearly. Then we will appear in your eyes what we are--the true Saints of God.

When you preach to the sectarians, you often tell them you believe in prophets of God in olden times, why don't you believe in prophets of God now? God has not changed; "in Him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." That is just what we say. Now let me tell you, if some of those old prophets of God were living on the earth now, you Reorganized elders would cast them out just as quick, or quicker, than the sectarians would. Perhaps you don't believe this. Well, let me prove it to you.

Now there was Abraham, one of the best Bible men, and Gen. 20:7 says he was a Prophet. If he and his family were on the earth now, and if he were to go to the headquarters of any of the sectarian churches in this country and tell them he was a Prophet of God, and wished to assist them to preach the gospel, this is like the reply he would get: Well Abraham, we don't doubt but that you were a good prophet in your day, but we don't believe in prophets now; in this enlightened age. But I'll tell you what to do; you go to these Reorganized L. D. Saints, their headquarters is at Lamoni,

[page 64]

they say they believe in prophets of God now, as well as in days of old, I believe they will be glad you have come to assist in preaching the gospel.

So Abraham continues his journey till he comes to Lamoni. He steps into the office of the Reorganized Church at that place, and introduces himself by saying: I am Abraham, the prophet of God who lived on the earth long ago. I heard you believe in prophets of God now as well as in days of old, and I have come to assist you to preach the gospel of Christ. The leading men of the Reorganized Church who would be in the office would look at him, and the first thing one of them would say to him would be, Abraham, how many wives have you got? Abraham would answer, one wife and two concubines. The reply from the leaders of the Reorganized Church would be, you get out of here as fast as you can or we will get the sheriff after you and put you in state's prison. So poor Abraham would have to flee. The sectarians recommended him to where they thought he would be welcome. You wouldn't even do that. So you are more severe on Abraham, God's prophet, than the sectarians.

It was Jesus that said, "Many shall come from the east, and the west, and shall sit down, with Abraham, and with Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the wicked one shall be cast out into outer darkness."--Matt. 8:11, 12, Inspired Translation. According to this text Jesus says, Abraham and Jacob are in heaven, but the Reorganized leaders would put them in state's prison, if they lived here now, and they could get hold of them. Now, dear saints, of the Reorganized

[page 65]

Church, can you not see you are not in harmony with Jesus on the marriage question? You reject the men He accepts of. Can you not see that you are following your leaders on this question, and not the word of God?

0 ye saints of the Reorganized Church, I really feel sorry for you, to see so many smart intelligent people who are in harmony with Jesus on the first principles of the gospel, but on this question are fighting against him, and ye think and believe ye are His true Saints and serving Him faithfully. "To the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them," Isa. 8:20.

It was Jesus that revealed to the Apostle John the various prophetic events that are recorded in the book of Revelation. One of these events is that the New Jerusalem is to come down from heaven to the earth, and there will be twelve gates to the city, and they will be named after the twelve sons of Jacob, Rev. 21:10-12. Well it must be that Jesus is well pleased with Jacob and the big family he had, or He would not honor him in this manner. It is evident the Savior acknowledges those sons of Jacob to be legitimate children. But would the Reorganized elders do so? No, they would say his sons were illegitimate, except the sons of the first wife, so they are not in harmony with Jesus on this question.

In the meetings of the Reorganized Saints we often hear some of them say, "let us come up higher." That is a move in the right direction. We really hope you will do so. And that you will "grow in grace, and in a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ," till you get in harmony with

[page 66]

His teachings on all things. And when you have grown enough in this direction so that you are willing to accept of all the ancient men of God, if they were alive on the earth now, as well as you accept of them dead; then you will be getting fitly fraimed in harmony with Jesus and His apostles for we have shown that they accepted of them; then you will see no "mote" in James J. Strang's eye.

And now, in conclusion, dear saints of the Reorganized Church, I hope the words of this book will be received with the same kind spirit with which they are written. And if any of you in the past have believed James J. Strang was a false prophet, it is to be hoped you will believe different after reading this work. But if any of your elders, after reading this book, still feel to speak of Mr. Strang as a false prophet, and us, the true Saints of God, as false teachers, let me advise you as a friend, don't do so, for you will have to answer for this sin, if you don't repent of it.

And let me kindly give you one more advice. The next time any of you feel like preaching on the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, and you wish to quote the prophetic words of David, "truth shall spring out of the earth," Psalms 85:11, stop and think, would you accept of David for a member of your Church if he were alive now? We have shown that Peter and Paul did, if not, then don't quote from his prophetic words, lest the Savior includes you among those that "garnish the sepulchres of the righteous."

And if you wish to quote from Gen. 49:22-26, the prophetic words of Jacob, to assist you to further prove the Book of Mormon true; stop and

[page 67]

think; would you permit him to be a member of your Church if he were alive now? If not, then take the advice of a friend, don't quote from his prophetic words. Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees for garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous, and He is no respector of persons.

Now, in conclusion, dear brethren of the true faith, let us be faithful in teaching the scriptures, and never deviate from the truth to please any person. "We will reap our reward in due time, if we faint not." And let us also do as the Prophet Joseph has said, "be subject to the powers that be, till he reigns whose right it is to reign."

We dare not deviate from the truth on any point, even if it is unpopular, for Jesus has said, "He that is ashamed of me, or of my words, of him will I be ashamed when I come in the presence of my Father, and of the holy angels."

E. T. Couch.