David Whitmer's Conditional Ordination

[Sleeping in EQ]

I came across these little historical nugggets and thought I'd share them. The first is from the Far West Record (p. 151), and the second is from an interview held in the Church Archives.



1. Meeting of the High Council at Far West Missouri Mar. 15, 1838. Minutes:

President Joseph Smith jr gave a history of the ordination of David Whitmer, which took place in July 1834, to be a leader, or a prophet to this Church, which (ordination) was on conditions that he (J. Smith jr) did not live to God himself.



2. From the Zenos Gurley Interview of David Whitmer, Jan. 14, 1885:

22.Q. Did Joseph Smith ordain you as his Successor?

Ans—Yes he did, in Clay County, Mo - 1834. upon condition that he was killed or any mishap befell him. I regard my authority as an elder for Christ given me of God before that time as superior to any honor which Joseph could bestow upon me by any such ordination. This was done on or about the time when Joseph dismissed the "Camp" which he had brought up to deliver Zion a body of some 300 men who was armed and equipped for war.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I came across these little historical nugggets and thought I'd share them. The first is from the Far West Record (p. 151), and the second is from an interview held in the Church Archives.



1. Meeting of the High Council at Far West Missouri Mar. 15, 1838. Minutes:

President Joseph Smith jr gave a history of the ordination of David Whitmer, which took place in July 1834, to be a leader, or a prophet to this Church, which (ordination) was on conditions that he (J. Smith jr) did not live to God himself.



2. From the Zenos Gurley Interview of David Whitmer, Jan. 14, 1885:

22.Q. Did Joseph Smith ordain you as his Successor?

Ans—Yes he did, in Clay County, Mo - 1834. upon condition that he was killed or any mishap befell him. I regard my authority as an elder for Christ given me of God before that time as superior to any honor which Joseph could bestow upon me by any such ordination. This was done on or about the time when Joseph dismissed the "Camp" which he had brought up to deliver Zion a body of some 300 men who was armed and equipped for war.

didnt joseph also set apart Sidney rigdon and Joseph smith the III?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

didnt joseph also set apart Sidney rigdon and Joseph smith the III?

I don't know of any documentation for Sidney Rigdon being set apart specifically as Successor, but his claim is stronger than most of today's Church members realize. He was set apart as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," while up until the Missouri exodus when things get fuzzy (if memory serves, the blurring of lines began when Brigham Young had to wear both an Apostolic and a Stake "hat" to help get the Saints relocated in Illinois), the members of the Quorum of the Twelve had authority only in the mission field. Issues of authority had been in flux since Joseph's imprisonment in Liberty Jail, but it's clear that apostles did not have authority over Stakes or Bishops. My understanding is that the First Presidency and the Presiding Patriarch were the only ones who had authority like the "General Authority" that we have today.

That's were Sidney's claim is strongest.

My judgment is that if Hyrum Smith had survived, there's a good chance he would have been Joseph's successor.

Had Emma and co. headed for Salt Lake, Joseph Smith III might have been a Church President as well.

I think William Marks, as the President of the Nauvoo Stake, also had a reasonably strong claim.

Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer would have had strong claims had they not been excommunicated, and had they stayed close to Joseph and remained popular with the Saints.

There are several accounts of Joseph Smith III being designated as successor by his father in the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo.

Strang's case is interesting in that he thought himself the new prophet immediately (and had a purported letter from Joseph). It's also interesting in that William Smith, Martin Harris, William Marks, John Page, and William McLellin all supported him, at least for a while.

William Smith put himself forward briefly.

There are also credible accounts that Joseph said that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve should succeed him. (D&C 107, for one).

As was so often the case, Joseph was very ambiguous and seemed to change his mind on things.


It should be remembered that Brigham Young was not declared the Prophet and President of the Church, in the sense we know it today, for three years (and even then, it was done with only seven Apostles present to vote--three were disaffected). The followers of Brigham initially dissolved the First Presidency. At first Brigham led the Church as President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg on the issues surrounding the Succession.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I don't know of any documentation for Sidney Rigdon being set apart specifically as Successor, but his claim is stronger than most of today's Church members realize. He was set apart as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," while up until the Missouri exodus when things get fuzzy (if memory serves, the blurring of lines began when Brigham Young had to wear both an Apostolic and a Stake "hat" to help get the Saints relocated in Illinois), the members of the Quorum of the Twelve had authority only in the mission field. Issues of authority had been in flux since Joseph's imprisonment in Liberty Jail, but it's clear that apostles did not have authority over Stakes or Bishops. My understanding is that the First Presidency and the Presiding Patriarch were the only ones who had authority like the "General Authority" that we have today.

That's were Sidney's claim is strongest.

My judgment is that if Hyrum Smith had survived, there's a good chance he would have been Joseph's successor.

Had Emma and co. headed for Salt Lake, Joseph Smith III might have been a Church President as well.

I think William Marks, as the President of the Nauvoo Stake, also had a reasonably strong claim.

Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer would have had strong claims had they not been excommunicated, and had they stayed close to Joseph and remained popular with the Saints.

There are several accounts of Joseph Smith III being designated as successor by his father in the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo.

Strang's case is interesting in that he thought himself the new prophet immediately (and had a purported letter from Joseph). It's also interesting in that William Smith, Martin Harris, William Marks, John Page, and William McLellin all supported him, at least for a while.

William Smith put himself forward briefly.

There are also credible accounts that Joseph said that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve should succeed him. (D&C 107, for one).

As was so often the case, Joseph was very ambiguous and seemed to change his mind on things.


It should be remembered that Brigham Young was not declared the Prophet and President of the Church, in the sense we know it today, for three years (and even then, it was done with only seven Apostles present to vote--three were disaffected). The followers of Brigham initially dissolved the First Presidency. At first Brigham led the Church as President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg on the issues surrounding the Succession.

I've heard a theory (never read it in print, though) that Brigham Young's claim to the presidency stemmed from his being the first (besides Emma) to receive the second anointing. I'm at school right now, but I'll track down the dates when I get home.

[Mormon Red Death]

Wouldn't thomas b marsh had a claim as well?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Wouldn't thomas b marsh had a claim as well?

Brother Marsh left the Church during the 1838 persecutions in Missouri. He was disturbed by the attitude of violence stoked by Rigdon's infamous Salt Sermon, and opposed to the activities of the Danites (some of which were being done under the direction of Church leaders).

The oft-cited story about wife, cream, and pride that traces back to George A. Smith, was given decades after the fact and has no historical support that I'm aware of.

Had Bro Marsh not left the Church for a time, there's a good chance he would have succeeded Joseph as the leader of the Church.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I don't know of any documentation for Sidney Rigdon being set apart specifically as Successor, but his claim is stronger than most of today's Church members realize. He was set apart as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," while up until the Missouri exodus when things get fuzzy (if memory serves, the blurring of lines began when Brigham Young had to wear both an Apostolic and a Stake "hat" to help get the Saints relocated in Illinois), the members of the Quorum of the Twelve had authority only in the mission field. Issues of authority had been in flux since Joseph's imprisonment in Liberty Jail, but it's clear that apostles did not have authority over Stakes or Bishops. My understanding is that the First Presidency and the Presiding Patriarch were the only ones who had authority like the "General Authority" that we have today.

That's were Sidney's claim is strongest.

My judgment is that if Hyrum Smith had survived, there's a good chance he would have been Joseph's successor.

Had Emma and co. headed for Salt Lake, Joseph Smith III might have been a Church President as well.

I think William Marks, as the President of the Nauvoo Stake, also had a reasonably strong claim.

Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer would have had strong claims had they not been excommunicated, and had they stayed close to Joseph and remained popular with the Saints.

There are several accounts of Joseph Smith III being designated as successor by his father in the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo.

Strang's case is interesting in that he thought himself the new prophet immediately (and had a purported letter from Joseph). It's also interesting in that William Smith, Martin Harris, William Marks, John Page, and William McLellin all supported him, at least for a while.

William Smith put himself forward briefly.

There are also credible accounts that Joseph said that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve should succeed him. (D&C 107, for one).

As was so often the case, Joseph was very ambiguous and seemed to change his mind on things.


It should be remembered that Brigham Young was not declared the Prophet and President of the Church, in the sense we know it today, for three years (and even then, it was done with only seven Apostles present to vote--three were disaffected). The followers of Brigham initially dissolved the First Presidency. At first Brigham led the Church as President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg on the issues surrounding the Succession.

Yes, I remember being astonished at the number of people who cam forward with claims of leadership when I first learned of it. I had always thought (as I think most members do) that this happened in a very clean an orderly fashion. It is also interesting that even when Brigham died John Taylor did not become president of the church (I think) for another two years.

That succession proceedures were not in place when Joseph died seems natural to me, just because the church was so new, leadership was very much in flux (that is, apostles and other leaders came and went) and I believe (and I realize that I may be out of them mainstream here) that Jospeh thought he would live to be old. I don't think he believed he would need to give instructions on that point for many years to come, having escaped danger so many other times. I know many think that he knew he was heading off to die. I don't believe that but realize others may disagree.

I am a bit more puzzled, however, as to why the succession to John Taylor took as long as it did. I know much less about that though, maybe someone can educate me.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The oft-cited story about wife, cream, and pride that traces back to George A. Smith, was given decades after the fact and has no historical support that I'm aware of.

once again, those CES manual authors lied to me when I was in seminary.