What made/makes Brigham Young the obvious choice?

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say that they were apostles.  They were counselors in the First Presidency, and one does not have to be an apostle to be such a counselor.  The question of succession had not yet been addressed.  Today there is a set pattern:  When the Prophet-President dies, all members of the First Presidency become members of the Quorum, arranged according to seniority.  No such understanding then existed.  You are confusing today with yesterday.

I'm not confusing anything, I fully understand that the process was not fully understood at the time.  However, Brigham Young did understand keys of the priesthood and that the Twelve, unitedly, held them.  This alone would disqualify Sydney Rigdon.  My main purpose is to point out, from our view, why Brigham was the logical choice.  It is obvious that the vast majority of the Saints thought he was also, probably for many of the same reasons.

Quote

Sidney Rigdon was ordained a prophet, seer, and revelator in 1842 -- as were the members of the 12.  I did not say that this granted priesthood keys.

I understand, but this has nothing to do with priesthood office and does not give any favor to Sydney Rigdon.  In other words, if fifteen men are Prophets, Seers and Revelators, the next question would be, which ones are apostles?  That eliminates Sydney Rigdon and John Smith.

Quote

I often use this instance as an example of the law of common consent.  Anti-Mormons used to tell me that the Far West Record was proof that Joseph was a dictator.  So I would pull out this instance as an example of Joseph not getting his way.  He was plainly overruled.

It is certainly an interesting part of our history.  I don't think anything like it could happen today.

Quote

 You also fail to note that Rigdon was Joseph's Vice Presidential running mate.  Why would Joseph have allowed that if he was so disgusted by him? 

I didn't bring it up because I don't see how it is relevant to succession in the Church presidency.  But, since you brought it up, Sydney Rigdon was Joseph's third choice as a running mate, and the 12th amendment to the Constitution kind of forced his hand.  He needed to choose a running mate who did not live in the same state as he did.  His first choice was James Arlington Bennet from New York but he withdrew the name because there was confusion as to whether or not he was born in the US.  His second choice was Colonel Solomon Copeland of Tennessee, but he declined the offer.  Joseph resorted to Sydney Rigdon since he lived in Pennsylvania.  According to Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith started out as a protest candidate with little expectation, but later began to feel like he could win.

Edited March 16, 2022 by T-Shirt

[pogi]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

However, Brigham Young did understand keys of the priesthood and that the Twelve, unitedly, held them.  This alone would disqualify Sydney Rigdon.  

Not necessarily.  The 12 could have given him, or anyone else, the keys - which is exactly what would have happened if the membership chose Rigdon.

Joseph Smith had indicated several different individuals who might succeed him on different occasions.   One of those men was Sidney Rigdon, according to President Hinckley:

Quote

It should be noted further that at various times Joseph Smith had indicated a number of men or groups of men who might possibly succeed him. These included his brother Hyrum, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, his son Joseph III, even his yet unborn son David; and, most importantly, on a number of occasions, the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/05/the-joseph-smith-iii-document-and-the-keys-of-the-kingdom?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fensign%2F1981%2F05%2Fthe-joseph-smith-iii-document-and-the-keys-of-the-kingdom%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D245616CA40153A44-5C3AA4BB68B47A0A|MCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1647465157

That is an interesting conference talk in that it addresses the forged Joseph Smith III document before anyone knew it was forged.   I think it was very classy of the church to donate the document to the Reorganized Church.  In exchange, the RLDS gave the Church a historical item of value (I wonder what it was).  In the end, the RLDS got the short end of the stick in that transaction.  

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sidney Rigdon was ordained a prophet, seer, and revelator in 1842 -- as were the members of the 12.  I did not say that this granted priesthood keys.

Ordained or set apart?
An important difference in our religion.  In theory President Nelson could set apart a Deacon as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and that Deacon wouldn't possess an ounce more priesthood authority than any other Deacon.

In my opinion Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the Church are callings, not priesthood offices.

Edited March 16, 2022 by JLHPROF

[T-Shirt]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Not necessarily.  The 12 could have given him, or anyone else, the keys -

I can agree with that.  They would also have to be ordained an apostle.  The problem is, however, Joseph Smith told Brigham Young that the Twelve had all of the authority, ordinances and keys for the Church to carry on.  I don't really see the point of choosing a leader from outside the Twelve.

Quote

which is exactly what would have happened if the membership chose Rigdon.

This, I don't agree with.  The members don't get to choose who the next president of the Church will be, that is the Lord's job.  The purpose of the meeting with Brigham Young and Sydney Rigdon was not for choosing who the next president would be, it was for the members to choose who they would follow.  If the majority of members had chosen to follow Rigdon, the Church still would have carried on with Brigham Young and the Twelve, it just would have been a smaller Church.  The Lord had chosen Brigham Young and it matters not how many had chosen to follow Rigdon.

Quote

Joseph Smith had indicated several different individuals who might succeed him on different occasions.   One of those men was Sidney Rigdon, according to President Hinckley:

Any of them could have been his successor given the right circumstances.  The fact that Joseph had allegedly mentioned so many different people as possible successors indicates that he didn't know who it would be.  Regardless of who the Lord had chosen, they would have had to be ordained an Apostle and given the keys through the proper channels, which was through Brigham Young and the Twelve.  That is the only place where the keys resided. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by T-Shirt

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ordained or set apart?
An important difference in our religion.  In theory President Nelson could set apart a Deacon as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and that Deacon wouldn't possess an ounce more priesthood authority than any other Deacon.

In my opinion Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to the Church are callings, not priesthood offices.

You might be retrojecting current beliefs and practices on the past.  I never said that priesthood was involved.  Indeed, women have been prophets of God, and no one claims that that is a priesthood function.  Not everything in the world is priesthood.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

I'm not confusing anything, I fully understand that the process was not fully understood at the time.  However, Brigham Young did understand keys of the priesthood and that the Twelve, unitedly, held them.  This alone would disqualify Sydney Rigdon.  My main purpose is to point out, from our view, why Brigham was the logical choice.  It is obvious that the vast majority of the Saints thought he was also, probably for many of the same reasons.

I understand, but this has nothing to do with priesthood office and does not give any favor to Sydney Rigdon.  In other words, if fifteen men are Prophets, Seers and Revelators, the next question would be, which ones are apostles?  That eliminates Sydney Rigdon and John Smith.

Yes, in retrospect it does make sense, but there was no such settled process at the time.  Prof John Gager (a non-Mormon) even gave us an important keynote lecture at MHA once in which he pointed out that there was a strong undercurrent of the family of Joseph versus the Twelve vying for Church leadership -- just as happened when Jesus died.   John G. Gager, “Early Mormonism and Early Christianity: Some Parallels and Their Consequences for the Study of New Religions,” Journal of Mormon History, 9 (1982):53-60.

4 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

It is certainly an interesting part of our history.  I don't think anything like it could happen today.

I'm sure you're right.

4 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

I didn't bring it up because I don't see how it is relevant to succession in the Church presidency.  But, since you brought it up, Sydney Rigdon was Joseph's third choice as a running mate, and the 12th amendment to the Constitution kind of forced his hand.  He needed to choose a running mate who did not live in the same state as he did.  His first choice was James Arlington Bennet from New York but he withdrew the name because there was confusion as to whether or not he was born in the US.  His second choice was Colonel Solomon Copeland of Tennessee, but he declined the offer.  Joseph resorted to Sydney Rigdon since he lived in Pennsylvania.  According to Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith started out as a protest candidate with little expectation, but later began to feel like he could win.

Well, of course, but that merely makes Joseph Smith the Donald Trump of his time.  My point was that he knew Sidney's intellectual and oratorical skills and was not as down on him as you are.

[SwedishLDS]

The twelve held the keys and more importantly, God chose Brigham Young. He wouldn’t have been chosen if he was not the right person to succeed.

The Lord had prepared Brigham Young his whole life for this, and he poured down his spirit at numeral times to show this, not least of which during his speech when he changed into Joseph.

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/14/2022 at 6:52 PM, Calm said:

But did he have a beard then?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brigham_Young_portrait_ca_1845.PNG

I believe Bro Brigham was beardless most of his life.

 

[Jaydes]

On 3/14/2022 at 7:39 PM, JLHPROF said:

Rebelled against what?

Joseph? God? Doctrine?

Just curious what you think Brigham did right that those up the line rebelled against.

I'm not convinced there was anyone up the line except maybe Hyrum.

Rebelled against God.

 

Brigham Young > Joseph Smith III > William Smith > Samuel Smith > Sydney Rigdon > Hyrum Smith

[Navidad]

The impacts and results of that succession debate continue to this day in spinoffs from the "mother" church. There is much in our respective faiths that we have to faith. Evidences and proofs pale in comparison to faithing what we believe and believing what we faith. I am not LDS because I do not faith some of the basic tenets of that church. I attend an LDS ward because I faith enough of the same tenets to enjoy the worship and fellowship.

Brigham Young was neither scholar nor seer. He was a pragmatist, strongly set in his ways. He was a good leader for the task God had prepared him for. At another time, he might not have been what the Saints needed. I believe God uses men at specific times for their specific skills, talents, and of yes, faiths.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Navidad

[Stormin' Mormon]

On 3/16/2022 at 11:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Today there is a set pattern:  When the Prophet-President dies, all members of the First Presidency become members of the Quorum, arranged according to seniority.  

Sorry for the thread necro, but I wanted to push back a little on this particular statement. Counselors in the first presidency return to their previous positions; if they hadn't come from the Quorum of the Twelve, they don't become members of that Quorum upon dissolution of the First Presidency.

J. Reuben Clark was not a member of the Qof12 when he was first called to the FP, but was later called to that Quorum so that he could have a position in its seniority. He is therfore not an exception to this rule.

Thorpe B. Isaacson and Alvin R. Dyer were the most recent counselors in the FP that did not come from the Qof12. After McKay died, neither of them became members of the Quorum. Dyer is interesting because he held the priesthood office of Apostle, but was never a member of the Quorum of Twelve. He was in fact a member of the First Quorum of Seventy when he died in 1977.

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon
Spelling

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Sorry for the thread necro, but I wanted to push back a little on this particular statement. Counselors in the first presidency return to their previous positions; if they hadn't come from the Quorum of the Twelve, they don't become members of that Quorum upon dissolution of the First Presidency.

J. Reuben Clark was not a member of the Qof12 when he was first called to the FP, but was later called to that Quorum so that he could have a position in its seniority. He is therfore not an exception to this rule.

Thorpe B. Isaacson and Alvin R. Dyer were the most recent counselors in the FP that did not come from the Qof12. After McKay died, neither of them became members of the Quorum. Dyer is interesting because he held the priesthood office of Apostle, but was never a member of the Quorum of Twelve. He was in fact a member of the First Quorum of Seventy when he died in 1977.

Very interesting tidbits, but I was saying "today," not in the past.  Exceptions to these "rules" over time demonstrate that there really are no rules -- particularly when we take things back into the biblical and Book of Mormon past.  It becomes obvious through such perspective that God's organizations are malleable, designed to fit the needs of the moment.

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very interesting tidbits, but I was saying "today," not in the past.  Exceptions to these "rules" over time demonstrate that there really are no rules -- particularly when we take things back into the biblical and Book of Mormon past.  It becomes obvious through such perspective that God's organizations are malleable, designed to fit the needs of the moment.

Since it's been over 50 years since we've even had a member of the First Presidency that hadn't come from the Quorum of the Twelve, there's no basis for the claim that "today" counselors are given membership in the Quorum after the death of the President. There hasn't been a situation where that claim could be tested since 1970, so how would we know? 

This rule has been remarkably consistent since at least 1877.  Brigham Young had counselors that were not from the Quorum, and they were not given membership in the Quorum when he died.  As did David O. McKay.  It reflects the argument that Brigham Young made in 1844: that Sydney Rigdon had no seniority in the Quorum because he had not been a member of the Quorum before his call into the First Presidency.  The same practice has been followed every time there's been a counselor in the First Presidency who had not been called into the Quorum ever since.  If it's no longer a practice today, it's a practice that consists of exactly zero instances. 

Edited to add: after further research, there were five church presidents with counselors who had not been serving in the Quorum of the Twelve at the time of their call into the FP. But only three of them had such counselors at the time of their death. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and David O. McKay. Extrapolating on what happens to nonQ12 counselors upon the death of the president is based on that small sample size. But I see the same thing happening in all three cases.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Since it's been over 50 years since we've even had a member of the First Presidency that hadn't come from the Quorum of the Twelve, there's no basis for the claim that "today" counselors are given membership in the Quorum after the death of the President. There hasn't been a situation where that claim could be tested since 1970, so how would we know? 

This rule has been remarkably consistent since at least 1877.  Brigham Young had counselors that were not from the Quorum, and they were not given membership in the Quorum when he died.  As did David O. McKay.  It reflects the argument that Brigham Young made in 1844: that Sydney Rigdon had no seniority in the Quorum because he had not been a member of the Quorum before his call into the First Presidency.  The same practice has been followed every time there's been a counselor in the First Presidency who had not been called into the Quorum ever since.  If it's no longer a practice today, it's a practice that consists of exactly zero instances. 

Edited to add: after further research, there were five church presidents with counselors who had not been serving in the Quorum of the Twelve at the time of their call into the FP. But only three of them had such counselors at the time of their death. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and David O. McKay. Extrapolating on what happens to nonQ12 counselors upon the death of the president is based on that small sample size. But I see the same thing happening in all three cases.

I am well aware of all those differences in the past, but, again, I was speaking of today, not yesterday.  I said "Today there is a set pattern:"  and then went on to state what that pattern is.  You have said nothing to question that pattern.  I suppose that the Brethren could alter that pattern in the future, but I am not suggesting what will happen in the future.

[CA Steve]

He did.

[Stormin' Mormon]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am well aware of all those differences in the past, but, again, I was speaking of today, not yesterday.  I said "Today there is a set pattern:"  and then went on to state what that pattern is.  You have said nothing to question that pattern.  I suppose that the Brethren could alter that pattern in the future, but I am not suggesting what will happen in the future.

There is no pattern if the number of times the pattern has been practiced is zero.

There has never been a time when a counselor was added to the Quorum of the Twelve at the death of the president unless he was already a member of the Quorum. That's the pattern that has been followed every time it's happened in the past.

If you're claiming that this will be the pattern the next time there's a First Presidency counselor who isn't a member of the Quorum, I can't contradict what hasn't happened yet. 

But that's my point: it hasn't happened yet. It has never happened. So on what basis are you claiming that this is the pattern?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

There is no pattern if the number of times the pattern has been practiced is zero.

There has never been a time when a counselor was added to the Quorum of the Twelve at the death of the president unless he was already a member of the Quorum. That's the pattern that has been followed every time it's happened in the past.

If you're claiming that this will be the pattern the next time there's a First Presidency counselor who isn't a member of the Quorum, I can't contradict what hasn't happened yet. 

But that's my point: it hasn't happened yet. It has never happened. So on what basis are you claiming that this is the pattern?

You seem determined to read something into what I said that is simply not there.  Suit yourself.

[Stormin' Mormon]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You seem determined to read something into what I said that is simply not there.  Suit yourself.

My apologies if I over-interpreted what you wrote. I was specifically pushing back on the words "all" and "become" in this statement.

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

all members of the First Presidency become members of the Quorum,

Edited to add: that above quote was me quoting you. My bad that it's showing under my name. Sorry.

This has only ever been true for those FP members who had previously been called to the Quorum of the Twelve. Counselors who had not previously been called to the Quorum are not granted membership in it when the First Presidency is dissolved.

I apologize if I took this too literally or responded too pedantically. Carry on.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Navidad]

To go back to the most important point in this discussion - wasn't David O. McKay the first president of the church since Joseph Smith who did not have a beard? Is he not also the leader who discouraged facial hair on those men with certain callings? I think I remember reading that somewhere. Of course he was president through the 1960s, so perhaps facial hair was seen as a sign of rebellion or the counter culture? There seems to be some tolerance for facial hair on leaders here in rural Mexico during hunting season and Covid season! Was that the case elsewhere? President McKay was born in 1873 and died in 1970. Incredible changes in his lifespan! I can't think of an almost 100 year span with that many lifestyle changes.  Ok, now you can all get back to your serious debates with each other. Oh, and not only was J. Reuben Clark not an apostle when called to the presidency, he had never been a bishop nor a stake president either. In the late 1920s he was the senior lawyer for the US Ambassador to Mexico and helped draft the arreglos that ended (for a short time) the Cristero war. He then was named the Ambassador for a rough time in Mexico in the 1930s. Sorry, as usual I digress into story-telling. I need to cut down on my questions and my stories!

[Chum]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

To go back to the most important point in this discussion - wasn't David O. McKay the first president of the church since Joseph Smith who did not have a beard?

I count on hair resistance. Specifically, I learned that a ponytail keeps me off the calling table. As long as it does, I don't have to consider facial tats.