B (57:17)
Okay. All right, Elder, Now I know where this is really coming from. And we think you should contact us with all of your dating questions since we are not qualified in any way to handle them. Clearly a friend of his that he, you know, he knows from back home, and this person's been arguing to him that. That Brigham Young was not the rightful heir of Joseph Smith and this was the quote they, their, their friend sent them. And he said, look, I don't have the ability to look any of this up because I'm not. I'm a missionary. Basically, there were like three or four different times and places where Joseph Smith did the laying on of hands to bless and designate his son. That'd be Joseph Smith III as his successor or said that his son would succeed him. One place I know of is Liberty Jail. And another was the temple lot in Nauvoo with 3,000 witnesses where he answered a question about if he were to die, who would succeed him. And he pointed to his son and said that he would. This is a citation from Thomas Bullock's journal. A Blessing by Joseph Jr. To the young Joseph on the 17th of January 1844, to be my successor to the presidency of the high priesthood, a seer and revelator and prophet unto the church, which appointment belongeth to him by blessing and also by right. This is from a paper analyzing it. So, you know, clearly his friend is presenting this argument that, you know, Joseph Smith III was supposed to be the follower of the church. And obviously the friend is not, you know, some kind of PhD historian. And they're just having this discussion. But first and foremost, one of the things that jumps out is 17 January 1844. That's because this document, supposedly from Thomas Bullock's journal, which it was never from his journal, is purported to be from his papers, but in his handwriting is actually one of the Mark Hoffman forgeries. And it's been known as a forgery for 24 years at this point, 25 years. So I don't know if the friend was reading a really, really, really old article where that was discussed or they were using chat GPT and chat GPT because it can't tell the difference between a source that's real and one that's fake, pulled that up as proof that Joseph had blessed his son to be the successor. But that one, first of all is 100% fraudulent. It is the listed known Hoffman forgeries. Even though, you know, it might say what people want to hear. The another in this line of questioning. Right. Another was the temple lot, Nauvoo with 3,000 witnesses. I think where this comes from is actually not the temple lot in Nauvoo. This is from the temple lot trial, which also has a lot to do with plural marriage. So sorry for everybody, you know, ended up talking about it again. But what happened is the reorganized church and another church were disputing who had rightful ownership of the Original temple lot in Jackson County, Missouri. And it went to multiple court cases. And the Hedrickite church that possessed it was refuting claims by the Reorganized Church that the Reorganized Church rightfully should have owned it as the rightful successor from Joseph Smith. And so that's why this all came up. Well, there is someone in. In the. That trial who does make the claim that Joseph Smith said that. That his son would be the successor were anything to happen to him. The problem is that person in that trial also apparently is saying things that we know at one point they refuted. So this person, their name's James Whitehead. He says, I recollect a meeting was held in winter of 1843, prior to Joseph's death, where the appointment was made by him, Joseph Smith, of his successor. His son Joseph was selected as his successor. Joseph did the talking. So I think that's what the friend means when they say at the Nauvoo Temple lot. I think what they mean is it's from the temple lot case, which is an 1892 case, a court case in which this testimony is given. The problem is, part of this testimony also includes things like the doctrine of polygamy was never taught by the elders or high priests or by any other person or persons of authority in that church. The doctrine of polygamy was. Has never been, to my knowledge, taught or practiced by any person in the Reorganized Church because we did not believe in it. And if anybody has taught or practiced it, they'd been cut off mighty quick. So he makes a claim that it was never, ever, ever taught. Well, the reason why that's a dubious claim is the same person, James Whitehead, actually is recorded by leaders of the Reorganized Church stating that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. So, I mean, that is kind of a problem, right, because, you know, he says that it never happened, but he also is a person who changes that opinion. Right. So he gives different. He gives different accounts when it comes to plural marriage. So look, is it a source? Yes. Is it a very difficult source? Yeah, because, you know, in 1864, he tells Alexander Hale Smith, another, you know, child of Joseph Smith, that in fact, Joseph had taught and practiced plural marriage. And that is, you know, a. A demonstration that at least some part of his testimony is not really accurate. It was never, ever, ever taught. Joseph never taught it. But you yourself are at an earlier point in your life telling people that Joseph did teach it. So there's some discrepancy there. This is another example, of course, where you can go through all of this and make all kinds of Arguments. Is it possible that Joseph designated his son to be successor? Of course it's possible. But the real determination of whether or not that took place, the real determination of which church is following what Joseph Smith taught, can really just be done by examining what Joseph Smith taught. And you don't even have to go very far. Joseph Smith loved and repeatedly taught the doctrine of baptism for the dead and work for the dead. Repeatedly, over and over and over again. Multiple letters to individuals in the church, multiple letters to the church, multiple things that are in the doctrine of covenants, revelations surrounding it, ideas about it, descriptions of it, the entire purpose of building the temple with the oxen basin in the basement for the baptisms. There is no way to make a historical argument that Joseph Smith was not certain that baptisms for the dead were an essential part of the gospel. So which church practices baptisms for the dead? It's a very easy question to answer. It's also very clear that Joseph Smith believes that other temple ordinances are essential for exaltation. There are hundreds and hundreds of documents that relate to Joseph Smith teaching this, including his Doctrine and Covenants, Section 124, which is a gigantic revelation talking about the essential nature of the temple, the essential nature of the work done in it, the essential nature of washings and anointings, of endowments, of the. The work for the dead. Why is Joseph saying that we cannot be made perfect without our dead and our dead cannot be made perfect without us? Why is he teaching this if temple work and work for the dead is not essential? Now, I understand someone can argue who's from one of these groups. Well, yeah, I know Joseph said that, but I don't think that was essential doctrine. I think he was just being experimental in his theology, and I think he just was saying things that, that, you know, he was just speculating, but it wasn't actually essential. Okay, I understand why you believe that, and I understand that it's fine to have that belief, but there's no way to argue that that belief, a rejection of current practice of baptism for the dead, that that comes from Joseph Smith. There just isn't. All kinds of discussions can be had about whether or not Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. But even scholars from the Reorganized Church, from the community of Christ, they will say it's clear that Joseph Smith did teach and practice plural marriage. So even anyone who's making the argument inside of that faith tradition is making the argument in opposition to what their own scholars have admitted. Again, you can say, well, but he realized it was a Mistake, yes, you can say those things. But to say that it's that Joseph, you know, realized it was wrong or Joseph was just speculating, you don't have sources for that. So I would say if you are looking for a church that continues to teach the things that Joseph was teaching all throughout his life and all throughout his time in Nauvoo, you don't go very far before you realize that there are a lot of things that he taught in Nauvoo that are just not being taught or accepted by the various other restoration branches. There are no temple works. There are no, you know, baptisms for the dead, no temple endowments. And yes, of course, someone can say Joseph Smith was in error in presenting those. But then it's. It's this person claiming that Joseph was an error. Not. Not the. The historical records. The records don't say that. Joseph never says, my bad. We never should have done baptisms for the dead, ever. So I think that's a really good way to. To, you know, if you're struggling to figure out, well, who really followed Joseph Smith, who really had those keys. I submit, of course, I obviously have a bias. I'm a member of the church. But I would submit that the church that continued to teach temple ordinances the way that Joseph Smith was teaching them is certainly more likely to be the successor to Joseph's teachings and priesthood than various other churches that are rejecting those teachings because they were so central to Joseph. You don't have to even be a. You don't have to be an expert on Joseph Smith to read the things that he says about baptisms for the dead to come away going, this is a really big deal to Joseph Smith. This is not casual. This is not speculative. This is not a single document. This is over the course of four years, over and over and over and over and over again, teaching it publicly, teaching it privately, reiterating it over and over and over again. And I just don't. I don't really see any ability to justify dropping it as a teaching with anything close to a claim that Joseph realized it. It was not a true doctrine. You basically have to say, well, I realize that it's not a true doctrine, so that's why I don't follow it. Okay. But I mean, some of the evidence of who's following Joseph Smith can be found in what they have to say about Joseph Smith. I mean, we've talked about before on this podcast that the Hedrickites, you know, they. Or the Bickertonites, they love the Book of Mormon. They believe every word of the Book of Mormon. They don't believe in a single revelation Joseph Smith ever received. So there are sliding scales of where people go with their faith. And I think, I believe it's obvious that the Quorum of the twelve Apostles and Brigham Young, they took Joseph Smith's teachings, every one of them, at their word. And that's why you see those teachings and temple work perpetuated in the church today. Well, we're way out of time. I'm sure Richard's frantic over there wondering why he did the Yoo Hoo.
