The proper authority to lead the church

That’s a question that I’m sure people have written books about. I’m going to give really short answers to avoid writing too much.

I have done some reading on this subject and it seems that JS told several people including Joseph Smith III that he was the heir to the church presidency , in fact several people came forward and signed statements to this affect that Joseph had said specifically that after he had died that Joseph Smith III was to replace him .

Joseph Smith III was 11 years old when JS died it would have been impractical for him to take over. Even if JS3 eventually took over someone else would have needed to bridge the gap in leadership.

Especially when Emma and others were calling him out on this telling him that Joseph had intended for Joseph III to take over .

There were three people that were vying for leadership. Brigham Young, James Strang, and Sidney Rigdon. Emma supported James Strang. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (CoC) came out of the Strangite branch of JS’s church.

I don’t think it mattered much who became the leader. I can envision a “Steward of Gondor” effect happening with any of them. James Strang is an interesting character. He likely made promises to the Smith family about JS3 one day leading the church but I’m guessing that was only lip service to gain the family’s support as Strang never appointed his successor. Strang was assassinated as well so we’ll never know whether he would have stepped aside. IIRC JS3 decided to become leader at the insistence of this group some years after Strang’s death.

Ok I get that but I do not understand without a clear order of succesion in place at the time how did BY come into power of the church leadership ???

The majority of the saints at the time stood behind Brigham. Simple as that. If the majority of the saints would have sided with Strang or Rigdon it would have been one of them.

It really depends on how you define prophet. For the sake of argument let’s talk about a capital ‘P’ Prophet (god’s appointed spokesman) and a lowercase ‘p’ prophet (someone that becomes god’s appointed spokesman because their followers have faith in them). Has there ever been a Prophet or has the world only ever seen prophets? I don’t know, but for this question I don’t see why BY couldn’t be the prophet of the Utah saints and Joseph Strang be the prophet for the Beaver Island saints. People in each group had faith that their leader was the one called of god, so why not acknowledge both as prophets? From one point of view a prophet is only a prophet because people have faith that they are a prophet. If the people wanted BY as their prophet they followed him.

I wanted to add one more thing because as the way I see it Joseph Smith III is the proper authority to lead the church because of his father appointing him to that capacity . Has anyone on this board converted from the LDS church to the COC ? Just throwing it out there !!!

Proper authority according to whom?

FWIW JS3 did eventually lead a church so in this case it worked out.

I haven’t converted to CoC and certainly don’t have plans but I would like to attend some of their meetings when I get some time. Not because I think the proper authority lies with them or anything like that, more out of curiosity. I’d be interested to learn what the current CoC’s views are on the foundational myths that are common to the LDS church. For example, I believe their views towards the BoM line up better with what many people on this site feel.

The LDS church talks so much about the importance of Lines of Authority. It wasn’t until I began reading about the early church and JS III that I realized all their statements of Proper Authority could be viewed with suspicion.

Looking into other branches of the LDS faith in particular CoC and trying to figure out what happened way back when to the church after Joseph died. I have done some reading on this subject and it seems that JS told several people including Joseph Smith III that he was the heir to the church presidency , in fact several people came forward and signed statements to this affect that Joseph had said specifically that after he had died that Joseph Smith III was to replace him . Ok I get that but I do not understand without a clear order of succesion in place at the time how did BY come into power of the church leadership ??? Especially when Emma and others were calling him out on this telling him that Joseph had intended for Joseph III to take over . In other words what happened to give BY the Presidency/Prophecy who told him he was the Boss ?????? Please help me understand this I am at a loss . Thank You.

Gordon B. Hinckley in 1981 gave a great summary of the LDS position on this.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/the-joseph-smith-iii-document-and-the-keys-of-the-kingdom?lang=eng

My understanding was that the Q12 were organized as a quorum of equal authority to the First Presidency. Q12 was originally organized to oversee the missions of the church but they were later called home to help with things in Zion. Brigham’s argument was not that the people should chose him over Sidney Rigdon. It was that the people should choose the Q12 as their governing body (Possibly until another prophet is called forth. Possibly until young JS III is ready for the job as I believe is indicated by Nibbler’s “Steward of Gondor” reference.) BY led the church as President of the Q12 for 3.5 years before he felt comfortable enough to reform the First Presidency with himself at the head.

From Wikipedia:

On August 6, Brigham Young and the rest of the Twelve returned to Nauvoo; the next day, they met with Sidney Rigdon, who repeated his claim to become the guardian of the Church. Brigham Young responded, “Joseph conferred upon our heads all the keys and powers belonging to the apostleship which he himself held before he was taken away”.[33] So while historically the First Presidency has previously led the Church, Young proposed an ad hoc Presidency of the Church in the Quorum of Twelve.[34] Young tried diligently to persuade the people that he alone held the rights to lead the Church. He even went so far as to ride through the streets on Smith’s favorite horse named Joe Duncan.[34]

After Rigdon spoke for ninety minutes, Young called for a recess of two and a half hours. When the conference resumed, Young spoke, emphasizing the idea that no man could ever replace Joseph Smith. However, he stated that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had all the “keys of the priesthood” that Smith had held. He answered Rigdon’s proposal to be named “guardian” by claiming that Rigdon and Smith had become estranged in recent years. Rather than a single guardian, Young proposed that the Quorum of the Twelve be named the church’s leadership. Rigdon declined an offer to rebut Young, asking Phelps to speak for him. Instead Phelps spoke in favor of Young’s proposal. The assembled church members then voted by common consent on whether or not to accept the Twelve as the new leaders over the church. The majority voted in favor of the Twelve. Those who opposed the vote against Young were all later excommunicated from the Nauvoo church.[34]

Rigdon went first and gave to Young the advantage of “closing arguments.” Then he ceded his rebuttal time to Phelps as his representative. Phelps betrays Rigdon by using Rigdon’s rebuttal time to support Young.

Many of the Latter Day Saints who remained in the Midwest, including Strang, believed that one or more of Joseph Smith’s sons would eventually lead the church. The church had published a revelation in 1841 stating “I say unto my servant Joseph, In thee, and in thy seed, shall the kindred of the earth be blessed”,[61] and this was widely interpreted as endorsing the concept of Lineal Succession. Documentary evidence indicates also that Smith set apart his son as his successor at various private meetings and public gatherings, including Liberty[62] and Nauvoo.[63] Indeed, Brigham Young assured the bulk of Smith’s followers as late as 1860 that young Joseph would eventually take his father’s place.[14] Young may have recognized the patrilineal right of succession for Smith’s sons as within the years following Smith’s murder he made apparently earnest entreaties to Smith’s sons, Joseph Smith III and David Hyrum Smith, to join his church’s hierarchy in Utah. Both Smiths, however, were profoundly opposed to a number of practices, especially plural marriage, and refused to join the Utah church.

I believe that it is entirely possible that BY would have groomed one of the Smith son’s to be his successor (either by calling him to the Q12 or by some other, more direct, route), but that never materialized and so the Utah church continued with the “ad hoc Presidency of the Church in the Quorum of Twelve” from generation to generation.

In my view, authority is in the eye of the beholder. It’s who we choose to acknowledge — that’s the way it originally started when BY took over from JS. I don’t know of any visitation from an Angel giving that authority to BY. And there was no protocal established at that time that I’m aware of. It’s established now — with the senior member of the Q12 taking the prophetship, but back then — there was no precedent I am aware of…at the time BY took the presidency…

This is a great discussion. I have also often wondered about how the current system evolved, recognizing the reason for the schism in the first place (those who believed it was hereditary and those who didn’t). Having visited the sites in Missouri in the early 1980s, I am also aware of a couple of the more prominent off shoots and particularly the Church of Christ Temple Lot and their view. I have settled on a few things for myself that allow the current system to work for me:

1. I don’t view the president of the church as a prophet in the same way as Joseph Smith or some of the ancient prophets were prophets. I don’t believe any of the modern prophets have had the same types of interaction with God and angels that Joseph Smith had. I certainly believe they are capable of receiving revelation, just like anybody else is capable. Any claims to revelation they have made seem to have occurred the same way I would receive revelation. I recognize that the president of the church has been given the authority as CEO by common consent and as such I sustain him.

2. Related to the first, Brigham Young was given no special mandate or mantle to be a prophet. Governance by committee is at best frustrating and difficult, especially for one who is as apparently strong minded as Brigham was. A ship can only have one captain, and I believe Brigham was the most strong willed and supported, thus he saw it as a necessity to form a new first presidency.

3. Number two notwithstanding, it is apparent in recent years that the governance of the church is much more of a committee than it was in earlier years. Several of the Brethren have in the past decade made this idea known, including Pres. Nelson. With presidents who were incapacitated (McKay, Kimball, Benson) there is no other way to govern the church with the president as prophet and CEO and maintain credibility. I secretly hope (maybe not so secretly) that Pres. Monson also has such a period of incapacitation for multiple reasons.

I also think some of the side stuff that has come up in this conversation are interesting. The Community of Christ and the Book of Mormon part is fascinating. As LH points out, we are not asked about the BoM in baptismal or TR recommends any more. Perhaps without being so explicit as the CoC, we are giving the same message (which is good for some of us here).