Back to Table of Contents

CHAPTER V

THE NAUVOO PRESIDENCY: 1860-1866

The appointed day drew near. Joseph Smith III and his mother made the
necessary preparations for their trip to the RLDS conference at Amboy, Lee
County, Illinois. On April 4, 1860, they crossed the Mississippi to Montrose, Iowa,
to catch a steamboat. The weather was tempestuous. The oarsmen bent their
backs to propel the small craft across the mighty river. Emma Smith Bidamon
remarked that "thus it had been all through her life; that whenever she set out to
do anything for the gospel's sake, the old boy seemed to be in the elements trying
to prevent." The prophet's widow and son arrived safely on the western shore.
From there they traveled by boat and by rail to Amboy.^I

Amboy was a small town on the Illinois Central Railroad. Ironically, it
was not far from Palestine, the site of William Smith's "stake of Zion." It also lay
close to the homes of many of Emma Smith Bidamon's relatives who had migrated
there from Pennsylvania. Amboy was chosen as the site of the conference
because several families of Reorganized Saints lived in the area.

Mother and son attended the evening prayer meeting on April 5th, at the
the home of one of the local Saints. There Joseph Smith III discovered for the
first time that it had been foretold, via tongues and prophecies, that he would
attend the conference. He found a sense of expectancy in the air. At the prayer
meeting, Z. H. Gurley arose and gave an impassioned exhortation in which he
stated that Joseph's being there fulfilled the word of the Lord. Those attending
the prayer meeting arose and sobbed for joy as the prophet's wife and son entered
the room.

At a rented meeting place, Mechanics Hall, three hundred or so Saints
gathered on April 6th for the opening of the conference. Many had waited years
for this moment. In the afternoon, Joseph and his mother entered the hall for the
first time. At 1:30 P.M., Zenos H. Gurley, Sr. introduced him in a voice choked
with emotion:

"I present to you, my brethren, Joseph Smith."
One of the Saints in attendance left a contemporary record of the
conference:

... on the 6[th] Joseph presented himself as successor to his Father and
was recieved [sic] as such by the Church, and to undertake to portray to
your mind the scene that then transpired is beyond any power that I
posess, there was a time of universal rejoicing among the Old Saints of
"whom there was a large gathering, they were there from Ohio from
Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minesota, Missouri & a great many from
Illinois attended. Joseph gave a history of the past two or three years of
his life which seemed to satesfy all present, that the Lord had ordained
that he should lead the Church. Joseph was baptized into the Church
when about ten years old, and ordained by his father to be his successor
shortly before his death. Joseph is unlike his father in every particular
he is quite dark in complection, verry long featured & short in stature,
but he is the soberest looking person that I have seen for years, he is a
good speaker and appears to be verry honest & sincere.²

Joseph Smith III then addressed the conference. Both the speaker and his
hearers were in tears a good part of the time. He began with the declaration, "I
came not here of myself, but by the influence of the Spirit." For some time past,
he declared, he had been receiving spiritual manifestations pointing the way
toward uniting with the Reorganization. True to his own principles, he had
refused to come at the beck and call of others, but had awaited inner testimony
before acting. Neither paternal blessing, lineal rights, scriptural argument,
prophesying, nor importunity had been able to move him until he received this last
confirmation. Now he was satisfied as to his duty. As he put it, "I have come
here not to be dictated by any man or set of men. I have come in obedience to a
power not my own, and shall be dictated by the power that sent me."

Those deputations which had urged him to assume his father's station had
been turned away out of conviction that he first must have an inward testimony
that this was Gods will. He would never act without such assurance and thereby
"trifle with the faith" of the people who looked to him in expectation. To those
who urged him that the presidency was his simply by right of lineage, he
protested:

... if I attempted to lead as a Prophet by these considerations and not
by a call from Heaven, men would not be led to believe who do not
believe now. And so I have come not of my own dictation to this sacred
office.

He specifically disavowed any intention of amassing wealth through
leadership of the church. Some, he knew, would not hesitate to seize the
opportunity to exercise power and accumulate wealth, but he disclaimed all such
motives. Rather, he wished to be welcomed freely by the people and to receive
the benediction of God.

He explained that he had stood aloof from all factions and had endeavored
to keep himself unbiased concerning all of them. In fact, he deliberately had
ignored the various written works which had been sent to him, for fear that they
might wrongly influence his ultimate course of action. His decision, he felt, had
to be free of "any taint of sectarianism, or taints from thoughts of the various
minds I have come in contact with," and had to rest upon an inward testimony.
The only principle taught by any of the L.D.S. factions which he abhorred was
polygamy:

I have been told that my father taught such doctrines. I have never
believed it and never can believe it. If such things were done, then I
believe they never were done by divine authority. I believe my father
was a good man, and a good man never could have promulgated such
doctrines.

Besides this fundamental opposition to polygamy, he declared his intention
to be guided by honesty and truth and to "promulgate no doctrine that shall not be
approved by you or the code of good morals." He promised to employ the Bible,
Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants as his doctrinal standards.
Confessing that he was not very conversant with those books—as he pointed to a
volume in front of him—he promised to study them diligently.

Having sought to quiet fears that their new prophet later might foist a
revelation sanctioning polygamy upon them—a possibility that some of them had
experienced more than once—Joseph Smith III sought to put to rest several other
possible concerns. First, he specifically disavowed any intention of using his
position to personal advantage, to become wealthy or a dictator. Second, he
avowed his belief in obedience to the laws of the land. And, third, he stated his
intention to continue his policy of living peaceably and mingling freely with all
Gentiles, even those known for strongly Anti-Mormon sentiment. All this was
designed to allay fears that he might govern after the fashion of Brigham Young.
Were he to imitate Brigham, he declared, he knew he would soon "be wholly
deserted," and concluded, "if the same Spirit which prompts my coming, prompts
also my reception, I am with you."³

Then, on motion of Isaac Sheen, it was "resolved, that Brother Joseph
Smith be chosen Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ, and
the successor of his father." Emma Smith Bidamon was also received into
fellowship by unanimous vote. Joseph Smith III was then ordained president of the
high priesthood of the church.⁴

The conference dismissed, and the Saints left Amboy rejoicing.
Missionaries began carrying word of Joseph Smith Ill's ordination to scattered
Latter Day Saints, particularly in Illinois and Iowa. But life for the new Prophet,
Seer, and Revelator did not change immediately. He received no remuneration as
president. He returned to Nauvoo and went about the business of providing for his
family. On weekends he tried his fledgling wings as a preacher.

Suddenly he was a leader, albeit one with a small following. He had staked
out a platform at Amboy, one which he followed with remarkable fidelity
throughout his life. But it was one thing to articulate a philosophy and quite
another to put it into practice. It would be some years before Joseph Smith III
actually provided the direction, the strategy, the impetus for the efforts of the
RLDS Church. In the meantime, the elders—used to operating autonomously for
many years—went about their business with little direction or interference from
the new prophet.

Visit of Cousins Joseph F. and Samuel H. B. Smith

At the same time the RLDS Church was meeting in Amboy, the LDS
Church was conducting its annual general conference in Salt Lake City. Among
the elders called to go on missions were two cousins of the new RLDS president:
Joseph F. Smith (1838-1918) and Samuel H. B. Smith (1838-1914). On April 27th,
in a company of eastward-bound missionaries, the two cousins set out for their
mission to England. They stopped at Florence, Nebraska, where John Smith
provided them with some details concerning the relatives in Hancock County. On
June 20th and 21st, they visited Nauvoo. Six Smith cousins were momentarily
united. Joseph F. Smith, son of Hyrum, was a newly ordained seventy in the LDS
Church. Samuel H. B. Smith, son of Samuel, was an elder in the LDS Church.
Joseph Smith III, of course, was the new president of a rival body of Saints. His
brothers Frederick G. W., Alexander Hale, and David Hyrum were all unbaptized,
and Frederick and Alexander were indifferent or unsympathetic to their older
brother's ecclesiastical endeavors.⁵

At the Old Homestead, Joseph greeted his cousins cordially. At the
Mansion, Frederick and Alexander were equally glad to see their Utah relations.
Major Bidamon, in Joseph F. Smith's view, was not overjoyed to see them, and
Emma he found "very cold and distant." They ate dinner together. Joseph F. and
Samuel were accompanied on a tour about the city by Frederick and Alexander.
After supper, Joseph and the two Utahns discussed their mutual faith in the
Latter Day work as well as their differences. They all expressed themselves
freely.⁶

After supper, Joseph took a light and showed his cousins to their quarters
upstairs. Joseph Smith, Jr.'s portrait hung in one of the rooms upstairs. Joseph
Smith III told his cousins that one day he went upstairs to show someone the oil
painting, and that as the group left the room, he had turned around, looked at the
picture, and saw his father present in the room. Before the two cousins retired,
Joseph Smith III related another vision. While debating whether or not to go to
Salt Lake City, "he felt his Father's hands upon his head, and then he thought the
reason why he dident go ... ." Joseph III specifically asked his cousins to
remember their dreams that evening, evidently attaching spiritual significance to
them.⁷

The next morning, Joseph III, Joseph F., and Samuel again canvassed the
religious question. Joseph III invited his cousins to ask him any questions they
might have, promising to answer them if he could, and if he could not to wait until
he could.

What, they asked, were his feelings toward the Mormons in Salt Lake City?
Joseph F. Smith recorded Joseph Smith Ill's reply:

... his feelings were good toward them and he wished them well. but he
believed they were in darkness on some things, owing to the teachings
they have had, & the influances that surrounded them. we asked if he
believed the doctrines they taught were right, he said he believed they
were,—but one,—but that they were abused by those holding authority.
We told him our feelings in regard to the authorities of the Church and
bore our testimony to mormonism. he was glad we felt so well but hoped
that we should think differuntly before long on some things. He sais that
he is not concerned at all as to the result of the step he is taking, he
does not claim to have had any thing of importance revealed to him.
still he sais he has something to reveal in the proper time and place, that
is very singular to him, but did not speak to us, as tho' there was any
great importance attached to it. he spoke of the defileing of the temple.
believed it was defiled by the authorities, and in conciquence of their
sins and transgressions they were driven from Nauvoo, and brought
"Coursings, wrath, indignations, and judgment upon them. believes the
people to be in bondage, and opressed by the Authorities.
He sais he is not afraid but what he will come off right, and that he
will take no counsel but from God, for the Lord, if he has a work for him
to do—will make his will known to him, before he will to any body
els[e].⁸

Samuel H. B. Smith also recorded his impressions of the conversation with
his Nauvoo cousin. Interestingly, he seemed to acknowledge that Young Joseph
had been designated by his father as his successor. "We . . . saw the young
Prophet," he wrote, "for I suppose that is the name he goes by, having been
ordained by his Father previous to his death and called by the Spirit (of late) he
steps forth to do a work . . . ." Samuel found his cousin uncertain about the
particulars of his future policy, but intent on being "dictated" by the Spirit in all
things," and leaving the result in the hands of God. Joseph Ill told Samuel and
Joseph F. that the Spirit had been "working on his mind" for two years, leading
him to conclude that he had "a work to do." The primacy of spiritual experience,
including several visions, in determining his course was clearly indicated.

Samuel H. B. Smith recorded two important observations, based upon their
conversations. In the first place, in freely expressing his attitudes about
polygamy, Joseph III told his cousins that he could uphold every principle in the
Utah church but plural marriage. This, he said, "he cannot uphold and sustain with
the knowledge that he has, and said that he diden't believe his Father ever taught
and practised that principle . . . ." Samuel concluded that Joseph III was
wasting his time talking to them in such fashion, "for any one that knows any
thing about mormonism at all knows better then that, by the testimony of
thousands whose testimony no one has a right to deny according to the way that I
understand it ... ."⁹ The two Utah Smiths based their views upon the testimony
of those who had learned the principle from the late prophet. The prophet's son
based his views upon his sense of right and wrong, his conceptions of what his
father—as a good man operating within the laws of morality—could have done, his
mother's example and training, and his own spiritual experiences. The two
approaches were antithetical. One was based on the head, the other on the heart.
One was based on what had happened, the other on what ought to have happened.
One was based on authority, the other on conscience. Although when questioned,
Joseph expressed his willingness to change his mind if presented with additional
evidence or spiritual light, in reality his course was set. In the coming decades,
he would be confronted with a mass of evidence supporting his cousins' historical
position. But no accumulation of such evidence could move him. The ground upon
which he stood was moral and spiritual, not historical.

In the second place, Samuel H. B. Smith's analysis struck to the core of
Joseph Ill's relationship with his mother. He observed:

it is evident that Joseph has been under the influence of his mother altho
he sais that his mother has never tried to influence his mind one way or
the other, but has let him take his own course, that may be to and her
influence work in another way, so that it would have as much weight as
though She was to converse with him personally on the subject, and I
don't know but a great deal more . . . .¹⁰

The cousins parted on friendly terms. Joseph F., Samuel H. B., and Joseph
Smith III were three sincere young men, honestly seeking to do the will of God.
Impressed with each other's sincerity, they hoped that the "unenlightened" branch
of the family yet would see the light and "come out straight in the end." The
meeting left them torn internally; ties of kinship and affection drew them
together, while their religious pathways were veering apart in radically different
directions.¹¹

Joseph F. and Samuel H. B. Smith continued on their way. They would not
return to Hancock County for three years. ¹² While they made their way eastward
across the continent, their cousin faced the prospect of revived Anti-Mormonism
in Hancock County, brought on by fears that the Saints were going to regather
there.

The Gathering

One of the most important questions to face Joseph Smith III at the outset
of his religious career was that of the Gathering. The Book of Mormon told of at
least a dozen or more gatherings of the righteous, who traversed oceans or deserts
to escape the wicked. Likewise the Doctrine and Covenants called upon the elect
to gather together, to "Zion." The gathering of the Saints was a multi-faceted
concept. Preparation for the eschaton, escape from persecution and wickedness,
and building up a godly society were concomitant motives for the modern Children
of Israel to gather together. According to Latter Day Saint eschatology, America
was the land of Zion, and Independence, Missouri was the "center stake." All good
Saints expected to return to Missouri prior to or at the beginning of the
Millennium, there to rule with Christ a thousand years. But when the Saints had
been driven from Missouri, it had been necessary to appoint Nauvoo, Illinois as a
temporary gathering place, a stake of Zion, but not the center stake. Prior to the
exodus in 1846, thousands of converts, particularly from England, flooded into
Nauvoo.¹³

After the exodus, Brigham Young led thousands of Saints to the Valley of
the Great Salt Lake and proclaimed Utah to be the new Mormon Zion. It was not
intended to supplant Jackson County, Missouri, but to be another temporary place
of refuge. Prior to his death, Joseph Smith had contemplated removal from
Nauvoo and had considered the Rocky Mountains as a possible gathering site.
Faced with the prospects of civil war in Hancock County, Brigham Young had
settled upon the Rockies as the site of the next stake of Zion. Once settled in
Utah, energetic missionary efforts brought a constant stream of European
immigrants to Zion.¹⁴

One of the foundational premises of the Reorganized Church was that the
church in Nauvoo had fallen into wickedness, that God had visited it with
judgment, and that the church had been rejected, dispersed, and disorganized. If
Brigham Young was a wicked apostate, it hardly could be that Utah was Zion and
the gathering there a work of God. Accordingly, early RLDS publications were
filled with tales of wicked doings in Utah and arguments against the "salt land"
being the land of Zion.¹⁵ It was one thing to reject the Brighamite gathering
place and another to determine upon an alternative. Initially, in 1852, the
Reorganization had finessed the question by stating that:

. . . there is no stake to which the saints on this continent are
commanded to gather at the present time, but. . . the saints on all other
lands are commanded to gather to this land prepratory to the
reestablishment of the church in Zion, when the scattered saints on this
land will also be commanded to gather and return to Zion . . . and it is
the duty of the saints to turn their hearts and their faces towards Zion
and supplicate the Lord for such deliverance.¹⁶

The concept of gathering was deeply ingrained in the Latter Day Saint
psyche. Many looked for the new prophet to designate a site. Lyman Wight,
William Smith, James J. Strang, and many other factional leaders had done this.
What would be the policy of Joseph Smith III?

Joseph Smith III initially operated upon the premise that a new gathering
site must be selected. After notifying William Marks of his intention to become
president of the Reorganized Church, Joseph Smith III had informed his mother
and step-father of his decision. The three of them discussed the possibility of
removing from Nauvoo to a new location, to which Saints might gather and build a
town. Major Bidamon was going to Independence, Missouri on some other business
and was told to investigate discreetly along his line of travel to see if there might
be a likely location. But the Major took a speculative view of the enterprise.
There was the potential of realizing considerable profit through the purchase and
resale of lands at the new gathering-site. He proceeded on his own authority to
Weston, Missouri; Council Bluffs, Iowa; and Florence, Nebraska. He violated his
instructions by speaking of his mission to local businessmen and by entering into a
tentative agreement at Florence, Nebraska that the Josephites would gather
there. When he returned to Nauvoo and reported to Joseph, the young man
disavowed everything the Major had done. ¹⁷ His condemnation of speculative
motives in his inaugural address was a repudiation of Major Bidamon's activities
and all similar profiteering endeavors.

From his reading of early Latter Day Saint history, Joseph concluded that
over-hasty gathering had entailed serious mistakes. He had possession of some
account books from the church's days in Kirtland, Ohio. Examination of these
books convinced him that religious communitarianism was economically perilous.
Some of his father's economic activities he regarded as unwise. He disliked the
idea of a religious leader becoming involved in speculation, and he had personally
experienced some of the consequences of his father's signing notes for large sums
of money. ¹⁸ All these factors, coupled with Major Bidamon's exuberant visions of
profit, set Joseph Smith III on his guard. He determined to be very careful.

This decision was wise. When the outside world learned of the Amboy
Conference, he began receiving offers and advice. James Arlington Bennet sent
him an offer of 160 acres of land in Livingston County, Illinois.¹⁹ A
correspondent signing himself "Keokuk" informed him of available land not far
from Nauvoo. In the end, Joseph decided to do nothing precipltous.²⁰

George Edmunds, the family's legal Sir Gallahad, urged Joseph to stay in
Nouvoo. Edmunds had come to Nauvoo when the city still offered prospects of
becoming a major urban center. He had stayed on in the city, promoting various
improvements designed to revive the civic economy. Now he saw one last chance
to restore Nouvoo to her former greatness. Something of the nature of his
discussions with Joseph Smith III are apparent in a letter Joseph sent him in July
1860:

In answer to your inquiry as to my future location, as also the
location of my church, I would say that while personally I would prefer to
remain here—I shall not let me personal preferences control I my action
when I am satisfied it would be against the interests, either of my church
or people-
As to my self I can do well enough here or else where with my
individual means—but in starting my church great expense must be
incurred, which personally I am unable to bear—and many of my pople
[sic] are poor—
Large inducements are held out to me to locate my church else
where which I shall do, unless the citizens & property holders here think
it for their interest to say to us that they desire us to settle here, and
will do suffissienit at least to erect publick buildings & guarantee us
against exorbitant prices [?] for ground to settle upon—²¹

While Edmunds and some other citizens hoped to revive the city's economic
fortunes via a return of the Saints, some of the Saints believed that the town was
their proper gathering place. These two factors, together perhaps with Joseph's
personal links to the town, induced him to enter into an agreement with George
Edmunds not to remove from Nauvoo for five years. They thought that this would
be a sufficient length of time to determine whether regathering to Nauvoo was
feasible or whether the city would remain forever a shadow of its former self.²²

But if some citizens were enthusiastic about the prospect of the Saints
returning to Hancock County, others were fearful that the events of the 1840s
would be re-enacted. In a short time, Joseph Smith III, rather than wondering
whether the local citizens would offer him sufficient inducements to remain, was
faced with the question of whether he would be permitted to stay. There was a
reawakening of Anti-Mormon rhetoric, with threats to drive the prophet's son
from his home.

Hostile Reaction in Hancock County

Assuming the presidency of the Reorganization and returning to Hancock
County required a certain degree of courage. Sixteen years earlier, citizens of
the county had slain Joseph Smith, Jr. Subsequent to his death, they had driven
most of his followers from the county. Those Saints who remained had maintained
a low profile. There was no organized ecclesiastical structure among them, and
certainly no active preaching of "Mormonism." Joseph Smith III had learned how
to co-exist among the Gentiles. But he was tredding, now, on uncertain ground.
No one could foretell the reaction to a new "Mormon prophet" in Nauvoo. Would
old fears and animosities be aroused? The answer was not long in coming.

A small band of Joseph Smith Ill's friends called for a meeting to be held on
the evening of May 10, 1860, in Nauvoo. Their objective was to rally support for
the return of the Saints to Nauvoo, which, they hoped, would revive the local
economy. To their chagrin, when the citizens of Nauvoo gathered together that
evening, they overwhelmingly passed a series of resolutions opposing such a return.
The resolutions declared that it would be wrong for any branch of the Mormon
Church to relocate in Nauvoo, because past history showed that they would
destroy social harmony and economic prosperity. Mormonism in all forms, the
resolutions declared, was "inimicable to American institutions," "opposed to social
order," and pandered to "the most gross Licentiousness, and sensuality." Mormon
pledges could not be relied upon, they declared, and the overwhelming majority of
Nauvooans were unwilling to see them return "to play out the old game of humbug
which has already caused so much disturbance and injury to the people of Hancock
county."²³

Within Nauvoo, former Mayor R. W. McKinney spearheaded the opposition
to Joseph Smith III. His articles in the local press opposed Mormonism in general
and Joseph Smith III in particular. He charged that the newly ordained prophet
was shiftless, and that he had failed at every previous enterprise he had
undertaken. Joseph Smith III, he suggested, was probably good for little else
besides being a prophet. McKinney reasoned that the citizens of Illinois had little
need of a prophet who produced anti-polygamous revelations, since "no body ever
taught the plurality wife system but his brother fanatics who started this
diabolical humbug." McKinney agreed with Joseph Smith III, "most true O most
modern and greenest of all the prophets," that polygamy sprang from the devil,
"yet the devil who originated it bore the same name as yourself." McKinney felt
that Joseph Smith III denied his father's involvement in polygamy out of
ignorance. "Every one who knows anything of the matter, knows that spiritual
wifery originated with old Joe." McKinney suggested that Young Joseph's anti-
polygamous ministrations were most needed in Salt Lake City and criticized him
for not going there:

. . . the prophet thinks that valley would not be good for his health. . . .
He has not as much faith as Jonah; he is going to preach against
polygamy to all the old Bachelors in Illinois, who are so cross and ill
tempered they never could get any wife, much less a harem full of the
article.

McKinney raked Abraham Van Horn Yates, publisher of the Nauvoo Democratic
Press, over the coals for encouraging the return of the Latter Day Saints. He
confidently predicted that the citizens of Hancock County would never stand for
it. Alternately he castigated Joseph Smith III as naively sincere or mercenarily
cynical. But the object of McKinney's vilification had long since learned to
endure contumely in silence; he did not reply in kind.²⁴

When Abraham Van Horn Yates criticized McKinney's stance, the ex-mayor
replied in the Carthage Republican with a vitriolic lampoon of the publisher of the
Democratic Press. In this epistle, Yates received most of McKinney's fire. He
called Yates an illiterate, a monkey, and a fit candidate for a school for idiots.
He was more restrained in his criticisms of Joseph Smith III, conceding that he
was an honorable man who had put himself in a false position by claiming to be
the prophetic leader of "a dangerous, fanatical and revolutionary sect."²⁵

When the resolutions passed at the Anti-Mormon meeting in Nauvoo, which
attempted to proscribe all Latter Day Saint religious activity in Hancock County,
were presented to Joseph Smith III, he coolly refused to be intimidated. The
secretary of the meeting had been John Bernard Risse, a friend of Joseph's who
occupied a law office next door to his own. Risse was deputized to deliver the
minutes. When Risse handed him the unsigned document, Joseph recognized the
handwriting, gazed steadily at his young acquaintance, and demanded to know by
what authority such resolutions had been passed, abridging his constitutional
rights. Managing to suppress his sense of wounded indignation, he kept command
of himself. He laid the paper on the table and told Risse to take it back until it
should have a signature on it. Risse picked it up, turned, departed, and never
returned with the paper.²⁶

About this time, Joseph Smith III replied to his critics via a public
statement in the Nauvoo Democratic Press. He wrote:

In taking the head of the Mormon Church I am running counter to
the opinions of many people; but believing that "there is a destiny which
shapes our ends," I am contented to let those who are astonished and
opposed to such a measure, stand the test of time, and an opportunity for
reflection, satisfied that investigation will result in my favor.

To those familiar with the books upon which our faith is founded,
the bible being the ground-work, I have no apologies to offer, and to
those not familiar with them, and to those who do not believe them, none
is due.
I know that many stories are now being circulated in reference to
what will be the result of the step I have taken. I know that many
believe that I will emigrate to Salt Lake. To those who know me, it is
needless for me to say that I am not going to do any such thing while the
doctrine of polygamy and disobedience to the laws are countenanced
there; to those who do not know me personally, and to whom my
principles are unknown, I must say, withhold your censure until such time
as I shall, by some flagrant act of disobedience to the law of the land, or
some striking breach of morality, deserve the just indignation of society;
when I do either one or the other, I am ready for the opening of the vial
of wrath of outraged society, and shall cheerfully receive the
condemnation I shall merit.

He went on to say that readers of the Democratic Press who knew him
personally were well aware of his hostility to the "obnoxious features in Utah
Mormonism," and they could be assured that his future actions would conform to
those sentiments. Religious toleration, he reminded his readers, was a cherished
American principle, and he demanded his rights under the law so long as he
remained law-abiding. He asked to be judged by his deeds, not by rumor or
prejudice.²⁷

While Joseph Smith III was appealing to his neighbors to trust him as a man
known for morality, obedience to law, and reliability, the embers of Anti-
Mormonism were being stirred up in the rest of Hancock County. David Mack, a
prominent lawyer and Democratic leader in Carthage, was one of the ring-leaders.
In a letter to Jarius G. Stark of Augusta, Hancock County, Illinois, he summed up
the fears of the Anti-Mormons and their proposed strategy:

Dear Sir: It is represented to us by reliable citizens of
Nauvoo that about Two hundred Mormons are expected at Nauvoo within
a few days, where they intend to locate; and certainly will do so unless
some strong and unmistakable demonstration on the part of the people of
Hancock County, shall be made as soon as possible. It is represented to
us that George Edmunds has recently purchased some land in that place
near the steam boat landing on which these deluded or vilanious wretches
are about to be settled by him, as is supposed, greatly to his own
pecuniary advantage. Joab Green will probably be able to inform you
that Edmunds has expressed himself in favor of the settlement of
Mormons in this county.—There was Mormon preaching on Sunday last at
Nauvoo, and their intention to establish a church there was announced.—
Upon consultation with many persons it has been thought best to hold
meetings in every township in the county to denounce the return of the
Mormons and pass resolutions expressive of the feelings and wishes of
the people and of their determination that the evil of Hancock shall
never again be polluted by Mormonism.—A meeting for these purposes
was held last night in Warsaw and we will hold one here to night. Unless
this wicked scheme is soon abandoned and the people soon become
satisfied that the Mormons will stay away from our county you will see
the prairies on fire all over old Hancock with our universal blaze of
indignation and wrath which will surely consume the projectors of it. I
have had conversation with many persons and . . . there seems to be but
one feeling and one determination in every mind. Now will you not hold
a meeting at [your?] place as soon as possible for the purpose indicated
above, and start the thing in the adjoining Townships of Chili & S^T Marys.
Let the proceedings and resolutions of the meetings be reported in full
and published in all the papers of Hancock County and particularly the
paper at Nauvoo which is supposed to be friendly to the return of the
Mormons.²⁸

That evening, August 21, 1860, an "indignation meeting" was held in the
Carthage County Court House. The court room was packed. All political parties
were represented. David Mack explained the purpose of the meeting, and a series
of resolutions was adopted unanimously:

Whereas, a report is in circulation, that the Mormons have on idea
of returning to Nauvoo, in Hancock County, Illinois, for. the purpose of
re-settling at that place; which re-settlement in the unanimous opinion
of this community would be a great calamity to the future prospects of
said county; therefore,
Resolved, by this mass meeting assembled, without respect to
political parties, that we earnestly protest against the return of the
Mormons to Nauvoo: And that they will not be allowed by the people of
Hancock county, to return and make such settlement.
Resolved, that the secretaries of this meeting be directed to
forward without delay, a copy of the proceedings of this meeting to
Joseph Smith Jr.; and also to furnish one copy to each one of the
newspapers of Hancock County, with a request to publish the same.²⁹

Similar meetings were held in Montebello, on the 22nd of August, and
Basco, on the 25th. Both meetings passed similar resolutions to those adopted at
Carthage, with some additional material. The Montebello resolutions specified
that renewed Mormon settlement in the county would be a violation of the
agreement to leave the county and would endanger Hancock County's peace and
prosperity. The Basco resolutions condemned a return of the Mormons as "a
retrograde movement in the morals as well as a political curse to the
inhabitant[s] of said county." Both threatened the use of force to resist renewed
settlement of Latter Day Saints in the county and made pointed threats against
"Jacks" who sought to profit by a return of the Saints.

Joseph received varying pieces of advice. Some friends worried about his
safety. He was warned to be on his guard, to avoid traveling across the county,
and to be as quiet as possible. His brother-in-law, John J. Middleton, virtually
begged him to leave the county, out of fear for his safety. Others gave him
different advice. As news of the indignation meetings spread, various parties
approached him and told him not to worry, that they would support his right to the
free exercise of religion. Even some men who had been prominent Anti-Mormons
in the 1840s supported him. Thomas Sharp flatly refused to sign a threatening
letter which had been gotten up against Joseph Smith III. "No, sir;," he stated, "I
have lived through one Mormon war and certainly don't propose to get mixed up in
another!"

Several factors were operating in Joseph's behalf, which had not favored
his father. First, he was a long-time resident of the county, one who had gained
the trust and respect of his fellow citizens, even to the point of being elected to
public office by non-Mormons. Second, the nation's attention was riveted on the
opening phases of a far deeper internal conflict; the presidential campaign then
commencing would issue forth in civil war. Third, the old antagonisms had healed
over the years; the sources of conflict lay in memories of the past, not in present
conflict. Fourth, Hancock County had moved well beyond the "frontier" stage of
its history; there was greater respect for law, and fear of the consequences of
flagrantly violating another's religious and civil rights. Fifth, and last, Joseph
Smith III posed no threat—in reality, as opposed to the immediate misperceptions
—because he led no Nauvoo Legion, controlled no dominant bloc of votes, presided
over no economic colossus, harbored no real or imagined band of thieves and cut-
throats, and had no large following. As he was careful not to designate Nauvoo a
place of gathering, not to tell his followers how to vote, not to initiate secret,
esoteric rites, and not to embrace anything smacking of "spiritual wifery," the
perceived threat gradually faded away.

The meetings come to nothing. Rumors and threats died down. Sentiment
quieted. Joseph Smith III refused to be bluffed and courageously stood his ground.
As fall turned to winter, he continued to go about his business, unarmed and
unmolested. By 1861, his policy had succeeded.

The conclusion of this outcry in Hancock County was highly symbolic.
President Buchanan, only two years earlier, had sent Johnston's army to assert
federal authority in Utah Territory. During the Civil War, a garrison was kept
overlooking Salt Lake City, partially to control the Mormons, who were suspected
of disloyalty. Press, politicians, and religious leaders regularly attacked Brigham
Young, polygamy, and Mormonism in general. But in Hancock County, which
earlier had been the scene of a miniature civil war between Gentiles and
Mormons, all was quiet. Joseph Smith III pursued a policy of accomodation with
the Gentiles, rather than one of confrontation. Those among whom he had lived
for so many years recognized that here was a different sort of Latter Day Saint,
one who posed no threat. The prophet's son and the RLDS Church were seen as
different from the Utah Church. And in fact they were different; they were more
acculturated, more in tune with the dominant values of American culture, less
"sectarian," and closer in theology and praxis to the great body of American
Protestant churches. The cessation of the outcry in Hancock County also
represented a personal triumph for Joseph Smith III. His character was well
known for probity and sobriety. Repeatedly, throughout his career, his personal
integrity and sincerity won friends for his church, in contrast to the elders of the
Utah Church who were perceived by the public in anything but a wholesome light
for decades to come. ³¹

The New Prophet's Daily Routine

Joseph Smith Ill's daily life underwent no immediate transformation by
virtue of his having become president of the RLDS Church. The church's
membership was small—perhaps in the neighborhood of one thousand—and its
administrative machinery was rudimentary. The new prophet received no salary,
and his day-to-day ecclesiastical responsibilities consisted chiefly of attending to
correspondence and meeting occasional visitors. Initially he and his mother were
the only members of the church in Nauvoo, so there were no regular church
services.

A picture of his daily routine can be pieced together from his journals.³²
His principal source of income came from legal work. As a justice of the peace,
he conducted trials at his home. Larger cases were conducted at an office upon
the hill. Preparing and acknowledging legal papers also provided income. There
were daily chores to attend to, including animals to feed. Wood-chopping and
wood-hauling were frequent tasks, and every so often a load of hay or manure had
to be hauled. The pace of life was slow during the winter months, but during
spring the amount of work increased as the gardens around the Old Homestead had
to be prepared. First peas and radishes were sown, then onions and potatoes, and
finally melons and beans when the ground was quite warm. There were also fruit
trees and berries to be cared for. Additional work, while the river was free of
ice, came from loading barges with limestone from a local quarry. Joseph's
duties as a school director receive occasional mention, ranging from enumerating
the number of children in the city to working as a carpenter to repair the school
facilities. Wash days were a major undertaking for the woman of the house;
Joseph assisted and cared for the children, while Emaline washed. A less than
arduous form of work was fishing in the Mississippi River.

All was not work. Joseph frequently enjoyed a game of chess, as well as
working on chess problems. Playing checkers, cards, reading, smoking,³³ shooting
small game, and playing with the children were other diversions, as well as
loafing. An occasional visit to or from his cousins—the Salisburys or Millikins—
was a welcome treat, and so was taking a meal at the Mansion House. One
gathers that the frequent trips up the hill to take Emaline to visit her mother
were less welcome. Joseph enjoyed socializing with a variety of friends, his step-
father, and his brothers Fred and Alex. Reading about and discussing the great
political happenings of the day greatly interested Joseph.

All of these activities continued after 1860, as they had before. Prayers
were added to Joseph's routine. It would be interesting to know whether
Emaline—still an unbeliever—participated in these. Joseph carefully read the
fledgling RLDS monthly, The True Latter Day Saints' Herald. By the beginning of
1861, Joseph still preached only occasionally. In fact, many Sundays he remained
in Nauvoo and did nothing by way of church work. One important thing he did,
however, was to receive inquirers about the Latter Day work, such as John Shippy
and Ebenezer Robinson, and to win their allegiance. Joseph Smith Ill's affiliation
with the RLDS Church had not been precipitous, and his assumption of the reins of
power was equally deliberate.³⁴

Reaction of the Family

Initially, Joseph Smith III and his mother were the sole members of their
family to affiliate with the Reorganization. Major Bidamon was a self-proclaimed
skeptic and remained one until, as an elderly invalid, he expressed an interest in
religion. His adopted sister Julia's second husband was a Catholic and strongly
opposed to Mormonism. Julia become a convert to Catholicism and moved to St.
Louis with her husband.³⁵ Joseph's three brothers had never been baptized. The
first to receive that ordinance was the youngest. David Hyrum Smith, in October
1861. Each of the brothers had a distinct personality. David was tall and thin,
musical, poetic, artistic, and a lover of books. He was enthusiastic in the cause
and even wrote a poem chastizing his brother Frederick for not joining the
church.³⁶ When Brigham Young told the Utah Mormons not to look for Young
Joseph to become their leader, but that David H. Smith, the "son of promise," was
the man, David shot off a poetic retort.³⁷ He was ordained a priest in March
1863, and an elder in October of the same year. Thereafter he took up missionary
labors.³⁸

Frederick G. W. Smith was extremely close to his older brother, Joseph.
The two had been partners until financial reversals forced them to go their
separate ways. Fred was muscular and high-spirited. His personality was
effervescent and winsome. But religious questions did not trouble his merry soul.
Then tragedy struck. Late in 1861 he was taken seriously ill, and his wife
abandoned him. Around Christmas, Joseph removed Fred to the Mansion House,
where Emma nursed him. Fred died. unbaptized, on April 13, 1862. They buried
him in the family plot near the Old Homestead. Toward the end he had expressed
an interest in baptism, but had been too weak to be immersed.³⁹
Alexander Hale Smith, the smallest of the brothers, was nevertheless an
athletic outdoorsman. Never possessing the bookish interests of Joseph or David,
he revelled in his rod and gun and jackknife. If Frederick had been religiously
careless, Alexander was disinterested. "He cared nothing for religion, and besides
was of an extremely skeptical turn of mind.⁴⁰ The dangerous illness of his wife,
following the birth of their first son, January 19, 1862, and the subsequent death
of Frederick shook Alexander's soul. Confronted with death, he began to ponder
the questions of religion and the hereafter. Comforted by the assurance provided
by the Latter Day Saints' doctrine of baptism for the dead, that Fred's soul was
not damned, he embraced that faith. On the 25th of May, he was baptized in the
Mississippi River by Joseph Smith III. Contrary to his own expectations, he was
ordained an elder in 1864, and in 1866 he was appointed to carry out on important
mission to the west.⁴¹

Emaline Griswold Smith remained unconverted to her husband's faith. In
1863, Joseph wrote concerning her that she was "an unbeliever" who did not
sympathize with his religious endeavors.⁴² A visitor in December 1862 found
Emaline to be beautiful, intelligent, and kind-hearted, but also "a little proud,"
and apparently caring "but little for the truth." "Joseph never agitates her mind
on the subject, but leaves her to think for herself. She is no doubt a good wife,
and she treats the Saints well."⁴³

Reaction in Utah

Up until 1860, Brigham Young left the door open for Joseph Smith III to
come to Utah, cast his fortunes with that church, and assume a position of
leadership there. E. W. Tullidge, who before his apostacy from the Mormon
Church had known many members of the hierarchy and had done research in
sensative primary source-documents, commented:

In the earlier discourses of the President of the Twelve there are
many evidences, well marked, to justify the conclusion that had young
Joseph come up to him to claim his father's office, he, Brigham, would
have given him that office; thenceforth he would have stood to the son
as he had done to his father-as President of the Twelve.

Thus in fact has President Young positively declared his intention in
the most circumstantial words; and it is fairly due to him in history to
give the record of that intention without invalidating its integrity and
truth.

But there was in Brigham Young's mind attached an absolute and
irrevocable condition, which was that "Joseph's seed" should come to
himself as the Chief Apostle holding the keys to the kingdom. From his
hands Joseph II. was to receive his anointing, his ordination, his office.
The Prophet in his son must acknowledge on earth what the chief apostle
Brigham had done. With this condition obeyed, he, Brigham, would
faithfully keep his word and deliver up the "keys" unto Joseph to receive
them from him back to rule the Church as long as he lived, in Joseph's
name.⁴⁴

Brigham Young's counselor, Heber C. Kimball, declared on June 29, 1856,
that the prophet's sons yet would participate in the work of the kingdom: "At
present the Prophet Joseph's boys lay apparently in a state of slumber, every thing
seems to be perfectly calm with them, but by and bye God will wake them up, and
they will roar like the thunders of mount Sinai."⁴⁵ Brigham Young always claimed
that he was an Apostle, not a Prophet, Seer, and Revelotor;⁴⁶ there was always
the possibility of his stepping back into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles if one
of the prophet's sons should come to occupy the presidency. Only five weeks
before the Amboy Conference, Brigham Young remarked to his brother Phineas
that he believed the prophet's son yet would have a position of prominence in the
church.⁴⁷ Many Mormons in Utah entertained the expectation that one day Joseph
III or another of the prophet's sons would step forward to lead the church.⁴⁸

When word of his ordination at Amboy reached Utah, there were two
different reactions. A small minority-some dissatisfied with polygamy or other
aspects of life in Utah-rejoiced at hearing the news. The immediate reaction of
the majority was probably summed up in the letter of William H. Folsom,
informing Brigham Young of the event: "A strange affair indeed, the Lesser has
ordained the greater."⁴⁹ Aside from questioning the right of the Reorganization
to ordain Joseph Smith III, however, his affiliation with that group posed a serious
dilemma for Brigham Young. As one disaffected Utahn commented to Joseph
Smith III, after learning of the Amboy Conference, the members of the Utah
church had been "earnestly and anxiously watching for many years, for the Lord
through you, to make a prominent movement in the church. Brigham has
invariably taught the people that such would be the case in the own due time of
the Lord." The letter-writer entertained the hope that the majority of Mormons
in Utah would abandon the rule of Brigham Young and embrace the leadership of
Joseph Smith III.⁵⁰ Some sort of response to the Amboy Conference clearly was
required.

In a discourse at the Tabernacle, June 3, 1860, the president of the Mormon
Church continued to hold out hope that Joseph Smith III or one of his brothers
would come to Utah. He specifically disclaimed the idea that he was the
prophet's "legal successor:"

We are all the elect, if we will only keep the commandments of God
and work righteousness. If we turn away from the holy commandments
of the Lord, we shall be accounted as reprobates. What of Joseph
Smith's family? What of his boys? I have prayed from the beginning for
sister Emma and for the whole family. There is not a man in this Church
that has entertained better feelings towards them. Joseph said to me,
"God will take care of my children when I am taken." They are in the
hands of god, and when they make their appearance before this people,
full of his power, there are none but what will say—"Amen; we are ready
to receive you."

The brethren testify that brother Brigham is brother Joseph's legal
successor. You never heard me say so. I say that I am a good hand to
keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock. I do not care a groat who
rises up. I do not think anything about being Joseph's successor. That is
nothing that concerns me. I never asked yet, or had a feeling as to what
kind of great man, 0 Lord, are you going to make me? But, Father, what
do you require of me, and what can I do to promote your kingdom on the
earth, and save myself and brethren? I do not trouble myself as to whose
successor I am.⁵¹

However, as hope of Joseph Smith Ill's affiliating with the Utah church
faded, the reaction changed. First, it was felt necessary to provide some
indication of divine approbation attached to Brigham Young's presidency over the
church. Orson Hyde, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,
provided such an apologia. On October 7, 1860, he told a tale which long would
occupy a revered niche in Mormon holography. Alluding to the fact that many
aspirants to the presidency of the church had arisen over the years, he observed
that all their apologetic writings were characterized by "cold, dry, technical,
husky, and spiritless reasons . . . resembling the bile ejected from a disordered
stomach." But, argued Apostle Hyde, they lacked evidence of the Spirit. Brigham
Young, by contrast, had never "laboured to establish his right and claim to the
Presidency .... God pleads his own cause . . . ." He then told a tale of spiritual
manifestations at the time of Brigham's selection as president:

In the month of February, 1848, the Twelve Apostles met at Hyde
Park, Pottowattamie County, Iowa .... We were in prayer and council,
communing together; and what took place on the occasion? The voice
of God came from on high and spoke to the Council. Every latent feeling
was aroused, and every heart melted. What did it say unto us? "Let my
servant Brigham step forth and receive the full power of the Presiding
Priesthood in my Church and kingdom." This was the voice of the
Almighty unto us .... It has been said by some that Brigham was
appointed by the people, and not by the voice of God. I do not know that
testimony has often. if ever, been given to the masses of the people
before; but I am one that was present, and there are others here that
were also present on that occasion, and did hear and feel the voice from
heaven, and we were filled with the power of God_. . .

We said nothing about the matter in those times, but kept it still
[After seating myself in the stand, I was reminded of one circumstance
that occurred which I omitted in my discourse. Men, women and
children came running together where we were, and asked us what was
the matter. They said that their houses shook, and the ground trembled
and they did not know but that there was an earthquake. We told them
that there was nothing the matter-not to be alarmed; the Lord was only
whispering to us a little, and that he was probably not very far off. We
felt no shaking of the earth, or of the house, but were led with the
exceeding power and goodness of God.] We knew and realized that we
had the testimony of God within us. On the 6th day of April following,
at our Annual Conference, held in the log Tabernacle at Kanesville, the
propriety of choosing a man to preside over the Church was investigated
In a very few minutes it was agreed to, and Brigham Young was chosen
to fill that place without a dissenting voice, the people not knowing that
there had been any revelation touching the matter. . . .Brigham went
right ahead, silently, to do the work of the Lord, and to feed his sheep
and take care of them like a faithful shepherd, leaving all vain aspirants
to quarrel and contend about lineal descent, right, power, and
authority.⁵³

There are strong reasons for believing that Orson Hyde's account was an
apologetic invention. The Josephite publications reaching Utah claimed that their
president had been designated by scripture, revelation, paternal blessing, and later
tongues and prophecies. Hyde's account countered the RLDS position: the Spirit
had clearly designated Brigham Young as president; Contemporary journals do not
support Hyde's account of what took place in Iowa, and Wilford Woodruff and
Orson Pratt flatly contradicted its truthfulness.⁵⁴

Second, the focus of hope shifted from Joseph Smith III to his younger
brother, David Hyrum Smith. Joseph Smith, Jr. had introduced a series of secret
rites and instructions to a trusted group of associates in Nauvoo. One of the most
important was the marital rite of sealing for time and eternity. In 1843 Emma
Smith was sealed to Joseph for time and eternity and anointed to him as an
eternal wife, queen, and priestess. "Joseph taught that the first son born to a
couple after they entered into this new and everlasting covenant of marriage had
a special promise superior to any children not 'born under the covenant."'⁵⁴ When
he learned that Emma was pregnant, in 1844, Joseph Smith, Jr. had a premonition
that the child would be a son, a "son of promise."⁵⁵ He specifically desired that
the son should be named "David," because he would be a prince who would
exercise theocratic rule.⁵⁶Brigham Young more and more took the approach that
David H. Smith was the son of the prophet who would eventually lead the church.
This expectation was found as far away as Switzerland.⁵⁷ However, he insisted
that David also could become the leader of the Saints only by coming to Utah,
accepting the doctrines and ordinances of the LDS Church, and generally
accepting the prophet's legacy as transmitted through Brigham Young. ⁵⁸

As time passed, it became more and more obvious that David H. Smith
would not comply with such conditions. He wrote a poetic response to such talk:

Little Herald stop a moment
Ere you journey on your way;
I have something of importance,
That I wish that you would say,
Unto those who not contented,
With the leader God hath sent,
Still declare that I shall lead them,
Though I gave them no consent.

Go and tell them I am loyal,
To the counsels of the Lord;
Tell them I have no desire,
To dispute His mighty word.
Joseph is the Chosen Prophet;
Well ordained in God's clear sight,
Should he loose [sic] it by transgression,
Alexander has the right.

Joseph, Alexander, David,
Three remaining pillars still;
Like the three remaining columns,
Of the Temple on the hill.
Joseph's star is full and shining;
Alexander's more than mine;
Mine is just below the mountain;
Bide its time and it will shine.

. Shame then: work no more with Satan,
Tempt me not to leave this band,
For as long as we're united,
We in faith and strength may stand.
Go to Strang, and go to Brigham,
No false prophet make of me;
In the name of Jesus, Satan;
Get the[e] gone. It shall not be.

Little Herald, go and tell them,
To cast out this Devil dark,
Then come follow after Joseph,
And to truth and reason hark.
Bid them quit their evil dreaming,
Thus to mar my joy and peace,
And destroy me and my brother;
Bid these loud ones hold their peace.

Then thou Herald, come and tell me
What the poor deceived ones say;
Tell me if they are not willing,
To help Zion on her way,
And not strive to clog her rudder,
Cut her ropes, or strain her mast,
But "aboard and help cast anchor,"
That she may outride the blast.⁵⁹

Third, the Mormon population of Utah was strongly warned that members
of the Reorganization were apostates, and strong measures were taken to block
RLDS missionary efforts. Prior to 1863, there were no RLDS missionaries in
Utah. All word of the Reorganization had been conveyed via letters and the
printed page. Anyone interested in the Reorganization could only receive baptism
or find fellowship by leaving the Territory of Utah. In 1863 the first RLDS
missionaries arrived in Utah. Elders Edmund C. Briggs and Alexander McCord
made the long trek to Salt Lake City, arriving on August 7th. Four days later
they had an interview with Brigham Young at his office. Flanked by an array of
his most powerful associates, Brigham Young warned the intrepid missionaries of
the opposition they would face in Zion. The session was stormy. President Young
stated that:

he knew more of that family than they knew of themselves, that Emma
is a "wicked, wicked, wicked" woman and always was, that Joseph is
acting under the influence of his mother, that she is at the bottom of
this work, and our mission here, that the heavens have nothing to do with
that family at the present, but they shall be felt after in time, but they
are under the influence of the devil now, that all Joseph wants is to
associate with the murderers of his father, &c. He said, "I do not want
any of your preaching here or your doctrine, and I will immediately write
and advertise you and warn the people not to receive you or your
doctrine into their houses, and while I have influence over the Bowery
you cant hold meetings," and then he threw out some intimidations to us,
and gave us to understand we should be watched, that he wanted us to be
gentlemen, and other low insinuations.⁶⁰

The RLDS missionaries refused to be intimidated. Despite closed meeting
houses, ostracism of converts, and threats, they won converts. Some of the
Gentile element in Salt Lake City assisted them, and General Connor at Camp
Douglas offered protection to those who felt themselves in danger. However, the
early RLDS missionary efforts suffered from one fundamental problem which
would plague the RLDS Church in Utah for many years: their branch
organizations were unstable and frequently short-lived due to frequent emigration
of members. Converts to the RLDS Church found life in Utah uncongenial in the
extreme.⁶¹

Initial Steps toward an RLDS Theological Identity

During the Civil War years, missionaries carried the RLDS message to
many of those Saints scattered through the Upper Mississippi Valley who had
never accepted the leadership of Brigham Young. Missionary efforts were
extended beyond this area, to some Eastern cities, the West Coast, Utah, and
even to Great Britain, but the small size of the missionary corps and lack of funds
caused the church to focus its attention on those areas where the most immediate
results were realized. Latter Day Saints who had never affiliated with any of the
factions were proselyitized. Former Strangites, Rigdonites, Smithites, Wightites,
Baneemyites, Morrisites, and others were gathered into the RLDS fold. Some
Brighamites were won to the cause, as well. One of the more notable successes
was the conversion of the better part of Alpheus Cutler's followers to the
Reorganization. By the end of the Civil War, the RLDS Church was the only
viable alternative to the Utah Church, among Latter Day Saints."⁶²

The RLDS Church was composed of disparate elements. It was a home for
people who wanted to retain their identity as Latter Day Saints without having to
embrace the system of theology and practice found in Utah. But what precisely
was a "Josephite" Latter Day Saint? Certainly a Josephite was a non-Brighamite,
one who adhered to the leadership of Joseph Smith III and not Brigham Young.
But what else did it entail? The problem was compounded by the fact that Young
Joseph entered into the work with only rudimentary theological conceptions. It
was compounded additionally by the fact that the members of the church held a
variety of views among themselves. Both Joseph Smith III and his church spent a
period of years searching for more precise theological definition.⁶³

In contemplating joining the Reorganization, Joseph Smith III felt himself
confronted with what he called a "triangular problem."⁶⁴ The Reorganization
stood between the Utah Church on the one hand and the non-Mormon world on the
other. He realized that there was a dialectical tension to be resolved. The
Reorganization was neither fish nor fowl; it was something distinct. The young
RLDS president knew that acceptance of the principle of ongoing revelation set
his church apart from the popular Protestant denominations which held to a closed
canon of scripture, rejected latter-day revelation, and denied the necessity or
possibility of Joseph Smith's "Restoration of the Gospel." But his acquaintance
with the church's three standard works—the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine
and Covenants—convinced him that the Utah Church had fallen into false doctrine
and immoral practice.

At the Amboy Conference he confessed that he was not thoroughly versed
in the Latter Day Saint scriptures, but promised to remedy this deficiency. This
he set about doing during the relative quiet of his remaining years in Nauvoo. He
began to study all three sacred works, as well as those early Latter Day Saint
newspapers, pamphlets, and books which he could obtain.⁶⁵ Mastering these
works and defining a distinct RLDS theological platform seemed a formidable
task, at the outset. Nevertheless he made the effort, feeling it his duty:

. . . I knew that I had been divinely led to connect myself with the
Reorganization, earnestly engaged in trying to reassemble the scattered
elements of the church. Knowing this, I had faith to believe that there
was sufficient truth to be found in the Written Word, both ancient and
modern, to justify my belief in the religion of Jesus Christ as it was
revealed in the bible, in its revealment in the Book of Mormon, and in
the later revelations given to guide our church in its formative period. I
believed this truth was there, and thus it became my clear duty to study
these books, inform myself about the sacred reyealments, and to set
about this serious task with consecrated assiduity⁶⁶

He was confident that primitive Mormonism— minus "the grievous errors" which
had led to a grave apostacy from the true faith—was defensible. He felt an
assurance that whatever was true in Mormonism would abide, and whatever was
false would fail. He also felt confident that polygamy eventually would be tested
before the bar of justice and would be punished. He felt that his stance in
opposition to polygamy would be vindicated in the end.⁶⁷

Joseph Smith Ill's methodology determined his conclusions. By taking the
the three standard works as definitive, he automatically excluded those teachings
which his father had imparted orally—and often secretly—in Nauvoo and which
had never been canonized. By taking the written word as his standard, the
prophet's son as a matter of course excluded many Nauvoo developments and
reverted to the Kirtland period of Mormonism, when the prophet regularly
delivered revelations which were canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants.⁶⁸

By the time Joseph Smith III left Nauvoo, the RLDS Church had begun to
define itself vis-a-vis the Mormon Church on several counts. In many cases the
definition was embrionic, but the initial steps were being taken. The most
important such questions were polygamy and succession, but there were others as
well.

The question of polygamy. The RLDS Church was united in its
denunciation of polygamy. Hostility to plural marriage, rejection of Brigham
Young's leadership, and the doctrine of lineal succession in the priesthood were
the foundational stones upon which the Reorganization was built in the 1850s.
Joseph Smith III stood united with the rest of the church in his abhorrence of
polygamy, but with one great difference. As he declared at Amboy, he refused to
believe that his father had taught polygamy: "I believe my father was a good
man, and a good man never could have promulgated such doctrines."⁶⁹

Joseph Smith Ill's new approach was to go beyond mere opposition to
polygamy, to try to clear Joseph Smith, Jr. of any connection with its origin.
Within the general membership of the RLDS Church and within its leadership,
this was not generally accepted in 1860. The prevailing view was expressed in the
first number of the True Latter Day Saints' Herald, the official publication of the
church. William Marks wrote as follows:

About the first of June, 1844, (situated as I was at that time, being the
Presiding Elder of the Stake at Nauvoo, and by appointment the
Presiding Officer of the High Council) I had a very good opportunity to
know the affairs of the Church, and my convictions at that time were,
that the Church in a great measure had departed from the pure
principles and doctrines of Jesus Christ. I felt much troubled in mind
about the condition of the Church. I prayed earnestly to my Heavenly
Father to show me something in regard to it, when I was wrapt in vision,
and it was shown me by the Spirit, that the top or branches had
overcome the root, in sin and wickedness, and the only way to cleanse
and purify it was, to disorganize it, and in due time, the Lord would
reorganize it again. ... A few days after the occurrence, I met with
Brother Joseph. He said that he wanted to converse with me on the
affairs of the Church, and we retired by ourselves. I will give his words
verbatim, for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had
desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of
polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of the
Church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless
it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed
doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He
said that he would go before the congregation and proclaim against it,
and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against
those in transgression, and I must sever them from the Church, unless
they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was
the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few
days after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it.⁷⁰

In that same initial number of the True Latter Day Saints' Herald, editor
Isaac Sheen reprinted an article he had first composed in 1852. This article also
embraced the idea that Joseph Smith had been connected with the introduction of
polygamy into the church, but held that the prophet had repented of it before his
death:

The Salt Lake apostles also excuse themselves by saying that Joseph
Smith taught the spiritual-wife doctrine, but this excuse is as weak as
their excuse concerning the ancient kings and patriarchs. Joseph Smith
repented of his connection with this doctrine, and said that it was of the
devil. He caused the revelation on that subject to be burned, and when
he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his
enemies, he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he
also said, that if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife
doctrine, he would not have come to that. But his conduct at that time
he proved the sincerity of his repentance, and of his profession as a
prophet. If Abraham and Jacob, by repentance, can obtain salvation and
exaltation, so can Joseph Smith.⁷¹

Joseph Smith III later recalled that his view of the matter was definitely in
the minority. During the mid-1850s, he had formed his "outline casts of faith and
proceedure so far as doctrine was concerned," as a contingency in the event that
he should be called to take up his father's work. He based his decisions upon
spiritual manifestations and his sense of the Holy Spirit's guidance. "It is
possible," he reflected, "if the revelation of God had been made to me polygamic,
I should have been steeped ten wife deep in the 'Celestial' sweets of Matrimony."
But his spiritual course was set in precisely the opposite direction:

When my duty was made plain, and I was directed to the
Reorganization then already begun, I found its policy in some things, I
thought at fault—notably the admission that my father taught polygamy.
I found no proofs sufficiently clear to prove it to me. I adopted a
different theory, and was at first much decried for it. It was charged as
being the result of pride in family name.⁷²

Joseph Smith III stubbornly set about to rehabilitate his father's name.
Sometimes he was confronted with evidence difficult to reconcile with his
position. Former Apostle William McLellin, for example, wrote him a
disconcerting letter which contradicted some of the statements Joseph Smith III
had made at the Amboy Conference. McLellin attacked the statement that
Joseph Smith, Jr. was "a good man." McLellin—who shared the view that
polygamy was evil—challenged Joseph to ask his mother about the facts. If he
would do so, McLellin reasoned, she would tell him that his father taught and
practiced polygamy, produced a revelation to sanction, regulate, and establish it,
and that finally the revelation was burned before her very eyes by the prophet.

Emma could also relate a "rather black catalogue" of the prophet's doings dating
back to the days in Kirtland. "Your mother told me these items when I was in
Nauvoo," he defiantly asserted. Furthermore, William Marks could tell him that
the revelation had been read in the High Council, when Marks presided over it.
Basically, McLellin dared the young RLDS president to ask those who were older
and better informed about the subject. "Then, Sir," he wrote, "if you are honest
before the Heavens yourself, never, no never proclaim again publickly or privatily
[sic] that 'I believe my father was a good man', whilst the means to know his real
character lies so near You—even in the bosom & memory of your Mother!"⁷³ But
whether out of fear, timidity, a sense of delicacy, or respect for his mother's
feelings, Joseph never questioned her about the matter until the end of her life.
The extent of his discussions with William Marks or other old-time Nauvooans is
not known.

With those who could not contradict his position, he conversed freely.
Gradually he won converts to his point of view. For example, In December 1862,
before departing on a mission to England, Charles Derry visited Nauvoo. Derry
had been converted to Mormonism in England, immigrated to Utah, and left in
disgust at what he found there. He was converted to the RLDS Church in
Nebraska and soon became a tireless laborer in the cause. He knew he would face
questions about polygamy back in England and sought Joseph Smith Ill's counsel.
The young prophet replied:

Brother Derry, I was but about twelve years of age when my father
was killed, and I am not supposed to know all the privacies of my father's
family, but this I do know, that there were other females in Father's
family besides my mother. I knew them before my father's death, I knew
them two years afterwards, and I do know that during those years they
never bore children. Now the whole world knows that my father was a
proper man. My mother, of course, bore him children, and if these other
women had stood in the relation of wives to him, or had been used as
such, it is reasonable to suppose they too would have borne children.⁷⁴

Derry, who had never lived in Nauvoo, considered this answer decisive,
particularly in light of the Mormon claim that plural marriage was intended to
raise up "righteous seed." The question, "Where are the offspring?," was to
become a leading weapon in the RLDS apologetic arsenal.

For some time, anti-polygamic articles in the True Latter Day Saints'
Herald built upon the commonly-shared assumptions in the Reorganization, viz.,
polygamy was morally wrong; polygamy was contrary to the Bible; polygamy was
contradicted by the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith
III never forced others within the Reorganization to accept his point of view. He
was content to bide his time and slowly to win converts to his own position.⁷⁵

On May 2, 1865, a joint council of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First
Presidency discussed the question of polygamy. The minutes record:

The Question arose as to whether Joseph the Martyr taught the doctrine
of polygamy. President Marks said Brother Hyrum came to his place
once and told him he did not believe in it and he was going to see Joseph
about it and if he had a revelation on the subject he would believe it.
and after that Hyrum read a revelation on it in the High Council and He
Marks felt that it was not true but he saw the High Council received
it.⁷⁶

It is unfortunate that the minutes do not record which members of the RLDS
hierarchy held what views on the subject. But it is clear, as Richard P. Howard
has observed, that there was a polarity emerging among the leaders of the RLDS
Church over whether the battle against polygamy should also include attempts to
establish the innocence of Joseph Smith, Jr. with respect to its origin. "Joseph
Ill's stance, i.e., that his father had been a good man and therefore could not have
promulgated such doctrines, was inconsistent with the recollections of others of
his RLDS colleagues who had been adult members of the Nauvoo church."⁷⁷ In
1867, another joint council grappled with the issue and tabled a resolution denying
that Joseph Smith, Jr. was either "the author or excuser" of polygamy. The
resolution was tabled on the grounds that such an apologetic tack would be
counter-productive, "because of the almost universal opinion among the Saints
that Joseph was in some way connected with it."⁷⁸

Throughout the years of his presidency in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith III quietly
bided his time. As time passed, and he grew firmer in his control of the church's
administrative machinery, as the older generation gradually passed from the
scene, and as the number of members converted under his auspices grew, he
eventually would see his view of the matter triumph. But the time was not yet.

The question of succession. The doctrine of lineal succession had been the
second foundational doctrine of the Reorganization. Z. H. Gurley, Sr. continued
to champion this teaching in the 1860s, but, if possible, he was eclipsed in his zeal
by Isaac Sheen. When Sheen began editing the True Latter Day Saints' Herald in
1860, in Cincinnati, the paper was the only publishing endeavor of the church. As
such, it was extremely influential among the Reorganized Saints. Sheen, who had
mastered the arguments for lineal succession in 1849 and 1850 while editing the
Melchisedek and Aaronic Herald on behalf of William Smith, now reproduced and
elaborated upon all his old arguments. He ransacked the Bible, Book of Mormon,
Doctrine and Covenants, and Book of Abraham for evidence that both the
Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods had been handed down from father to son
from the time of Adam onward, and that this rule had applied in ancient Israel,
among the Nephites, in the primitive Christian Church, and in the last
dispensation.⁷⁹ In 1864 and 1865, Sheen broke new ground in his apologetic
efforts with a fanciful reinterpretation of the New Testament and Eusebius'
Ecclesiastical History, in light of the doctrine of lineal succession. First, he
anachronistically read Latter Day Saint ecclesiology back into the history of the
early church. Then he imaginatively demonstrated that James and John the sons
of Zebedee were actually brothers of Jesus. He was then able to argue that when
Jesus Christ had departed, James, John, and Peter constituted the First
Presidency of the Church, that authority having been passed on according to
lineage from Christ to his brother James. The martyr James, who presided over
the church at Jerusalem, was the same James who had been present upon the
Mount of Transfiguration. When James died, the presidency passed to John, and
when John died, it disappeared from the earth.⁸⁰ The Herald also carried the
familiar arguments of Z. H. Gurley on the subject, as well as others.⁸¹

The Herald exchanged fire with the Mormons in Utah on the question of
succession. Early in 1861 came a reply to Orson Hyde's conference address of
October 7, 1860. Sheen spent considerable effort in rebutting the argument that
the Spirit testified to the selection of Brigham Young as president of the church,
appealing to some arguments ad hominem as well as some more telling points.
How, asked Sheen, could Orson Hyde's testimony that the voice of God designated
Brigham Young president at Kanesville be relied upon? If true, why had the
testimony been withheld until I860? He challenged Hyde to name those people
who felt the ground tremble and heard the voice of God. Why should Hyde's
testimony be trusted, when the Utah apostles consistently had lied about
polygamy until 1852? The "voice," concluded Sheen, was nothing more than the
inner voice of those captive to the devil. The voting to accept Young as president
was a sham, because none dared oppose it, and the church so voting was not the
true church because captive to iniquity.⁸²

In June 1861, the Herald carried an anonymous letter from Utah, stating
that Brigham Young and his followers were now "preaching against young Joseph,
and the New Organization," saying that "Joseph is not the man, but David is the
man to lead this Church." Commented Isaac Sheen:

When Brigham and his colleagues organized their church, he
acknowledged that Joseph would take his father's place, and we are in
possession of good evidence that he said, (not much more than a year
since) "when Joseph comes out to take his father's place, he will come
out right." Brigham now repudiates the truths he has uttered concerning
Joseph, and says, "David is the man to lead this church."⁸³

The previous policy of ignoring the Reorganization was not working, in Sheen's
opinion, so it was now necessary to adopt more active counter-measures.
In April 1864, Sheen published a letter from James Burgess, stating that in
the confusion and disorder in Nauvoo, after the death of the prophet, "there was
an idea generally entertained by the saints, that Joseph's oldest son was the one
appointed to succeed his father as President of the whole church, and in
consequence of his youth they saw no alternative but to wait until the time
appointed by infinite wisdom."⁸⁴

What was remarkable about this polemical stance was the quietude of
Joseph Smith III. He spoke little about the subject during his final years in
Nauvoo. The readiness of other RLDS elders to speak about the question makes
his silence all the more perplexing, particularly since he spoke about it readily in
later years. This silence was a damaging strategic blunder in the RLDS struggle
with the Utah Church. The most advantageous moment for "Young Joseph" to
press his claims to leadership was at the beginning of his career, not years later.
In 1860 his position was novel; it attracted attention. There were those who until
recently had been led to believe he someday would lead the Utah Church. There
were others who remembered the general expectations concerning him in Nauvoo.
As years passed, these memories faded or became less important. With the
passage of time, Mormons came to view him not as the heir of the beloved
prophet, but as his wayward son. The year 1860 was the most opportune time to
press such arguments, but Joseph Smith III did not do so.

The reason Joseph Smith III said so little about the subject, during his
initial years as president of the RLDS Church, lay in his personality. Seeking
publicity, calling attention to himself, anything which smacked of self-promotion
or egotism, was alien to him. He was diffident about seeming to push his own
claims. With his legal training, he may have preferred to rely upon the testimony
of others concerning his calling, rather than emphasize his own testimony, which
might be regarded as self-serving. It took him some years before he felt
comfortable as a preacher, and this same self-consciousness lay at the root of his
diffident course. Naivete and inexperience also were factors, since Joseph once
told W. W. Blair that he hoped that those elders in Utah who knew of his setting
apart by Joseph Smith, Jr. would step forward and bear testimony. In later years,
he would know better.⁸⁵

Disbelief in his calling was not the cause of his relative silence. At Amboy
he stated that he came in obedience to a higher power. In his "First General
Epistle," dated July 19, 1861, he approached the subject negatively, arguing
against the series of claimants to Joseph Smith's mantle:

Almost every one of them, too, knowing the true order of the law,
claimed respectability, sanction, guardianship, regency, or a holding of
the rule subject to, and looking for a coming forth of one of the true
descent, to take a place in authority. Claims were made, in almost
every instance, that sooner or later, one of Joseph's sons would come
forth and unite his destinity with that particular faction.

Some acted, as they declared, with my knowledge and sanction;
some took upon themselves, by right, a guardianship over my spiritual
welfare, and dared to say with my approval; and still another, more bold
but scarcely less honest, claimed to receive letters from me, saying that
my mother's influence kept me from their midst—that I was with them in
faith, &c.

Now, be it known, that up to the spring of 1860, no faction of the
church, no claimant to the honors of leadership, no party or sect ever
received endorsement, sanction or authority from me. I never selected a
spiritual guardian, or appointed an agent, nor recognized any regency or
guardianship whatever; and that, at that time, I only acted as I was
impelled; that I acted by dictation, and that of no man; that I have kept
my own counsel . . . .⁸⁵

But as to his own right to the presidency, he declared, "Now I have not a word to
say in advocacy of my right, or my calling. I ask none to believe upon my say so;
let each and all examine carefully and without prejudice, asking his God for
wisdom to judge aright, and as I have said, so say I now, I have no fears as to the
result." When inquirers came to visit him in Nauvoo, and asked him why they
should believe he was a prophet, he told them to pray about the matter: God
would give them a testimony.⁸⁷ This, after all, had been the method by which he
had come to occupy the presidency, and he recommended it to others. As he put
it in the "First General Epistle," "I would not that men should hastily run without
tidings, nor do I ask that any should place the stake of their salvation upon an
earthly arm." Human testimony was insufficient; divine testimony was necessary.
Accordingly, when he did speak about the subject, he bore testimony that God had
called him to stand in his father's place.

The approach of Isaac Sheen and Z. H. Gurley, Sr. to the question of
succession, based on an accumulation of proof texts, might convince some, but it
was overly legalistic and based on a complex series of inductive and deductive
arguments. It did not rest upon an explicit dictum that Joseph Smith III should
succeed his father. The approach of Jason W. Briggs and Joseph Smith III,
emphasizing the inward testimony of the Spirit and spiritual signs, might convince
others, but followers of Brigham Young also could make such appeals. "Pray
about the matter," was hardly a conclusive argument. There was another
approach—readily at hand—which avoided the problems in both these approaches,
but it lay dormant until 1865.

W. W. Blair, a young and energetic RLDS apostle, pioneered this third
approach to the question of succession. In his missionary journeys he visited many
old Saints. More and more, he accumulated evidence that Joseph Smith, Jr. had
blessed his oldest son and designated him as his successor. These testimonies
came not from one faction, but from a variety of scattered sources. As he
traveled, he recorded the testimonies in his journal. In the October 1, 1865 issue
of the True Latter Day Saints' Herald, he put the testimonies in print. Here was
an appeal to authority which every Latter Day Saint would understand. The
prophet himself had set apart Young Joseph to be his successor. Blair recounted
the evidence. In Nauvoo, he visited the prophet's widow, and Sister Emma told
him that George J. Adams told her, in the spring of 1844, "The matter is now
settled, and we know who Joseph's successor will be: it's little Joseph, for we
have just seen him ordained by his father." In Alton, Illinois, James Whitehead,
formerly a clerk to the prophet, told Blair that shortly before his death the
prophet and others, in a council, anointed Joseph Smith III to be the prophet's
successor. Whitehead's testimony was the more convincing, since he named those
who had been present in the council. Whitehead also recalled that shortly after
this anointing, the prophet stated to the people from the stand that he was no
longer their prophet, placed his hand on Young Joseph's head, and said, "this is
now your prophet, I am going to rest"' In 1861 Blair was told by former members
of Lyman Wight's colony that "Lyman in their conferences took great pains to
teach them that young Joseph would yet lead the church; he said he knew it, for
when himself, with Joseph and Hyrum were in Liberty Jail, Mo., they put their
hands on the lad's head (then but 6 years old,) and the martyr then and there
sealed prophetically that calling and blessing upon him." Blair then placed Joseph
Smith Ill's testimony in evidence. This was the first time it appeared in print:

The first opportunity I had, I asked young Joseph if he remembered such
an occurrence [i.e., being blessed in Liberty Jail], he said he did not,
though he well remembered staying in the jail with his father and the
brethren while his mother was attending upon business in the town, but
he said he remembered being in a council in the spring of 1844, at
Nauvoo, and that his father declared to the council that he (young
Joseph) would be his successor in the leadership of the church. He
furthermore stated that G. J. Adams was in that council, with many that
are now in Salt Lake; that the reason why he had not made this matter
known before was, that he did not wish to be first and alone in bearing
witness to his own appointment, and that he had hoped that those in Utah
and elsewhere, who knew concerning this matter, would have come
forward and borne record of the fact.

Blair concluded his treatment of the succession by stating that some to whom he
related the above facts remarked that it was strange that Joseph Smith III had
waited until 1860 to step forward. This would be a frequently heard objection.
Blair replied, "It is no more strange than that David should be chosen of God and
anointed, many years before he was called to the active duties of his office, or
that John the Baptist should be ordained by the angel of God when he was only
eight days old ... ."⁸⁸

Blair's apologetic approach to the question of succession became a ready
weapon in the hands of RLDS missionaries. By the end of the century, it had
became an apologetic mainstay and a central point of contention between the two
churches. But for the moment, Joseph Smith III was still reluctant to utilize this
approach.

The question of loyalty. On one issue, during his presidency in Nauvoo,
Joseph Smith III was definitely the leader of the RLDS Church. This was the
question of loyalty to the federal government. During the Civil War, there was
considerable question raised in national political circles and in the press
concerning the loyalty of the Mormon leadership in Utah. Joseph Smith III was
determined that there should be no such confusion concerning the RLDS Church.
Joseph Smith III had always entertained a lively interest in political and
social issues. The presidential election of 1856 was the first in which he was
eligible to vote, and he cast his ballot for John C. Fremont of the young
Republican Party. He did not consider himself a Republican, however, for another
four years. Up until 1858, he entertained considerable sympathy for Stephen A.
Douglas, largely in gratitude for Douglas' assistance to his father in the 1840s.
However, in 1858, both Douglas and Lincoln spoke in Carthage. Lincoln impressed
him favorably, but he lost respect for Douglas when the Senator had to
discontinue his speech as the result of inebriation. During the 1850s, Joseph
increasingly found himself radicalized on such questions as the slave trade in the
District of Columbia, the Dred Scott decision, and the State of Illinois' Black
Code. Once when a fellow citizen was looking for a fugitive slave, Joseph
declared that if he came across the runaway he would give him some money and
help him make his escape. During the heated political discussions of 1860, he
declared that if given the choice between an educated, gentlemanly Negro or an
uneducated, profane Caucasian, he would prefer to vote for or be tried by the
black man. When his opponent in discussion retorted by questioning what he would
do if his daughter wished to marry a black man, Joseph bit the bullet and replied
that he would respect his daughter's wishes. In the 1860 election he voted for
Lincoln, and remained a lifelong Republican. His hostility to slavery, his New
England heritage, and his distaste for the character of many of the leading
Democrats in Hancock County all contributed to his decision. The pledge in the
Republican platform to extirpate the "twin relics of barbarism"—slavery and
polygamy—from U.S. territories doubtlessly made the new party even more
attractive in his eyes.⁸⁹

As the secession crisis of the winter of 1860 escalated into armed conflict,
Joseph watched developments with intense interest. His father had predicted, in
1832, that civil war would break out in South Carolina. He wondered whether or
not the prophecy would prove true.

Joseph Smith III became a strong advocate of the Union cause. In response
to President Lincoln's call for volunteers, a recruiting rally was held at the
Nauvoo City Hall, in the fall of 1861. Numerous speeches were made, but to little
effect. Enthusiasm was ebbing. Against his wishes, he was called to speak, to see
if he could kindle the flames of patriotism. He became carried away with
excitement and gave an impassioned patriotic oration. When he finished,
seventeen young men enlisted for service.⁹⁰

Soon he faced a dilemma, however. The war dragged on. He already had
committed himself to religious work, yet he felt the pull of patriotic duty. He
believed in the Union cause, yet his religion taught him that shedding innocent
blood was an unforgiveable sin. If he enlisted and killed a Southern soldier, would
he have committed that sin? If he and his able-bodied brothers failed to enlist,
what would neighbors think of them?⁹¹

Finally, after considerable prayer and discussion with others in the church,
he felt led to the following conclusion:

Do not enlist. Enlisting makes your military service an individual and
voluntary action, whereby you will be responsible for the blood you might
shed while in the service. Wait; if drafted, the responsibility is lifted. In
such case do not hesitate to take your places in the ranks and to do your
full duty as good soldiers and citizens, supporting the Government to the
best of your powers. In such an event do not shirk any duty the service
requires, even should it mean the shedding of human blood, for through
the conscription the deed becomes a national sin instead of a personal
one. The Nation as a whole will have to suffer for its sins, but you will
not be held personally under moral obligations in the matter if you do not
voluntarily enlist.⁹²

Toward the end of the war, Alexander H. Smith was drafted. He reported
for training, but was discharged without having to go to the front. Neither Joseph
nor David was conscripted.⁹³

The Mormon War of 1857-1858 had left doubts about the loyalty of Utah's
Mormon population, in the minds of many in the East. Federal officials had
reported a long series of disputes with the Mormon leadership, which was probably
inevitable, since the church in theory and in fact functioned as a state within a
state. With the advent of Civil War, many in Utah regarded Joseph Smith's
prophecy of 1832 as in the process of being fulfilled. It was expected that the
remainder of the prophecy, which foretold worldwide tribulation, would come to
pass shortly, and then the Millennium would begin. Some also viewed the conflict
as national atonement for the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. With the
removal of federal troops from Utah, in 1861, it was decided to reestablish the
State of Deseret, early in 1862. This church-dominated shadow government
coexisted alongside the regular territorial government for the next eight years.
To protect the overland mail and telegraph routes, guard against the Indians, and
to maintain federal presence in suspect Utah Territory, Lincoln ordered Colonel
P. Edward Connor's Third California Volunteers to the territory in 1862.
Throughout the rest of the Civil War, Connor's troops kept watch over Salt Lake
City from the heights of Camp Douglas, east of the city. An often acrimonious
truce was maintained between Federal and Mormon authorities for the duration of
the war.⁹⁴

Brigham Young also was angered by the passage, in 1862, of the Morrill
Anti-Bigamy Act by the Republican-dominated Congress. This act levied
penalties against anyone practicing plural marriage in federal territories.⁹⁵
Republican doctrine held no sympathy for Democratic notions of popular
sovereignty in the territories. Republicans in Washington might legislate against
the second "relic of barbarism" as well as the first. Brigham Young, in anger,
publicly berated the "rank, rabid abolitionists whom I call black-hearted
Republicans," whom he blamed for meddling in Utah's affairs as well as bringing
on the Civil War. Unsympathetic to slavery, Young was deeply suspicious of
abolitionists. Suspicious of the Republicans in Washington, he nevertheless
continued to push for Utah's admission into the Union.⁹⁶

While many denominations were split asunder by the Civil War, and while
the Mormons under Brigham Young viewed the armed struggle with decidedly
mixed emotions, the RLDS Church enthusiastically declared its support for the
Union. Without a southern constituency, this produced little conflict. The Annual
Conference of 1863 directed a committee to draft an article explaining the
church's views on loyalty. Joseph Smith III, Jason W. Briggs, and W. W. Blair
performed this task. Entitled, "The Declaration of Loyalty to the Government of
the United States, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints," it was
published in the True Latter Day Saints' Herald the following month. "When it is
admitted, and indeed declared, that South Carolina and the Southern States are in
rebellion, it is easy for us to tell where our government is," they reasoned. They
declared rebellion against lawful authority to be a sin and obedience a duty. "The
fact is, God has always called his people to peace—to be obedient to kings,
governors and rulers in general, except when they dictate in matters of religion—
in matters pertaining to the salvation of the Soul." The duty of every Saint, they
concluded, was to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's, and to pray for
those in authority.⁹⁷

Unfortunately, little has survived to indicate Joseph Smith Ill's view of the
Morrill Act, at the time of its passage. One brief reference in a letter written in
1863 indicates that he hoped enforcement of the federal legislation would bring
about a crisis in Utah's affairs which would result in elimination of polygamy, if
not the rule of Brigham Young.⁹⁸

The question of ordaining Negroes. Joseph Smith, Jr. left a confused
legacy for his followers concerning Negroes. On the one hand, several passages in
Latter Day Saint scriptures teach that dark skin is a mark of divine displeasure,
and Joseph Smith strongly dissociated the Saints from abolitionism. But on the
other hand, Mormon scriptures contain egalitarian passages which make it clear
that salvation is universally available, regardless of race. One passage in the
Book of Mormon repudiated slavery. The revelation of December 25, 1832
foretold civil war in America, which would be accompanied by slave uprisings.
While no abolitionist, Joseph Smith proposed various ways in which slavery might
be eliminated.⁹⁹

Joseph Smith's ecclesiastical policy toward blacks was likewise ambivalent.
On the one hand, the church had Yankee roots and drew its converts largely from
the Northern states and Europe. There were few black members. To avoid
troubles in the South, Joseph Smith instructed missionaries not to ordain blacks to
the priesthood or to baptize slaves without their masters' permission. He is
reported to have said, "the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor
cannot hold the Priesthood." When Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham,
in 1835, it contained a passage denying that the descendants of Ham could hold
the priesthood, because they were a cursed race. On the other hand, Joseph Smith
permitted his Negro friend Elijah Abel to be admitted to the priesthood in 1836
and to be ordained a Seventy in 1841. The prophet was inconsistent. ¹⁰⁰

Under Brigham Young, the Mormon Church perpetuated the racist aspects
of Joseph Smith's teachings. Brigham Young publicly proclaimed that a man with
African blood in him could not hold the priesthood. The black race was held to
rest under a divine curse. Negroes could be baptized into the church, but could
not receive ordination as priests. ¹⁰¹

Joseph Smith III inherited the egalitarian aspects of his father's legacy.
Before his father's death, the lad had studied his father's views on government,
which were sympathetic to the plight of the slave. He had observed his father's
humane and anything but racist treatment of various black people. As he grew up,
he found himself more and more radicalized on the question of freeing the
slaves. ¹⁰²

As the Civil War wound down, the question of the status of Negroes
naturally addressed itself to the RLDS Church. At a joint council meeting of the
First Presidency and Twelve, on April I, 1865, Apostle John Shippy raised the
question whether it was permissible to ordain Africans to the priesthood. The
question was also raised whether a Saint could be ordained without a favorable
vote of the branch in which he held membership.¹⁰³ No decision was reached.
The next evening, however, at a prayer meeting, Joseph Robinson spoke in
tongues. Joseph Smith III interpreted the tongue and said "we would have peace
for a season & that the prejudice of race color & caste would be done away among
the Saints and that every nation and people would soon have their gospel
ministers."¹⁰⁴

In the coming weeks, it became increasingly obvious that the Civil War had
been decided. On April 4th, the soon-to-be-assassinated Abraham Lincoln toured
the captured Confederate capital, Richmond, Virginia. Later in the month, Lee
surrendered to Grant, and Johnston surrendered to Sherman. Jefferson Davis was
in flight with the Confederate treasury. Would the RLDS Church move, with the
nation, to recognize the altered status of blacks?

At the beginning of May, in another council meeting, the question was
canvassed. A resolution was offered, "that the gospel makes provision for the
Ordination of men of Colour who are received into the Church." Apparently there
was division of opinion within the council, because a substitute resolution was
passed: "Resolved that we refer the question respecting the ordination of men of
Colour to the Lord and that we come together fasting and praying that God may
reveal His will on this matter unto us through His servant Joseph."¹⁰⁵ After time
to reflect, pray, and sleep, Joseph Smith III returned to the council on May 4th
with a revelation which stated, in part:

Concerning the Matter you have asked of me: Lo it is my will that
my Gospel shall be preached to all nations in every land, and that men of
every Tongue should minister before me; Therefore it is expedient in me
that you ordain priests unto me of every Race who recieve [sic] the
teachings of my Law and become heirs according to the promise.
Be ye very careful for many elders have been ordained unto me and
are come under my condemnation by reason of neglecting to lift up their
voices in my cause ....

Be not hasty in ordaining men of the negro race to offices in my
Church, for verrily I say unto you all are not acceptable unto me as
servants, nevertheless I will that all may be saved, but every man in his
own order and there are those who are chosen instruments to be
ministers to their own race[.] ¹⁰⁶

The question of segregated congregations was addressed the following year.
An informal council of the Twelve Apostles met prior to conference. A resolution
was adopted stating that "the Author of Life and Salvation does not discriminate
among His rational creatures on account of colour neither does the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," and it was agreed to place the matter before
the conference.¹⁰⁷

At this time, neither the Utah Church nor the Reorganization had
canonized the Book of Abraham. The Utah Church eventually canonized the Book
of Abraham, with its curse upon the Hamitic peoples. But with Joseph Smith Ill's
revelation of May, 1865, the Book of Abraham rapidly fell into eclipse within the
RLDS Church.

Under the leadership of his son, the Reorganized Church was true to one
aspect of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s racial legacy. Under the leadership of Brigham
Young, the Mormon Church was true to another aspect of that legacy.
Throughout the lifetime of Joseph Smith III, the two churches would remain poles
apart on this question.

The question of democratic church government. The RLDS Church, under
Joseph Smith Ill's presidency, operated in a more democratic fashion than the
Mormon Church in Utah. There were several reasons for this.

In the first place, the Reorganized Church had operated for the better part
of a decade, until April 1860, without a president and prophet. This vacuum at
the apex of the hierarchy inevitably fostered a more democratic method of
conducting business at conferences, whereas Mormon tradition called for
unanimous votes to sustain positions already determined by the hierarchy.
Without a First Presidency, conferences became the highest authority in the
church. Vigorous debate became an accepted tradition. Disagreement with the
majority was not viewed as grounds for excommunication.

In the second place, Joseph Smith III was democratic both by temperament
and conviction. He was approachable and affable. He had no lordly spirit about
him. His years in Nauvoo—as a member of a despised minority—had taught him to
respect the rights of minorities and to value freedom of thought and expression.
His years among the Gentiles had also taught him how to guard his tongue, how to
conceal his emotions, and how to proceed deliberately, even cautiously. These
qualities made him an excellent presiding officer, especially, when debate was
intense. One thing he insisted upon was that good order be observed in debate.
He never held it against a member for voting contrary to his own sentiments.
Sometimes he even found his brother Alexander voting on the opposite side of a
question. Doctrinally he was willing to tolerate a certain latitude of opinion
within the church. ¹⁰⁸

In the third place, the Reorganized Church was pluralistic by design. It
aimed to reunite in one flock the scattered sheep of Israel who had followed so
many different shepherds since 1844. Members of the different factions
inevitably brought with them a variety of views and expectations. Hence,
toleration of diversity was both wise and necessary.

In the fourth place, the relatively liberal spirit of the Reorganization was
one means whereby it distinguished itself from the Utah Church. Liberality
became part of its identity, in contradistinction to the Mormons of Utah. The
True Latter Day Saints' Herald kept up a constant criticism of intolerance and
"oppression" in Utah. ¹⁰⁹ A particularly inviting target was the financial status of
the Utah hierarchy. Brigham Young, it was claimed, lived in luxury while the poor
were taxed and tithed mercilessly. "Wealth and power, rule and dominion, are the
only objects in view," it was claimed. ¹¹⁰ Stories of those who had left Utah in
disillusionment were publicized. Ex-Utahn Charles Derry claimed that the settled
policy in Utah was "oppression, ambition, gold and lust."¹¹¹ The secrecy of the
temple rites was criticized.¹¹² when E. C. Briggs and Alexander McCord began
RLDS missionary work in Utah, they found the meeting houses closed to their
preaching. RLDS apologists complained about this policy for decades.¹¹³ On
occasion, the missionaries faced physical intimidation in Utah, and the
Reorganized Saints were quick to raise the cry of persecution¹¹⁴ Willingness to
open their own meeting houses to others and willingness to debate with other
denominations became hallmarks of the RLDS Church under Joseph Smith Ill's
presidency. A relatively impoverished hierarchy and an aversion to anything
smacking of clerical dictation in politics¹¹⁵ likewise became RLDS distinctives
vis-a-vis Utah. After leaving Utah, Charles Derry was particularly impressed
with Joseph Smith III, because of the great contrast he observed between the
RLDS president and the Utah hierarchy: Joseph was no power-seeker, he
concluded. ¹¹⁶

The question of tithing. The question of tithing was closely connected to
the foregoing question of democratic church government. The Doctrine and
Covenants required the Saints to tithe, ¹¹⁷ but the manner in which that law would
be applied was of extreme concern to the early members of the Reorganization.
Earlier experiences of the Saints in consecrating or tithing their substance to the
Lord had left some bitter memories. Ex-members of the Utah church felt that
Brigham Young used the tithes for personal aggrandizement. ¹¹⁸ As practiced in
Utah, Mormons were expected to tithe one tenth of their gross income to the
church.¹¹⁹ However, there was precedent in the Doctrine and Covenants for
regarding tithing as an initial consecration of one tenth of all that one possessed
with an annual tithe of one tenth of all one's increase. Different interpretations
of this law were widely discussed in the RLDS Church. In 1861, the Twelve and
Joseph Smith III called for the Saints to resume tithing. They endorsed the
interpretation that tithing was to be an initial consecration of one tenth of one's
substance, followed by periodic donations of one tenth of one's "surplus" (net
income after necessities; net increase). Responsibility for administering the law
of tithing was diffused rather than concentrated. Joseph Smith III wrote a
warning against self-aggrandizement, "be he whomsoever he may be." ¹²⁰ He
later recalled the conditions which brought forth this warning:

There had grown up in the minds of those with whom the Reorganization
movement began a strong and active repugnance to the idea of what was
called a "one-man" rule or power. The history of the church had shown
that the policy of having the church properties held by a trustee-in-trust
had in some ways and under certain influences been made an instrument
of oppression upon the people. The serious question in the minds of the
Saints was, Will there occur in the Reorganized Church a repetition of
such experience?

Thus it was that this revelation, placing as it does responsibility for
the execution of the temporal law upon others besides the President or
Presidents of the Priesthood, was timely and contributed to the spirit of
confidence needed. ¹²¹

Various questions concerning the exact mode of administering the law of
tithing continued to agitate the Reorganized Church for years. But its
fundamental direction, in distinction to the Utah Church, was firmly set. To this
day, the RLDS Church is relatively poor, open, and democratic in its financial
administration. The Utah Church is wealthy, secretive, and authoritarian by
contrast.

Assorted other questions. By rejecting plural marriage, the Reorganized
Church deliberated stepped backwards from what one scholar has termed "the
Nauvoo experience." ¹²² in doing so, certain corollary doctrines, beliefs, and
practices became vestigial remnants. The Reorganization did not set out to
abandon them, but gradually they became superfluous. The beginnings of this
process can be seen during the first six years of Joseph Smith Ill's presidency.

The doctrine of plurality of gods was widely held early in the history of the
Reorganization. The Utah Mormons held that celestial marriage was the sine qua
non for future exaltation to godhood; there were myriads of spirits in the universe
at varying stages of progression along the ladder to godhood. Belief in a plurality
of gods was integral to the Mormon system. But because some early members of
the Reorganization remembered Joseph Smith's teachings—in the Book of
Abraham, the King Follett Discourse, and in his revised translation of Genesis-
concerning plurality of gods, they did not reject the concept immediately, despite
its logical connection to polygamy. Isaac Sheen cited the Book of Abraham as
scriptural authority, reprinted it in the True Latter Day Saints' Herald, and later
offered it for sale as a pamphlet.¹²³

At a joint council of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, May 1
through 5, 1865, two anomalous positions were adopted. Joseph Smith III told the
council that "some teach that [polygamy] will yet be a law of this Church," and
requested the brethren to condemn it, which they did unanimously.¹²⁴ Later he
proposed for discussion the question, "Are there a plurality of Gods?" Apostle W.
W. Blair took the lead in advocating the doctrine. After discussion, a resolution
was passed affirming belief that "the doctrine of the plurality of Gods is
scriptural."¹²⁵ Whether Joseph Smith III understood this to mean myriads of gods
is not known. In later life he defended the idea, found in Latter Day Saint
scriptures, that there are two personages in the godhead, God the Father and
Christ the Son. One episode in his memoirs shows that he held such a view in
1863.¹²⁶ Perhaps it is in this limited sense that he could accept the council's
resolution.

Brigham Young gave a peculiar twist to the doctrine of plurality of gods.
In conjunction with the LDS doctrine of eternal progression and belief in sealing
of children to parents (eventually to form a great celestial chain from the first
generation to the last), he developed the idea that Adam was God. This Adam-
God doctrine never received universal acceptance in Utah, although those who
could not accept it were wise not to publicize their views. Later leaders of the
Utah Church repudiated the doctrine, which was too clearly at variance with LDS
scriptures. This peculiar doctrine was rejected and condemned by the
Reorganization from the beginning, since it had developed after the Mormons
reached the Great Basin. ¹²⁷

Connected with the doctrines of celestial marriage and exaltation to
godhood were certain temple rites inaugurated by Joseph Smith. In the first
Mormon Temple, at Kirtland, washings and anointings were introduced. The
Doctrine and Covenants included references to these ceremonies and to an
"endowment" from on high. The Doctrine and Covenants also included references
to temples. ¹²⁸ The Reorganized Church did not repudiate belief in temples or
temple rites. But they possessed no temple and performed no washings or
anointings. There was a general expectation that the Lord would gather them to
Jackson County, Missouri, soon, and that a great temple would be built there. The
whole question of temples and temple ceremonies tended to be deferred into the
future.

The Reorganized Church soon developed a hostile attitude toward the more
highly developed rites which had been introduced in Nauvoo. These rites—
including secret passwords, secret grips, secret oaths, enactment of scenes from
sacred history, sacred garments, sealing in marriage for eternity, sealing of
children to natural or adopted parents for eternity, etc.—had been taught and
practiced secretly in Nauvoo but never had been canonized. Already during the
early years of Joseph Smith Ill's presidency, there were moves to dissociate the
Reorganization from these practices. ¹²⁹ In later years, the repudiation would
become explicit.

One temple rite which the Reorganized Church did not repudiate under
Joseph Smith Ill's presidency was baptism for the dead. In the first place, the
doctrine had been canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants. ¹³⁰ In the second
place, it had been practiced for a time in Nauvoo. Emma Hale Smith had been
baptized for a number of her dead relatives. ¹³¹ In the third place, Frederick G.
W. Smith had died unbaptized, and the family had taken comfort in the thought
that he could be baptized vicariously, when God again permitted such baptisms.
In the fourth place, the doctrine had no logical connection with polygamy,
plurality of gods, or the more esoteric temple ceremonies.

Winding up in Nauvoo

Following his initial enthusiasm for gathering the Saints to Nauvoo or some
other location, Joseph Smith III developed an extremely cautious attitude toward
the gathering. His experiences with Major Bidamon and others taught him to
beware of speculators who would attempt to use the Saints to their own
advantage. His experience with the indignation meetings in Hancock County
taught him that better relations with the Gentiles might be fostered by not
gathering to one location. During his early travels in the 1860s he observed
numerous instances of Saints who were careless in their financial affairs because
they expected to return to Jackson County imminently. He began to warn the
Saints against such carelessness. Buy land where it was cheap, put down roots,
make improvements, and await the Lord's good pleasure was his advice. When the
proper time came to gather, God would reveal it. ¹³²

Gradually a small branch of Saints grew up in Nauvoo. A number of Saints
did gather there from other locations. For a time services were held in the rented
premises of Benjamin Austin. When this was outgrown, they moved to the old
William Marks home. Then a meeting place was fitted up in the Red Brick Store.
By 1864 the branch had grown to seventy-five members.¹³³ Joseph, Alexander,
and David received valuable ministerial training by preaching in Nauvoo and the
surrounding countryside.

At first Joseph felt a certain diffidence about preaching. Distractions
could cause him to lose his concentration. For many years he felt uncomfortable
when preaching in a new place before strangers. But gradually he overcame his
inhibitions and gained in confidence and experience as a preacher.¹³⁴

Additional children were born to Joseph and Emaline: Carrie Lucinda
(1861), Zaide Viola (1863), and Joseph Arthur (1865). Emaline did not possess a
robust constitution, and after the birth of Joseph Arthur her health began to
decline. ¹³⁵

From his quiet pace in the early days of his presidency, Joseph Smith III
gradually took on more and more responsibilities. He presided at conferences,
attended to correspondence, presided for a time over the local branch and
district, and traveled about on short missionary journeys.

The two most important ways the Reorganized Church spread its message
were through the preaching of traveling elders and distribution of the True Latter
Day Saints' Herald. In 1863, editor Isaac Sheen had moved to Plano, Kendall
County, Illinois, where the church had located its first press. The church was not
content to have an individual member solely in charge of this important organ,
and early insisted that Joseph Smith III assume supervisory responsibility. In 1865
the Annual Conference went farther and directed that he move to Plano and
become editor of the Herald and manager of the Herald Office. ¹³⁶

Joseph had proven a point by staying in Nauvoo. He was a free citizen and
he asserted his right to live where he pleased and to practice his own religion. He
had continued to hold the confidence of his fellow-citizens and had been re-
elected Justice of the Peace in 1862 by a two-to-one margin. He had promised
George Edmunds he would stay five years, to see if Nauvoo might prove a good
location for the Saints. The time had expired, and Nauvoo had failed the test.
Those few families of Saints who had moved to Nauvoo found it economically
disadvantageous. The value of land continued to decline, and they saw their
investments slipping away. Gradually the Saints moved away again.¹³⁷

The time was right for Joseph to move, as well. The railroads had by-
passed Nauvoo. It was isolated and stagnating. He was ready for a more active
role in the work as editor of the True Latter Day Saints' Herald. He had studied
the church books and felt confident in the RLDS position.¹³⁸ His apprenticeship
was over.

Joseph made preparations for the move to Plano. He resigned his office as
Justice of the Peace. The household goods were packed and sent on to Plano.
After a brief visit with the Millikin relatives in Colchester, the Smith family
boarded a train for Plano. A new chapter in Joseph's life was about to begin.¹³⁹

© Copyright by Charles Millard Turner 1985
All Rights Reserved