Sidney Rigdon,
The Real Founder of Mormonism Palmyra First Edition -- Book of Mormon by: William H. Whitsitt BOOK THE THIRD: THE DISCIPLE PERIOD: Oct. 11, 1823 -- Nov. 8, 1830 (Section VIII, pp. 514-555) Contents | Book I | Book II | Book III: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Book IV | Book V |
It has been shown above that the Book of Mormon, for which a copyright was issued at Palmyra on the 11th of June 1829 (Myth of the Manuscript Found, by George Reynolds, Salt Lake City, 1883, p. 74), was delivered to the printer towards the last of March 1830. Mr. Smith had passed much of the intervening winter season at Harmony in Pennsylvania; he was now promptly on the ground to receive the work, and to constrain Martin Harris to meet the obligations he had assumed towards the publisher (D.&C., Sect. 19). On the sixth day of April few days later it again appears as nothing other than the "Church of Christ." The same thing may be read at D&C 42:78. In several of these places Joseph had the grace to designate it as "this Church of Christ," as if to distinguish his organization from another body which he was aware that Mr. Campbell stood at the head of. A singular inaccuracy has arisen regarding the place where the "Church of Christ" had its birth Hither was brought, in its season, the recently completed manuscript of the Book of Mormon; here was prepared the curious artificial cave mentioned by Pomeroy Tucker for the purpose of guarding that treasure from harm (Tucker. pp. 48-9); hence were carried from day to day that portion of the copy which Oliver Cowdery considered it would be safe to intrust to the printers of Mr. Egbert Grandin. The homestead is now said to be owned by Mr. Amos Miner (Tucker, p. 49), and is one of the most important scenes connected with Mormon history. What proof is found to substantiate the conclusion that Joseph and the balance of the Mormon teachers are mistaken in supposing that the rightful birthplace of the Mormon Church is in Ontario Chapters XVI-XXI of the first edition are printed as five separate revelations, which all occurred in Manchester on the 6th of April just previous to the organization of the "Church of Christ;" Orson Pratt has included these all in one (D&C, 23), and has further sadly confused the progress of history by setting them down after the event just now cited. Chapter XXII of the first edition is the only one that befell at the organization of the Church; in that edition it bears the superscription "A Revelation to Joseph, given in Manchester, New York, April 6th, 1830." The same production in Mr. Pratt's edition (D&C, Sect. 22), bears the contradictory superscription: "A Revelation to Joseph Smith, Jun., given at Fayette, New York, April 6th, 1830." No choice is left but to follow the original source. The church was founded in Manchester and not as Joseph and the Mormons supposed in Fayette, New York. It is entirely feasible to explain the fashion in which this blunder was produced. It owes it origin to the fact the first Conference of the Church was in Joseph's mind a far more important event than the organization of it. That first Conference was held at the house of the Whitmers in Fayette on the first of June 1830. There and then, according to the first edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, was delivered the Confession of Faith, Cultus and Discipline of the "Church of Christ." In Orson Pratt's edition this is in Section 20 and stupidly enough is placed in advance of Section 21, All Mormon authorities to the contrary, notwithstanding, this performance did not see the light until the first of June 1830; it will be vain any longer to date it the 6th of April 1830. In the original edition it bears the unmistakable superscription: "The Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ, given in Fayette, New York, June 1830." Against such a witness it would be useless to contend. Joseph was proud of this performance; to his thinking the "Church of Christ" had not been rightly founded until such a basis had been provided for it to rest upon. Accordingly in the course of time he must have fallen into the custom of dating the origin of his community from the first Conference where the "Articles and Covenants" of the organization were set forward. By degrees he advanced to the confusion of ignoring dates and places; the result is apparent throughout Mormon literature. The organization of the church has been removed from Manchester to Fayette, and the date of the "Articles and Covenants" has been transferred from the first of June to the 6th of April, 1830 -- a curious play of cross-purposes. Only six persons were found suitable to have a share in the honor of establishing "this Church of Christ;" it is likely that no others had yet been admitted to the waters of baptism. The names of the favored parties are Joseph Smith, Jun., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, David Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery. Lucy Smith records the circumstance that Samuel H. Smith was immersed on the same day as Joseph and Oliver, and but a few hours later (Joseph Smith, p. 139). In the month of June 1829 were baptized Hyrum Smith, David Whitmer and Peter Whitmer, Jun. The observance was performed in Seneca Lake, Joseph officiating in the two former instances and Oliver in the case of Peter Whitmer, Jun. (Tullidge, p. 69). Besides the above there is nowhere any record of immersion in the new dispensation prior to the 6th of April 1830. Though only half a dozen took part in the business, it is pretty evident that it had been duly published and prepared. This may be concluded from the fact that the two Whitmers were present, who resided five and twenty miles distant in another county; nay, Mr. Joseph Knight, Sen. had come nigh from Colesville in Broome county -- a much longer journey -- to observe the new turn which affairs were expected to take. On the very day of the organization of the church he was favored with a special revelation given in Manchester (Book of Commandments, first ed., Chap. XXI, and D&C 23:6-7). The enterprise of organization was accomplished on a Tuesday, possibly for the reason that Monday was required for the Whitmers to perform the journey from Fayette. The occasion was distinguished by the single revelation which is marked in Pratt's edition as Section 21. In this place Mr. Smith entrenches his position against the hazards of rivalry (D&C, 21:1-9). The faithful were instantly exhorted to give heed to all the words and behests of Joseph with the trepidation that it would be unlawful to lend an ear to any other. Having duly confirmed that himself and Oliver must mutually ordain each other to the office of elder or apostle, which at this early It is very worthy of comment that nobody could be persuaded to enter the waters of baptism at this moment. Possibly the prejudice of the community was now become so active that it would be esteemed prudent to abstain from offering it as an additional challenge. Joseph Smith, Sen. and his wife Lucy, as also O.P. Rockwell and his good wife Caroline, were keen to partake of that grace, but they were not gratified until several days afterward when the party had made their way to Seneca county, where in Fayette township, a distance of twenty five miles away from the scene where the church was established, the ceremony could be enacted without interruption. (Tullidge, p.77). Arrived at Fayette sometime between the 6th and the 11th day of April, Mr. Smith concluded that if his was the "Church of Christ," it was high time that the voice of preaching were heard within its borders. He had not yet found his own tongue that way, and so decided to break his lieutenant, Oliver Cowdery, into the harness. By consequence Mr. Cowdery had the distinction to pronounce the first public discourse that was ever heard among them, if one leaves out of the account numerous harangues which Mr. Rigdon had long been indulging on the Western Reserve, with more or less covert allusion to the subject. The scene of this maiden discourse was the house of Peter Whitmer, Sr., and the time was Sunday the 11th of April, 1830. The prophet's labors were rewarded with considerable success in Fayette. Possibly after the proclamation made by Oliver on the 11th of April the waters of baptism were immediately troddled by Joseph Smith, Sen., O.P. Rockwell and their wives (Tullidge, p. 77). But Martin Harris, as usual, appears to have given trouble. As late as the closing days of March 1830, it was still a question whether he would cast his fortunes with the movement. Though the church was organized within a short distance of his residence, it does not seem clear that he possessed a sufficient amount of courage or of concern to attend the performance. No record is supplied anywhere of his presence; it is likely that at that moment he was still engaged in "running about as a blind guide" who refused to be "humble and meek" and to "come unto the Savior" (D&C, 19:40-41). But his opposition was at length broken down; he had left his home and followed the steps of Mr. Smith to Fayette, where being in a measure secure from the ridicule of his good wife, Lucy, he had become fixed in his purpose to join the Mormons. But in the previous course of his pilgrimage, Martin had made the round of many churches. "He was first an orthodox Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationer, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian" (Howe, p. 261). Among the Baptists he had received the rite of immersion, and Martin would naturally raise the inquiry whether that immersion would not suffice for Mormon uses. Joseph was for an instant [raveled] by this objection, but after slight hesitation he found skill to resolve it by means of a revelation. Accordingly, he produced the paper which Orson Pratt in his edition had designated as Section 22. In the first edition it is given as Chapter XXIII, and bears the following significant title: "A Commandment unto the Church of Christ, which was established in these last days, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty: Given in Fayette, New York, April 1830, in consequence of some desiring to unite with the church without re-baptism." By this process an end was speedily found for all the nonsense of Martin Harris, touching his immersion among the Baptists, and the Mormons took their stand once for all against "alien immersion." Harris was duly baptized at Fayette (Tullidge, p. 77), and went back to his good wife well confirmed in the faith. Small thanks are due to Mr. Orson Pratt for corrupting the sources of history at this point. By comparing the title of this revelation as he supplies it (D&C, Sect. 22), one will find that instead of the name "Fayette," he has unwarrantably substituted "Manchester" -- a highly rehensible liberty, for which he can hardly be too severely blamed. The Whitmer family who figure so prominently in the background of the description given above, were known as "Pennsylvania Dutch" people. Some years before this history begins they had come from Pennsylvania to the situation they now occupied in Fayette township, New York. They were members of the Zion Church (afterwards designated as Jerusalem Church), a somewhat obscure organization of the German Reformed persuasion, that had been established in the [eastern] section of the township. In the year 1821, it had fallen under the pastoral supervision of the Rev. Diedrich Villers, an excellent minister of that church and vicinity. Peter Whitmer, Sen., was the father of the rather numerous and ignorant tribe (New Light on Mormonism, pp. 249-252). The garrulous old Lucy Smith, it has been signified, claims the merit of having perverted the household to the pretensions of her son, she having lodged with them overnight, on the occasion of a journey she was performing from Manchester to Harmony for the purpose of visiting Joseph and Emma at their home (Joseph Smith, p. 145). By this process the Whitmer house was made a convenient halting place for persons who chanced to be on the way from Harmony to Palmyra in the interest of the new movement. Oliver Cowdery is believed to have called there on his first visit to Joseph in the month of April, 1829 (Tullidge, p. [40]). The family were sadly burdened by the demands which the Smiths and others of the saintly party made upon their hospitality; for many months the house must have more resembled a wayside tavern than a private residence. Mr. Smith was in a high state of concern regarding the attitude of Joseph Knight, Sen. That person had been one of his longest and firmest supporters. When he had first gone to Harmony in the character of a treasure seeker under the employ of the silly Mr. Stowell, Joseph had already formed acquaintance with the still more silly Mr. Knight. Possibly the latter was as comfortably supplied with fool's pence as the former; Knight was the owner of a farm, a grist mill and a carding machine. Having sometimes occasion to employ hired help in carrying forward his various enterprises, he had once engaged the service of Mr. Smith, perhaps upon the termination of the young adventurer's engagement with Stowel in the silver mine (Newel Knight's Journal, in "Scraps of Biography," Salt Lake City, 1883, p. 47). Mr. Stowel had now obtained complete independence of Joseph's power to charm, but unhappily that excellent fortune had not been vouchsafed unto Knight. Having gone forward to attend the recovery of the "plates" in the autumn of 1827, he was now in the spring of the year 1830 once more on hand, to witness the rise of the church, this time, however, without the advantage of Mr. Stowel's society. Knight seemed just upon the point of entering the new organization. In the revelation bestowed upon him on the 6th of April at Manchester his duty had been enforced upon his conscience in terms that were sufficiently direct (D&C, 23:7; compare first ed. Chap. XXI). Under the preaching of Mr. Cowdery at Fayette on the 11th he had contrived to maintain his equanimity; he did not come forward as others had done to ask the grace of baptism. Mr. Smith was perplexed; there was reason to fear the loss of what would prove a valuable acquisition. Unless he should make sure of Knight while the iron was at white heat, there might never be another opportunity. Accordingly preparations were made to accompany him from Fayette to his home at Colesville in Broome county. Mr. Knight was not easy to capture. A Universalist by religious conviction, and decently well fixed in his ways, it was not the labor of a morning to carry him off his feet. Moreover, having never tried his hand at preaching, Joseph was hardly yet aware of his faculty that way. In the meetings that he held at Colesville, he was constrained by dint of sheer timidity to confine his ministrations to a mere prayer-meeting service, in which it was not so convenient for him to exhibit his extraordinary powers (Newel Knight, as above, p.50). Notwithstanding strenuous exertions both in that capacity and by private conversation, the success of Joseph in Colesville was incomplete. Newel Knight, one of the sons, had been thrown into a state of trance, like that which everywhere prevailed among religious circles in the country at that day, but not a single member of the Knight household could be induced to desire baptism. Possibly it was in a dejected frame of mind that Joseph, towards the last of April, took his leave of Colesville to visit his wife at Harmony. By means of a process which has not yet been explained he was this time fortunate enough to appease the disgust with which this excellent lady, it is conceived, had hitherto regarded her husband. Resting quietly at home a few days, he found occasion to work upon her sentiments to such an extent that she was persuaded to accompany him to Fayette, New York, sometime during the month of May 1830. Towards the close of this month, Newel Knight, having at length become content to cast in his lot with "this Church of Christ," appeared at Fayette, where he was duly immersed by David Whitmer (Tullidge, p. 81). |
[ 543 ]
The material considered in this chapter embraces all that portion of the revelations of Mr. Smith which precedes the month of November 1830, the date at which Rigdon signified his public and formal adhesion to Mormon tenets, and became the daily counselor of the ostensible leader of the cause. The task of Joseph in these deliverances was to observe as narrowly as possible the type of doctrine that had been exhibited in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants -- after due regard to the exceptions that shall be signified in the period that succeeds the one to which attention is now distracted -- was chiefly intended to supply a sort of practical commentary and explanation of the Book of Mormon. During the season of more than two years which elapsed between the months of July 1828, and November 1830, in which Joseph was playing the prophet without the advantages of an immediate prompter, it must be allowed that he executed his functions with considerable dexterity. He had studied the Book of Mormon with industry, and was very docile to the suggestions which Sidney found occasion to offer from time to time. It will not be amiss to recount such proofs of the correctness of this assertion as are laid down in the first 34 Sections of Mr. Orson Pratt's edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. church in its collective capacity, and likewise for the individual members who should compose its body. The Church in its collective capacity was called the "Church of Christ" (title of Sec. 18 and Sect. 20, 1, 61,68,81): individual believers were to be designated as "Christians" (D&C, 13:21-25). Their zeal had not yet made them sufficiently regardless of the claims of decent public sentiment to arrogate to themselves the title of "Saints," to say nothing of "Latter-day Saints." Although he was considerably a Methodist in his sentiments, Mr. Smith in deference to the Disciples scruples of Sidney, consented to surrender the practice of infant baptism (D&C, 18:42); it should not be taken amiss if he compensated his disappointment by directing that the children should be brought forward for the purpose of consecration by having the hands of the minister laid upon them (D&C, 20:70-71). This Methodist prophet also accepted the practice of immersion without a murmur from his Disciple Mentor (D&C, 20:72-74); and the Disciple hobby of a weekly communion at the Lord's Supper (D&C, 20:75). He was equally obsequious concerning the point of Disciple practice that every concern of church business should be decided by the vote of all the members of the church (D&C, 20:63; 26:2), thereby introducing into Mormonism the element of democracy of which the advocates of that system are now so vainly boastful. It was perhaps more natural for a Methodist prophet to fall in with Sidney's and Walter Scott's extravagant notions with reference to the Millennium (D&C, 29:9-23,34:7-11). Turning now to certain features in which Mr. Smith diverged from the practice of the Disciples, it may be in order to consider first the business of shaking off the dust of the fact as a testimony against those who might be inhospitable. This usage was not unknown among the Disciples of the early period (Williams, Life of Elder John Smith, Cincinnati, 1870, p. 271); but there is no proof on record to the effect that Mr. Rigdon ever observed it, or in any way had inculcated it upon Joseph. On the contrary it is possible that Joseph obtained the notion (D&C, 24:15), in the natural progress of his literalistic craze, from such Biblical passages at Matt. 10:14, Mk. 6:11, and Lu. 9:5. Likewise the injunction "thou shalt take no purse nor scrip, neither staves, neither two coats" (D&C, 24:18), which was religiously observed by early Mormons as the article of a standing or falling church, was not insisted upon among the Disciples as a body. Joseph must have introduced the practice out of regard to the determined literalistic tendency with which he had been inoculated by the Disciples. Of late years the Mormons are said to have surmounted this custom which was so dear and important in the eyes of the founders of their church (Leaves From My Journal, by Pres. Wilford Woodruff, Salt Lake City, 1882. p. 8). The "Perpetual Migration Fund" seems to be so liberally endowed that Mormon missionaries are relieved from the necessity of strictly observing the scriptural command which they were wont to read so clearly at Matt. 10:10 and Luke 10:4. There are certain other instances of divergence from Disciple practice which may be fairly set down under the head of blunders of inattention. For example, if Sydney had been in New York at the time he would not have permitted his partner of strong Methodist instincts to have given the Methodist name of "Conference" to the general meetings which were appointed to be held once in three months, (D&C, 20:61,81). The Methodists had a custom of giving license to certain persons to act in the capacity of "exhorters." In obedience to that well known observance Joseph by a pretended divine revelation commissioned his brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison, and his father, Joseph Smith, Sen., to be "exhorters" in the Mormon community (D&C, 23:3-5). This Methodist faux pas would not have fallen out if Mr. Rigdon had been at the moment in a situation to speak a word in the ear of the inspired teacher. The Methodists also conceded to the female sex a larger sphere of public religious activity than was customary among many other sects. Even as late as the year 1839, George Eliot was in correspondence with her aunt, Mrs. Samuel Evans, with reference to the labors of the latter in connection with the ecclesiastical charge which she had under her hands. In view of this practice Joseph went so far in July 1830 as to promise that his wife Emma Smith should be "ordained" not merely to "exhort the church," but also to "expound scriptures" (D&C, 25:7). This promise must have been exceedingly distasteful to Mr. Rigdon's Disciple palate. It is not anywhere distinctly declared that Emma ever had interest enough to obtain the fulfillment of this divinely inspired promise; it is conceivable however, that she was ordained and performed in a [guest] fashion the functions of her station; a few years later it appears that female lecturers were not unheard of among the Mormons. By the testimony of Mrs. (Spaulding) Davison it was a woman preacher who first brought the Book of Mormon to the attention of the people of Conneaut, where Spaulding had once resided and composed a portion of his "Manuscript Found" (Mackay, The Mormons, or Latter Day Saints, p. 37). It may be presumed that Sidney did what lay in his power speedily to correct this Methodist tendency, and so successful were his endeavors that it was possible for Parley P. Pratt, most likely with entire fidelity to his personal information to declare, in the year 1839, that the "Mormons have not had a female preacher in their connection" (Reynolds, Myth of the "Manuscript Found" p.31). Still other failures of the youthful prophet may fairly be placed under the category of stupid blunders. Here may be reckoned the wiseacre conclusion that Elias was a totally different character from Elijah, while both are but different scriptural forms of the same name (D&C, 27:6 cf. 27:9). But the credit of steadfastness is due to Mr. Smith in this business; having asserted the existence of a difference he maintained his opinion to the end (D&C, 110:12-15). To Elias was assigned the function of restoring all things (D&C, 27:6), by gathering together the tribes of Israel (D&C, 77:9,14); to Elijah was assigned the function of "turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers" (D&C, 27:9). Subsequently a similar mistake was perpetrated in connection with two forms of the same noun in the case of Esaias and Isaiah (D&C, 76:100). Joseph may have enjoyed such a high conceit regarding his acquaintance with the Christian Scriptures that it was beyond the power of Sidney to control him in such points. Shortly after the date on which Joseph had the happiness to purchase a number of Egyptian mummies from one Michael H. Chandler, and to translate the papyri that belonged with them into the "Gospel of Abraham," (Remy and Brenchley, vol. 2, note XVII), he obtained a revelation in which Elias "appeared and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed, all generations after us should be blessed" (D&C, 110:12); but there was no necessary contradiction between this service on the part of Elias, and the regular services mentioned above which he was expected to fulfill. In his own private fashion Joseph was an industrious student of the Book of Daniel. At the 9th verse of the 7th chapter of that work he read: "I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was Ancient of Days did sit," and straightway accomplished the splendid discovery that this "Ancient of Days" was Adam on the score that Adam is the first man of whom the Scriptures make any account. He also understood that Michael "the great prince" who is mentioned [at] Daniel 10:21 and 12:1, was the same person as the "ancient of days" or Adam. Accordingly with a deal of stupid display he discourses in one of his revelations about "Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" (D&C 27:11). In another passage he alludes to the fact that in the Epistle of Jude, he is designated as "Michael the archangel" (D&C 29:26). The process by which Adam was enabled to achieve these singular triumphs of promotion is set forth in a revelation that falls after the close of the present period; "Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methusaleh who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity, who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel" (D&C, 107:53-54). On the 19th of May 1838 Mr. Smith had another revelation which sets forth the spot where the "thrones will be placed, and one that is ancient of days will sit" (Daniel 7:10). That place was Spring Hill in Daviess County, Missouri, of which the name was by Joseph changed to "Adam-ondi-Ahman, because it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the ancient of days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (D&C, Sect. 116). An inspired prophet felt constrained to justify his follies; by means of this kind an unspeakably vulgar blunder was perpetuated, On the [6th] of April 1852 Mr. Brigham Young, feeling it to be his privilege farther to develop the nonsense of his predecessor, gravely announced that Adam was the only deity that good Mormons have any call to meddle with (Stenhouse, Rocky Mountain Saints, p. 485). Much silent opposition followed this disclosure, (Stenhouse, as above, p. 202), but it was a case of legitimate progress of doctrine, and the dissatisfied members of the Mormon community had not so much occasion to quarrel with Brigham as with Joseph. The phrase "Adam-ondi-Ahman" may have been understood to signify in plain English "Adam, or God": a supposition which is derived from the fact that the word "Ahman" is declared on the authority of Mr. Orson Pratt "to signify God in the pure language" (D&C 78:20 note); the word "ondi" may also in the same "pure language" signify "or." Another blunder of Joseph's stupidity occurs in the case of the "ancient gospel," which in Mormon parlance is commonly designated as "the first principles of the gospel." This "ancient gospel," it has been shown, was duly declared to Mr. Smith by "John the Baptist" on the 15th day of May 1829 (D&C, Sect. 13), at which time both himself, Oliver Cowdery and Samuel H. Smith had been "baptized by immersion for the remission of sins." It is more than likely that Sidney in the character of "John the Baptist" employed all his powers to give his colleague a right conception of the terms of this novelty. In the second redaction of the Book of Mormon, which was then undertaken, for the purpose of bringing the performance into harmony with the views of the Disciples were now proclaiming, Mr. Rigdon had plainly set forth this "ancient gospel" in many different places and contexts. Joseph, with the aid of Oliver, had patiently copied all these interminable lucubrations, and it was to be anticipated that he would have "the first principles of the gospel" at the end of his tongue. But the "ancient gospel" was an exotic in his Methodist brains; he could not readily persuade his mind to accept its truth or importance. It would be unjust treatment in case Mr. Smith were blamed for proclaiming a different gospel in the revelations he sent forth prior to the 15th of May 1829. For example: "Behold, this is my doctrine, whomsoever repenteth and cometh to me the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church" (D&C, 10:67-68). But not many days after these words were uttered Mr. Rigdon appeared upon the scene "declaring more than this," and Joseph accepted his testimony and the Disciple's gospel; he ought to have been studious to abide by his new choice. He did not abide by it, but continued to proclaim the Methodist gospel (D&C, 14:8; 15:6; 16:6; 18:12-14). Indeed there is one remarkable case where within the limits of one and the same revelation the prophet proclaims both the Methodist and the Disciple gospel. At Sect. 19:21, addressing Martin Harris, he says: "I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me;" at 19:31 he ordains "of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism and by fire, yea even the Holy Ghost." In keeping with the custom of the Methodist church at the reception of adults into membership, he also stipulates (D&C, 20:37): "All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received the spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church." Nothing could be farther from the model of the Disciples' practice, who required only the "good confession" that Jesus is the Christ and will not allow that any remission of sins is possible before baptism. After Sidney got into daily communication with Joseph, and his education had been mended by contact with the Disciples' church at Kirtland there were no more blunders if this nature; the prophet was able to lay down the conditions of the "ancient gospel" in just as glib and correct a fashion as any Disciple authority, not excepting Mr. Campbell himself. One other point requires to be considered in this place, which was likely not in all senses a blunder. Mr. Smith had obtained his ordination to the Aaronic priesthood at the hands of "John the Baptist" (D&C, Sect. 13, title); his ordination to the Melchisedek priesthood on the other hand was conveyed by his associate Oliver Cowdery, acting under the sanctions of a direct divine revelation to that effect (D&C, 21:10). But just before the meeting of the second conference, on the first of September 1830, the said Oliver had exhibited strong symptoms of insubordination, by which Joseph foresaw that it would not be well that his own supremacy should be in any manner dependent upon the agency of a person upon whom he could not fully rely. Accordingly in one of the revelations that was procured during the progress of that conference Joseph announced that they had also been ordained to the apostleship, or Melchisedek priesthood, by Peter, James and John (D&C, 27:12), who it has been shown had all three remained on the earth since the period of the Lord's ascension (D&C, Sect, 7). If Oliver should deny that the three apostles of the Lamb had laid their hands upon his head, Joseph would be ready with the affirmation that this benefit had been conferred upon himself, and that by the conditions of the case he was necessarily superior to Oliver. Mr. Cowdery therefore elected to keep silence touching the affair with Peter, James and John, although what was said in that connection was clearly in contradiction of the known fact that Joseph had been ordained by Oliver's own hands (D&C 21:10). By this introduction of Peter, James and John, Mr. Smith also placed himself on a more advantageous footing with relation to Rigdon. Under the character of "John the Baptist," Sidney had ordained the prophet to the Aaronic priesthood on the 15th of May 1829. This obligation and dependence were a galling yoke, and might be readily changed into an insuperable obstacle in some of the conflicts which it was conceivable he would have to wage with Mr. Rigdon. But Peter, James and John were manifestly above "John the Baptist," and the circumstance that his last ordination came directly from their hands would be a great point in his favor. The Mormons have vexed their ingenuity not a little to decide at what place and time Peter, James and John appeared to the prophet and bestowed the apostleship upon him (Tullidge, p. 738), but the inquiry is entirely futile, since the occurrence never took place in any form, but was merely pretended by Joseph in order to guard himself against possible embarrassments. On the 6th of Sept., 1842, Joseph got courage enough to intimate that the incident befell "in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna River" (D&C, 123:20); but this declaration is easily explained. Oliver Cowdery was at that moment in apostasy, and it was undesirable to concede that Peter, James and John had ever had any such confidential relations with a person who was in deep disgrace. Now, at the moment when Mr. Smith was making the above journey to the second conference by way of the Susquehanna river and Colesville, Mr. Cowdery was not of the party who accompanied him; that person had already preceded his chief to Fayette and was busily engaged in mischief there. The prophet's followers in the year 1842 naturally infer that Peter, James and John had appeared to their leader and had neglected his lieutenant. That however was not the original understanding; this last expedient would never have been heard of if Cowdery had remained steadfast. Hyrum Smith and David Whitmer attended the prophet on this journey (Newel Knight, as above, p.63); but the said David on being questioned about the occurrence replied: "I do not know; Joseph never told me. I can only tell you what I know, for I will not testify to anything I do not know (Tullidge, p.738). It was entirely an afterthought; neither Joseph nor any member of the party dreamed of a meeting with the three apostles on the banks of the Susquehanna. This ignorant young prophet was a born commander of men; neither Mr. Rigdon nor even Mr. Campbell was his equal in that regard -- not half so fertile in resources, nor so unscrupulous in the choice of them. continue reading on: p. 556 |