By Sandra Tanner

---

This October the LDS Church celebrated its 187^th Semiannual Conference without 90-year-old president Thomas S. Monson in attendance. Monson, who was appointed to the council of Twelve Apostles in 1963, became the sixteenth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2008. After a couple of years of deteriorating health, it was announced on May 23, 2017, that “Because of limitations incident to his age, President Monson is no longer attending meetings at the Church offices on a regular basis. He communicates and confers with his counselors on matters as needed.”¹

Many people are surprised to learn that upon Monson’s death the office of prophet/president will pass to 93-year-old Russell M. Nelson, the senior apostle. But why not appoint a younger man? The answer to this requires a bit of digging into LDS church history.

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime there were a number of possible successors to the office of president. Historian D. Michael Quinn observed “by the summer of 1844 [following the death of Joseph Smith] there was no explicit outline of presidential succession in print.”² Part of the problem was that through the 1830s and early 1840s Joseph Smith had rearranged his leadership offices and designated various leaders as his successor. With no clear instructions as to a successor to Smith, many laid claim to the title due to either importance of their particular office or special ordination.

The First Prophet

According to Joseph Smith, when he was fourteen years old, in the spring of 1820, God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision and informed him that he was to join no existing church “for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt.”³ Three years later, on the autumnal equinox of September 1823, an angel appeared to him in a vision to tell him of an ancient record of the forefathers of the American Indians that was hidden in a nearby hill outside Palmyra, New York. However, Smith was not allowed to retrieve the plates until 1827. With the plates either hidden or covered in a cloth, Smith dictated the story to a scribe, reading the text off a seer stone in his hat,⁴ a process often referred to as scrying. Smith finally published the new volume of scripture in March of 1830, financed by his neighbor Martin Harris. Then on April 6th, 1830, twenty-four-year-old Smith and his followers organized the Church of Christ, later renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.⁵ A revelation was given appointing Joseph Smith “a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church.”⁶

While today’s Mormonism has a well-developed hierarchal system, with a president/prophet and two counselors who oversee twelve apostles and dozens of Seventies, such was not the case at the beginning. In the Articles and Covenants, dated June of 1830, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, a former rod worker⁷ and one of the Book of Mormon witnesses, were appointed apostles and elders, sharing jointly in directing the fledgling church.⁸ The church minutes for June 9, 1830, show that the church offices were elders, priests and teachers,⁹ following the pattern laid out in the Book of Mormon.¹⁰

Soon Hiram Page, a former money-digger and one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon, started claiming revelations through his own seer stone, thus presenting a rival to Smith’s authority.¹¹ This led to Smith issuing a revelation in September of 1830 that only Joseph Smith was to receive revelations for the church “for he receiveth them even as Moses.” The revelation goes on to instruct Oliver Cowdery to inform Hiram Page “that those things which he [Hiram] hath written from that stone are not of me, and that satan deceiveth him.”¹²

In 1830 there was no concept of a First Presidency with two counselors, or the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood. These ideas developed over the next few years. D. Michael Quinn explains:

A closer look at contemporary records indicates that men were first ordained to the higher priesthood over a year after the church’s founding. No mention of angelic ordinations can be found in original documents until 1834-35. Thereafter accounts of the visit of Peter, James, and John by Cowdery and Smith remained vague and contradictory.

The distance between traditional accounts of LDS priesthood beginnings and the differing story of early documents points to retrospective changes made in the public record to create a story of logical and progressive development. For example, as now published in Doctrine and Covenants 68:15 a revelation of November 1831 referred to “the Melchizedek Priesthood.” However, the original text of the 1831 revelation did not contain that priesthood phrase which was a retroactive addition in 1835.¹³

Quinn further explains “The traditional account of church origins, which assumes that Smith encountered Peter, James, and John sometime in 1829, also claims that at the church’s organization in April 1830 those ordained ‘elders’ were ordained on that date and received the Melchizedek priesthood. A closer look at the evidence demonstrates that they were in fact re-ordained [later] and that no concept of higher priesthood existed. The office of elder was at first associated with what would come to be known as the lesser (or Aaronic) priesthood.”¹⁴

The ordination of the original LDS apostles occurred in 1835, five years after the founding of Smith’s church. Although their ranking was done by age, the current seniority system, based on when they were ordained an apostle, developed after Joseph Smith’s death.¹⁵ However, in the early church simply being an apostle was not considered the path to become president of the church.

The changing claims of priesthood, apostleship, High Councils and First Presidency over the fourteen years Joseph Smith led the church left the Mormons with a number of competing claims of authority after Smith’s death on June 27, 1844.

Possible Successors to Smith

At the founding of Joseph Smith’s church in 1830 Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s main scribe in the production of the Book of Mormon, was called to be Second Elder and Smith was to be First Elder, as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 20:2-3. This placed Cowdery next to Smith in authority.

As others were given various callings in the coming years, Cowdery’s position became less clear. But on December 5, 1834, Smith reaffirmed Cowdery as standing next to him in authority. D. Michael Quinn explained “Smith conferred on him [Cowdery] an office which further complicated the lines of authority. On 5 December 1834 Smith ordained Cowdery to the office of assistant president of the high priesthood to ‘assist in presiding over the Church, and bearing the keys of this kingdom.’ Cowdery’s understanding was that he would not be subordinate to the current first and second counselors.”¹⁶ However, with Cowdery’s apostasy in 1838, his claim to succession was no longer considered valid.

The concept of a First Presidency gradually developed with the 1832 appointment of Sidney Rigdon, former preacher, and Jesse Gause, former Shaker, as counselors to Joseph Smith. After Gause left the church, Smith reorganized the presidency in 1833 and appointed Frederick G. Williams to replace Gause. This also required changing the name of Gause to Williams in the D&C sec. 81 revelation. Sidney Rigdon was appointed to be “equal with thee [Joseph Smith] in holding the keys of this last kingdom.”¹⁷

Rigdon was not always in agreement with Smith, but by 1841 his standing seemed to improve. In June of 1841 the Times and Seasons reported that “Sidney Rigdon has been ordained a Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” reinforcing his position as first counselor to Smith.¹⁸ However, the next year Rigdon and Smith were once again in conflict due to Smith’s overtures to Rigdon’s daughter, Nancy, to marry him in polygamy.¹⁹ His standing improved when Smith decided to run for President of the United States in the next election and Rigdon was chosen as his running mate. In fact, the reason Rigdon was not in Illinois when Smith was killed was because of Rigdon’s need to establish residency in Pennsylvania in order to qualify as Smith’s running mate.²⁰

When Rigdon arrived in Nauvoo, over a month after Smith’s murder, the church leaders were still in a quandary as to who should lead the church. Rigdon, as assistant president, felt he was the rightful successor. There followed a number of meetings with Rigdon and Brigham Young presenting their claims to the leadership. However, Smith’s inner circle feared Rigdon’s opposition to their secret polygamist activities.

Richard Van Wagoner observed “On the public record, Smith and the Quorum of the Twelve denied polygamy. At the time of Smith’s death, he and at least twenty-nine other known polygamous males in Nauvoo, including the Twelve, had married a total of 114 women. Many more would contract polygamous marriages before the main body of Saints trekked west. . . . Rigdon viewed spiritual wifery and the smokescreen that concealed it as reprehensible, less to do with God’s work than the affairs of men.”²¹

In July of 1834 David Whitmer, one of the three Book of Mormon witnesses, was appointed by Smith to be President of the High Council in Missouri. Four years later Joseph Smith gave “a history of the ordination of David Whitmer, which took place in July 1834, to be a leader or a prophet to this Church, which (ordination) was on conditions that he (J. Smith jr) did not live to God himself.”²²

D. Michael Quinn observed:

Whitmer’s ordination as successor was known to only a few in Missouri, and news of this most important appointment was not published in the Church periodical at the headquarters in Kirtland, Ohio. The fact that Whitmer was excommunicated from the Church in 1838 for apostasy removed his name as a possible successor, but did not alter an important development in the succession question. Joseph Smith had established precedent for ordaining men to the highest offices of the Church without prior common consent and without immediate public knowledge.²³

After Smith’s death in 1844, William E. McLellin, former member of the twelve apostles, appealed to David Whitmer to embrace his right to succeed Joseph Smith based on the 1834 calling. Quinn tells that on September 6, 1847, “William E. McLellin and Book of Mormon witnesses John Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, and Hiram Page ordain David Whitmer as ‘Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and Translator’ for the church organized at Kirtland in February.”²⁴ This splinter group, named after the original 1830 Church of Christ, only lasted a few years.

Then in the 1870s Whitmer tried to restart the Church of Christ. While David Whitmer maintained his testimony of the Book of Mormon throughout his life, he never rejoined the LDS Church. And until his death in 1888 he believed Smith had gone astray shortly after the publishing of the Book of Mormon:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon, if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to “separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.”²⁵

Since David Whitmer had left the main body of Mormons in 1838 and never returned, his earlier ordination was considered null and void.

Joseph Smith III was only eleven years old at the time of his father’s death. While some believed he was the heir apparent, his age kept people from pressing the succession claim until he came of age. Historian Roger Launius explained:

From the perspective of the Reorganized Church, there can be little doubt that Joseph Smith Jr. believed in the right of lineage, as “Old Testament” an idea as ever there was, and numerous statements abound about this particular aspect of his belief system. An 1835 revelation to Joseph Smith Jr. proclaimed lineal priesthood: “The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen see[r], to whom the promises were made.” In 1841 he announced another revelation making a direct statement about the favored position of his own descendants: “In thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.”²⁶

Launius continued on his blog:

Perhaps no issue has been more controversial than presidential succession in the Latter-day Saint movement. Joseph Smith III, son of the Mormon founder, buttressed his ascension to the presidency of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1860 through several methodologies. One of those, and a powerful one for many Mormons of the nineteenth century, was Smith’s legitimacy based on lineal priesthood succession.²⁷

The Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS Church, is now the second largest sect of Mormonism, claiming a membership of 250,000.²⁸

While Brigham Young had originally made statements favorable to Joseph Smith III taking his rightful place when he came of age, Smith’s opposition to polygamy kept him from being acceptable to the Mormons who went west.

According to D. Michael Quinn:

Smith’s intentions for his unborn son David rivaled his succession ordinances for Joseph III. Brigham Young said that in the spring of 1844 Smith told him: “I shall have a son born to me, and his name shall be called David; and on him, in some future time, will rest the responsibility that now rests upon me.” Young added that Smith made this statement to Young and several others.²⁹

Quinn also explained that in “April 1844 Smith prophesied that his son would succeed him and would become ‘president and king of Israel.’ The child was named David. Needless to say, he never became ‘president and king of Israel.’ Nor did he succeed his father. He died in 1904 at the age of 60, after spending the last 27 years of his life in an insane asylum.”³⁰

Joseph’s widow, Emma Smith, raised her sons with the firm assertion that their father never taught or practiced polygamy, thus making them unacceptable to the Utah Mormons.

Due to Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy in 1838 he lost his calling as Assistant President. The position was not filled until January of 1841 when Joseph appointed Hyrum Smith, his older brother to be Assistant President:

And from this time forth I appoint unto him [Hyrum] that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph; That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph; and that he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery.³¹

Joseph Smith’s revelation also announced Hyrum’s calling as “Patriarch” to fill the vacancy left by the death of Joseph Smith’s father. However, Hyrum’s death at Carthage changed everything. Quinn observed:

On 15 June 1844, less than two weeks before his death, Hyrum Smith signed an announcement as “HYRUM SMITH, President of the Church.” A few months later, Brigham Young remarked “Did Joseph ordain any man to take his place? He did. Who was it? It was Hyrum, but Hyrum fell a martyr before Joseph did. If Hyrum had lived he would have acted for Joseph.”³²

Samuel Smith was one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon, a founding member of the LDS Church and early missionary. William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s trusted secretary, recorded in his 1844 journal the various meetings by the top leadership as they tried to resolve the succession question after Joseph and Hyrum’s murder. Then on July 12, 1844, Clayton wrote “Joseph has said that if he and Hyrum were taken away Samuel H. Smith would be his successor.”³³ However, there was opposition to appointing a successor until all of the apostles were convened in Nauvoo. Samuel‘s efforts to press his claim ended on July 30, 1844, a month after Joseph and Hyrum’s death, when he became violently ill and died.

Some in the Smith family felt he had been poisoned to stop his appointment as president of the church. Quinn explains: “William [Smith] eventually concluded that Apostle Willard Richards asked [Hosea] Stout to murder Samuel H. Smith. The motive was to prevent Samuel from becoming church president before the full Quorum of Twelve arrived.³⁴ Quinn went on to speculate that “Samuel was dead, possibly a murder victim of the succession crisis.”³⁵

While William Marks, president of the Nauvoo High Council, did not make a claim to be Smith’s successor, Joseph’s widow Emma pushed for him to be appointed trustee in trust for the church. With her husband dead she found herself in dire financial straits. Historian John S. Dinger explains:

When Joseph died, his financial situation was not sound. It was difficult to determine what property and debts were Joseph’s and what were the church’s. . . . Just as Emma feared, the church owned the assets, while she was liable for the debts. Because she was left with a young family and was pregnant, it is no surprise she pushed for leadership whom she could trust and who could help her out of her financial mess. Because Emma was also an ardent opponent of polygamy, any trustee she pushed for must be the same. In this view she had many allies. One was William Marks, who rejected the doctrine after hearing it officially taught on August 12, 1843, in a high council meeting.³⁶

Dinger explains why Marks could have made a claim for leadership:

While Marks is not usually brought up today when discussing the succession “crisis,” he was initially one of the most likely options. First, he was one of the highest-ranking church leaders alive at the time. Joseph Smith revealed in 1835 that the high council of Zion (which was the Nauvoo High Council) was equal in authority to both the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. However equal, the high council was the “cornerstone of Zion,” while the Twelve Apostles were a “traveling high council.” Thus, it could be argued that Marks should have presided in Nauvoo and the twelve in the periphery. Second, it could be argued that Marks’s standing in the Quorum of the Anointed was greater than that of other claimants. Marks was one of the first to be anointed (as was Brigham Young), but he was also the first non-Smith to receive his second anointing. Finally, Marks outranked all other claimants in the Council of Fifty, which used a seniority system according to William Clayton. Marks was the tenth most senior member of the council, outranking both Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon.³⁷

Those favoring the Twelve’s leadership gradually moved Marks out of authority, and raised questions about his loyalty. Then in December of 1844 the high council demanded he sign a document in support of the Twelve and opposing Rigdon’s claims to leadership.³⁸ Even after this capitulation Marks continued to experience harassment and theft of property as rumors spread that he was trying to undermine the Twelve. He and his family fled Nauvoo in March of 1845 and eventually joined the Strangites, later affiliating with the RLDS Church in 1859.³⁹

Thirty-year-old James J. Strang first encountered the Mormons in Wisconsin Territory during the summer of 1843. Then in February of 1844 he journeyed to Nauvoo, Illinois, to meet Joseph Smith. Historian William D. Russell observed:

Apparently Strang liked what he saw in Nauvoo, as he was baptized by the prophet on 25 February and was ordained an elder by Hyrum a week later . . . In the course of their discussions with Joseph Smith, James Strang and Aaron Smith suggested that a stake of Zion be established in the area of the White River in Wisconsin. Smith suggested that Strang investigate the situation and send him a report.⁴⁰

In May Strang sent his favorable report to Smith. Strang claimed that in response to his letter, Joseph Smith sent a letter appointing Strang as his successor. William D. Russell wrote:

According to Strang, Smith answered the letter on 18 June, ten days before his murder. Called by Strangites “the letter of appointment,” its postmark is of 19 June. Strang claimed to have received it at Burlington, Wisconsin, on 9 July, some twelve days after Smith’s death, but before word of his death had reached the Saints in Wisconsin. Considerable controversy ensued over this claim. . . . Brigham Young labeled the letter “a lie—a forgery—a snare.”⁴¹

While Brigham Young had been a top leader in the LDS movement since the early 1830s and was head of the Twelve Apostles, he lacked the charisma of Strang and made no claim to special revelation. William D. Russell explains:

Baptized into the Mormon church by Smith himself only four months before the prophet’s death in June 1844, Strang was nonetheless able to make a believable claim that he was Joseph’s legitimate successor by producing a letter purported to be from Smith, by claiming a vision in which Smith ordained him, by publishing revelations which he had received, and by unearthing plates and translating them, reminiscent of Smith’s Book of Mormon. These were claims which Brigham Young could not make to buttress his assertion that he was Joseph’s legitimate successor.⁴²

The fact that Strang initially denounced polygamy helped to win over a number of prominent Mormons, including several from the Smith family, who did not accept Brigham Young’s claim. According to Russell, “His [Strang] biggest catches were William Smith, apostle and younger brother of the martyred leader; the prophet’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith; Apostle John E. Page; George Miller, who had been the presiding bishop at Nauvoo; and William Marks, president of the Nauvoo Stake.”⁴³

According to Robin Jensen:

Mormons did not join Strang simply because they rejected plural marriage, Brigham Young and the Twelve, or the way west, although part or all of the above were likely factors in their decision. In other words, Mormons were not simply looking for a negative reason to reject the leadership of the Twelve; they also were legitimately attracted to Strang’s version and interpretation of Mormonism.⁴⁴

While thousands joined Strang’s movement, there were many who left after he openly embraced the doctrine of polygamy in 1850. Russell explains, “Included in those who defected are some key leaders in the development of the Reorganized Church, including Jason W. Briggs, Zenas H. Gurley Sr., and Henry H. Deam.”⁴⁵

Strang died in 1856 without appointing a successor. His dying admonition was “for every man to take care of his family and do the best he could, till he found out what to do.”⁴⁶ According to Vickie Cleverley Speek, “Strang’s death set up a succession void that would eventually cause most of his scattered flock to join Joseph Smith III’s Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now known as the Community of Christ).”⁴⁷

The two main contenders in Nauvoo for leadership after Smith’s death were Sidney Rigdon, the last surviving member of the First Presidency but who opposed plural marriage, and Brigham Young, president of the Twelve Apostles and husband to several secret plural wives. The struggle was much more than determining authority claims. Also at issue was whether or not one accepted Joseph Smith’s recent secret teachings on polygamy, Second Anointing, Council of Fifty, and the political Kingdom of God.⁴⁸

Brigham Young, as president of the Council of Twelve, wisely sidestepped the issue of appointing a new prophet and directed attention to the authority of the Twelve to preside over the church after Smith’s murder. Mormons today assume the right of the Twelve to appoint the president, yet this was not the understanding at the time of Smith’s death. Under Joseph the Twelve had jurisdiction in the branches, which were outside the established areas of the church, and the Presidency and High Council had oversight of the stakes.⁴⁹

According to Quinn:

If written revelation alone governed the post-martyrdom situation, then the Quorum of Twelve had authority only over scattered branches of the church. . . . Young rightly told Mormons in August 1844 that the Quorum of Twelve “stand next to Joseph,” but he did not remind them that the Nauvoo Stake high council also stood “next to Joseph.” At church headquarters before June 1844, no quorum or echelon of authority separated the First Presidency from the high council’s jurisdiction over Mormons.⁵⁰

The Vote

On August 8, 1844, a meeting was called in Nauvoo to hear the arguments for leadership. Rigdon and Young both addressed the members, each presenting their particular claim for oversight of the church. Rigdon put forward his right to govern based on personal revelation and his standing as the only survivor of the First Presidency. Young argued that the Twelve were the rightful leaders by rank and by steadfast service. As he spoke, some felt that he was transfigured and took on the appearance and sound of Smith, thus showing God’s approval of him.

Quinn writes:

For those attuned to this manifestation, it was a compelling sign that the apostles should lead the church. However, not everyone present at the August 1844 conference experienced this manifestation. About twenty people voted against the apostles. Most accepted the calm logic of the apostles without seeing a miraculous transfiguration of Young. Some voted for the apostles but had second thoughts later. . . .

In August 1844 Latter-day Saints actually voted to sidestep the succession question. There were too many unresolved succession claims for various men to be the sole successor to Smith. The church membership simply voted to defer that question by turning to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles to “act in their place.”⁵¹

During the months following Smith’s death Sidney Rigdon, William Marks and James J. Strang were excommunicated, thus limiting their influence in the church.

Then on December 5, 1847, Brigham Young called a meeting of the apostles at Orson Hyde’s cabin in Iowa to formalize his position as President of the church. According to Gary James Bergera:

He [Brigham Young] wanted to resolve the thorny issue once and for all. In what proved to be a marathon meeting, any who had questioned the wisdom and necessity of forming a new First Presidency changed their minds. By meeting’s end the Twelve voted unanimously to sustain Young as president of the church and to allow him to organize a First Presidency and select his two counselors.⁵²

A First Presidency

Most Mormons today probably assume that the First Presidency, with a president and two counselors, overseeing the Twelve Apostles, was always the pattern. However, history shows that this hierarchal order was not established until Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Willard Richards were voted in as the LDS First Presidency.⁵³ This also helped set the precedence of appointing the next president of the church by apostolic seniority.

According to Quinn:

In reality since 1844 the organized First Presidency has always been an apostolic presidency. Since 1844 the senior apostle in rank within the Quorum of the Twelve, based first on age and later on length of service in the quorum, has been president of the church. As Wilford Woodruff stated in a letter of 28 March 1887: “The President of the Twelve is really the President of the Church by virtue of his office as much while presiding over the Twelve Apostles as while presiding over his two counselors.” The church has experienced an unbroken apostolic interregnum since 1844.⁵⁴

Brigham Young’s Sons

A seldom mentioned event in early Mormon history is Brigham Young’s ordination of three of his sons to be apostles. With the move to apostolic seniority according to date of ordination Brigham Young may have hoped that by ordaining his sons at an early age it would give them seniority among the apostles and hopefully set the stage for one of them to advance to church president.

According to Todd Compton,

On November 22, 1855, eleven-year-old John Willard Young, son of Brigham Young received his endowments, undoubtedly accompanied by his father. . . . following the endowment—President Young placed his hands on the head of his son and ordained him an apostle. . . . About eight years later, Brigham Young ordained two more of his sons [Joseph Angell Young and Brigham Young Jr.] apostles in a private ceremony.⁵⁵

In 1864 they were set apart “as assistant counselors to the First Presidency.” However, they were not placed into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the time of their ordination or calling as assistants to the First Presidency. This later raised the question of Brigham Young Jr.’s seniority in the Twelve—should he be ranked by the date of his ordination as an apostle or by the later date of his entrance into the actual Quorum? In 1900 this was resolved by ranking him according to his entrance into the Quorum, which put Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Smith’s nephew, ahead of him. Thus when Pres. Lorenzo Snow died in 1901 Joseph F. Smith became the next president of the church instead of Brigham Young Jr., who died two years later.⁵⁶

Orson Pratt’s Problems With Seniority

Two of the original apostles ordained in 1835, Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt, had problems with church leadership and were removed from their positions. During the late 1830s Hyde had a number of disagreements with the leaders and was put out of the Twelve for several months, but was reinstated in 1839.⁵⁷

Orson Pratt’s problems centered around Joseph’s new teaching on polygamy. Sometime after Pratt’s return from his mission to England in 1841 his wife informed him that Joseph Smith had requested her to become his plural wife. This so outraged Pratt that he left the church. While some question the reliability of Sarah Pratt, it is clear that Joseph Smith did approach other apostles about marrying their wives. Pratt was dropped from the Quorum in 1842 and Amasa Lyman was ordained to take his place. Then in 1843 Pratt was reconciled with Smith, accepted plural marriage, and was reinstated to his former position as an apostle.⁵⁸

Hyde and Pratt’s standing became an issue in 1875 when the leaders were trying to resolve issues of seniority. Should Hyde and Pratt be listed apostles by their date of original ordination or by the dates of their reinstatement? Many years before, Joseph Smith had stated that they were to be admitted back into the Quorum and given their original place in seniority. But now the apostles questioned this position. It was resolved by placing them in seniority according to the dates of their reinstatement.⁵⁹ This meant that John Taylor would become president following Brigham Young’s death, rather than Orson Pratt.

Seniority or Retirement

Another challenge to senior apostolic succession came in 1970. According to Quinn:

In the last years of his presidency David O. McKay was so impaired by injury, stroke, and medication that five counselors were needed in the First Presidency. McKay’s biographer, a secretary to the First Presidency, notes that when the second-ranked apostle Joseph Fielding Smith became one of the extra counselors in October 1965, “he was then in his ninetieth year, [which] made it impossible for Elder Smith to carry much of the administrative load of the First Presidency.”⁶⁰

By going to a pattern of apostolic seniority the church has gone from being led by relatively young men to senior citizens. Brigham Young was ordained as an apostle in 1835 at the age of 34, then at the age of 46 he became president of the church and was 76 when he died. There followed a three year gap in the office before John Taylor, at age 72, was formally appointed president.⁶¹ Since 1887, when Wilford Woodruff became the LDS president at age 82, most of the presidents of the LDS Church have been in their 80s or 90s.

At present the senior apostle, Russell M. Nelson, is 93 and appears to be in good health. Upon the death of President Monson, if the usual protocol is followed, Nelson will be the next president of the LDS Church. Apostle Nelson is evidently a firm believer in celestial plural marriage. Having outlived his first wife, his second marriage was solemnized in the temple.⁶² Thus, according to LDS doctrine he will be a polygamist in heaven.

If Nelson were to die before Monson then Dallin H. Oaks, age 85, would become the next president. He, like Nelson, outlived his first wife and remarried in the LDS temple, thus putting him in the same category as Nelson of looking forward to living polygamy in the hereafter.⁶³

Some have questioned the wisdom of continuing the current system. One way to keep apostolic seniority and yet allow for younger men to advance would be to offer aged apostles the option of retirement. However, there doesn’t seem to be any movement in this direction. In 1978 the church instituted a policy that gave emeritus status to the First Quorum of Seventy at the age of 70, but not to the apostles.⁶⁴

Upon the death of a church president his two counselors revert back to their seniority positions among the apostles and the next president will usually pick his two counselors from that list. With the death of LDS Apostle Robert D. Hales in October of 2017, and not counting President Monson, the ranks of the apostles have been reduced to thirteen. A new apostle, to replace Robert D. Hales, will be announced at the April 2018 LDS annual conference. Below is a listing of the current apostles according to seniority.

Russell M. Nelson, 93
Dallin H. Oaks, 85
M. Russell Ballard, 89
Jeffrey R. Holland, 76
Henry B. Eyring, 84
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 77
David A. Bednar, 65
Quentin L. Cook, 77
D. Todd Christofferson, 72
Neil L. Andersen, 66
Ronald A. Rasband, 66
Gary E. Stevenson, 62
Dale G. Renlund, 65

Historian Todd Compton gave this summary of the development of apostolic succession:

It was not delivered to the church in final form, neatly packaged and immediately recognized. It developed through a system that might be called creative trial and error. It moved through four distinct stages, from (1) age within group in the original Twelve, to (2) age combined with group date of ordination/entrance in the Quorum, to (3) date of ordination (the standard throughout most of the nineteenth century), to, finally, at the dawn of the twentieth century, (4) date of entrance into the Quorum and public sustaining.⁶⁵

Trustee in Trust

The LDS Church is registered as a corporation sole with the state of Utah (see photo below). Under the name of Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of the LDS Church assets are under the control of the president of the church as Trustee in Trust. Unlike other churches, there are no voting members and no disclosure of its finances. While the appointment of a new president may not happen immediately on the death of the previous one, the transfer of Trustee in Trust of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will pass to the senior apostle. If someone besides the senior apostle were to be appointed president, the senior apostle would then transfer the office of Trustee in Trust to him.

Photo of Utah Certificate of Authority for the Corporation of the President, signed by Thomas S. Monson

Is It Biblical?

Traditionally, Mormon literature has emphasized that the true church would have twelve apostles and a first presidency patterned after the Gospels. However, we have seen that when Mormonism was founded in 1830 it did not have a First Presidency or twelve apostles. Instead, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were First and Second Elders over the church. The concept of a First Presidency presiding over the Twelve Apostles was a later addition.

As for the Bible, Peter, James and John were part of the twelve, not in addition to them. Also, the original twelve were witnesses to the entire ministry of Jesus and his resurrection (Acts 1:20-26). When the apostles met after Jesus’ death they chose a replacement for Judas from two men who met this criteria. As the years passed there would no longer be someone who could qualify as a witness to all of Christ’s ministry. Although there were people other than the twelve who were referred to as apostles in the book of Acts, there is no indication that they were ever accepted as replacements for the original twelve. Indeed, there is no expectation recorded in the New Testament that a body of twelve apostles needed to be perpetuated after the original twelve had passed on.⁶⁶

---

Footnotes:

1. LDS Newsroom, “Church Provides Update on President Monson,” May 23, 2017. ↩︎
2. D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” in BYU Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 187. ↩︎
3. Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:19 (Intellectual Reserve Inc. [LDS Church], Salt Lake City: 2013). ↩︎
4. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Missouri: 1887), p. 12. ↩︎
5. Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 115:4 (Intellectual Reserve Inc., [LDS Church], Salt Lake City, 2013). ↩︎
6. Book of Commandments, 1833, ch. XXII, 1833, p. 45; Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 21. ↩︎
7. D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Signature Books, Salt Lake City: 1998), p. 37. ↩︎
8. Book of Commandments, 1833, ch. XXIV, p. 48; revised Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 20. ↩︎
9. Joseph Smith Papers, “Minutes, 9 June 1830.” ↩︎
10. Book of Mormon, Moroni 3:1-4. ↩︎
11. E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, (1834), Statement by Ezra Booth, pp. 215-216. ↩︎
12. Book of Commandments, 1833, ch. XXX, pp. 67-68; D&C 28:11. ↩︎
13. D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, Salt Lake City: 1994), p. 15. ↩︎
14. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 27; also see Gregory A. Prince, Power From On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood, (Signature Books, Salt Lake City: 1995), chapter 1. ↩︎
15. Todd Compton, “John Willard Young, Brigham Young, and the Development of Presidential Succession in the LDS Church,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 35, no. 4 (Winter 2002), pp. 114-115. ↩︎
16. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 44; History of the Church, vol. 2, (Deseret Book, Salt Lake City: 1976), p. 176. ↩︎
17. Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, sec. LXXIX, p. 207; D&C sec. 81. See heading to sec. 81 for information on the name change from Jesse Gause to Frederick G. Williams. Also LXXXIV, pp. 214-215, dated March, 1833; D&C, sec. 90:6. ↩︎
18. Times and Seasons, vol. 2, p. 431, (June 1, 1841), Nauvoo, Ill. ↩︎
19. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 162. ↩︎
20. Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess (Signature Books, Salt Lake City: 1994), pp. 331-336. ↩︎
21. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, p. 369. ↩︎
22. Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 (Deseret Book, Salt Lake City: 1983), p. 151. ↩︎
23. Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” BYU Studies, p. 194. ↩︎
24. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 659. ↩︎
25. Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 27. ↩︎
26. Roger Launius Blog. Retrieved October 2, 2017. ↩︎
27. Ibid. ↩︎
28. Community of Christ, http://www.cofchrist.org/who-we-are. Retrieved October 12, 2017. ↩︎
29. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 230. ↩︎
30. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 644. ↩︎
31. D&C 124:95, pp. 94-95. ↩︎
32. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 213. ↩︎
33. George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Signature Books, Salt Lake City: 1995), p. 138. ↩︎
34. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 153. ↩︎
35. Ibid., p. 213. ↩︎
36. John S. Dinger, “‘A Mean Conspirator’ or ‘The Noblest of Men’: William Marks’s Expulsion from Nauvoo,” in John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, ed. William D. Morain, vol. 34, no. 2, p. 14; see also Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 159. ↩︎
37. Dinger, JWHA Journal, pp. 15-16. ↩︎
38. Ibid., pp. 31-34. ↩︎
39. Ibid., pp. 36-37. ↩︎
40. William D. Russell, “King James Strang: Joseph Smith’s Successor” in Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters, eds. John Sillito and Susan Staker (Signature Books, Salt Lake City: 2002), pp. 135-136 ↩︎
41. Ibid., p. 136. ↩︎
42. Ibid., p. 131. ↩︎
43. Ibid., p. 139. ↩︎
44. Robin Scott Jensen, “Mormons Seeking Mormonism: Strangite Success and the Conceptualization of Mormon Ideology, 1844-50,” in Scattering of the Saints: Schism within Mormonism, eds. Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (John Whitmer Books, Independence MO: 2007), p. 128. ↩︎
45. Russell, Mormon Mavericks, p. 145. ↩︎
46. Vickie Cleverley Speek, “From Strangites to Reorganized Latter Day Saints: Transformations in Midwestern Mormonism, 1856-79,” in Scattering of the Saints, p. 141. ↩︎
47. Ibid., p. 141. ↩︎
48. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, pp. 120-126. ↩︎
49. Ibid., pp. 156-160. ↩︎
50. Ibid., p. 159. ↩︎
51. Ibid., p. 167. ↩︎
52. Gary James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Signature Books, Salt Lake City: 2002), p. 64. ↩︎
53. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, pp. 248-249. ↩︎
54. Ibid., pp. 253-254. ↩︎
55. Todd Compton, Dialogue, pp. 111-112. ↩︎
56. Travis Q. Mecham, “Changes in Seniority to the Quorum of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Masters Thesis, Utah State University, 2009, pp. 45, 50-54. Retrieved October 26, 2017. ↩︎
57. Ibid., pp. 30-32. ↩︎
58. Ibid., pp. 33-35. ↩︎
59. Ibid., pp. 35-38. ↩︎
60. Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, p. 256. ↩︎
61. For a discussion of the controversies surrounding John Taylor’s appointment as president, see Conflict in the Quorum, Bergera, chapter thirteen. ↩︎
62. General Authorities and General Officers, Russell M. Nelson. ↩︎
63. General Authorities and General Officers, Dallin H. Oaks. ↩︎
64. “Emeritus Members of the First Quorum of the Seventy,” Ensign, November 1978. ↩︎
65. Todd Compton, Dialogue, p. 131. ↩︎
66. “By Whose Authority? Problems in LDS Priesthood Claims,” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 102 (May 2004), p. 9. ↩︎

---

---