Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Joseph Smith III vs. the Necessity of Lineal Descent during the Temple Lot Case (1892)

Joseph Smith III during the 1892 “Temple Lot Case” repudiated the necessity of lineal descent:

 

I claim to be his successor by lineal right, and by his blessing, and lastly by the right of selection and appointment. It is not necessarily a birthright to be the President of the Church. It comes by virtue of fitness and qualification, I may say, good behavior and the choice of the people, recognizing a call or a right. Lineal rights do not necessarily assume these qualifications. In my case I cannot say that it assumed these qualifications; that is a matter I apprehend to be proven. I do not know whether the doctrine of lineal right was a doctrine of the church prior to the death of my father. I do not know other than what may be found in the books, and they are open to the inspection of all, there is a traditional teaching in the books to that effect. In the church to which I belong it is not a lineal right, excepting so far as it is found in the books. The right of the firstborn is found in the Book of Mormon, and also in the Bible. That is the traditional right of the firstborn to whatever may attach to the parent. That right is expressed or understood in such a way that whatever rights I hold or am gifted with by reason of the position I hold, would descend to my eldest son, with certain qualifications, all other things being equal. The same attaches to the firstborn of every family. Now the claim of the Reorganized Church to the succession of the original is a claim of the individuals who were members of the church at the time of my father's death, and who hold their membership, and their rights to be regarded as members of the body in the Reorganized Church. I do not regard my lineal successorship as one of the claims, not necessarily. The existence of the Reorganized Church does not depend on my lineal successorship as I understand it. (The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Complainant, Vs. the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri [Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Publishing House, 1894], 79-80)

 

 

Blog Archive