The Ordination of Joseph F. Smith to the Apostleship

Writing of the rather interesting ordination of Joseph F. Smith to the apostleship, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

July 1, 1866, Joseph F. Smith met with President Brigham Young and a number of the Apostles in the upper room in the Historian’s Office, in a council and prayer meeting according to the custom of the presiding brethren; Joseph F. was the secretary of this council. After the close of the prayer circle, President Brigham Young suddenly turned to his brethren and said, “Hold on, shall I do as I feel lead? I always feel well to do as the Spirit constrains me. It is my mind to ordain Brother Joseph F. Smith to the Apostleship, and to be one of my counselors.” He then called upon each of the brethren present for an expression of their feelings, and each responded individually stating that such action met with their hearty approval. The brethren then laid their hands upon the head of Joseph F., and President Young who was the voice said: “Brother Joseph F. Smith, we lay our hands upon your head in the name of Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, we ordain you to be an Apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to be a special witness to the nations of the earth. We seal upon your head all the authority, power and keys of this holy Apostleship; and we ordain you to be a counselor to the First Presidency of the Church and Kingdom of God upon the earth. These blessings we seal upon you in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood. Amen.”

After the ordination President Brigham Young declared that he did not wish in the recording of this blessing to lead anyone to suppose that this mode was the only way in such an ordination could be performed. He also admonished the brethren to keep the fact of this ordination to themselves, for it was wisdom that it should not be revealed at that time, although it should be recorded. (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Life of Joseph F. Smith [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1938], 226-27, emphasis added)

 On a related topic, see:

Examples of Changes to the "Form" (Wording) of Ordinances

The 1900 Decision Regarding Apostolic Seniority and Joseph F. Smith

Speaking of events during the presidency of Lorenzo Snow, Joseph Fielding Smith, in his biography of his father, Joseph F. Smith, wrote the following, describing important decisions regarding apostolic seniority:

President Franklin D. Richards of the Council of the Twelve Apostles died Dec. 9, 1899, in Ogden. This left that council without a president. The matter of filling this position was considered by the Presidency. President Smith records the following:

Saturday, March 31, 19,, Presidents Snow, Cannon and I had a confidential talk together, introduced by President Cannon, relative to the choosing of a President of the Twelve. President Snow said: “It is President Cannon’s right to stand at the head of the Twelve, but if he did he would have to resign his counselorship in the Presidency,” and plainly intimated that he could do so if he chose. He then said to President Cannon: “If you and I were not here it would be the right of Brother Joseph F. Smith to stand where I am now, and if I were not here, it would be yours right now.” President Cannon expressed his desire to possess and enjoy every right that belonged to him but suggested that matters go along for the present as they are and that the Presidency meet with the twelve and take the lead.

Brigham’s (Brigham Young, Jr.) position in the quorum was talked over and President Snow favored and practically decided that Brigham Young—ranked next to me in the council of Apostles. This decided the question, as it was decided by President John Taylor.

April 5, 1900, at the meeting of the First Presidency and Apostles in the Temple, this matter was presented by President Snow and fully considered. President Smith says:

We met with the eleven Apostles and partook of the Sacrament, Brigham Young blessed the emblems. It was unanimously decided that the acceptance of a member into the council or quorum of the Twelve fixed his rank or position in the Apostleship. That the Apostles took precedence from the date they entered the quorum. Thus today, President Snow is the senior Apostle. President George Q. anon next, myself next, Brigham Young next, Francis M. Lyman next, and so on to the last one received into the quorum. In the case of the death of President Snow, President Cannon surviving him, would succeed to the Presidency, and so on according to the seniority in the Apostleship of the Twelve; that ordination to the Apostleship under the hands of any Apostle other than to fill a vacancy in the quorum and authorized by the General Authorities of the Church did not count in precedence; that if the First Presidency were dissolved by the death of the President, his counselors having been ordained Apostles in the Quorum of the twelve would resume their places in the quorum, according to the seniority of their ordination in that quorum. This important ruling settles a long unsettled point, and is most timely.

Presidents Cannon and Smith attended the Oneida Stake Conference in May, 1900. Tuesday, May 29th, a Priesthood meeting was held and in the course of his remarks, President Cannon explained why Brigham Young was not sustained as President of the Council of the Twelve Apostle: it was, he said, “because there were three senior Apostles before him. President Snow did not care to part with the next Senior Apostle, as his counsellor, to take the Presidency of the Twelve. Therefore Brigham Young was the acting senior Apostle pro tem. I followed about 30 minutes showing the relative authority of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles and the Seventies. The true order of the Priesthood and organization of the Church is a First Presidency of three High Priests; then the Council of Apostles, then Seventies, etc. The Twelve have no right to preside over the Church except in the absence of the First Presidency, nor have the Seventies, while the Presidency or Twelve exist. Neither is it the prerogative of either the Twelve or the Seventy to preside over the Church except in the absence of the Presidency, and then only to reorganize the Presidency.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Life of Joseph F. Smith [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News Press, 1938], 310-11, emphasis added)

Commenting on this event, Hoyt Brewster wrote:

The timeliness of this decision is reflected in the fact that President Cannon passed away one year and one week after this decision had been reached (April 12, 1901), which placed Joseph F. Smith as the next senior apostle to the President of the Church. On October 6, 1901, Joseph F. Smith was sustained as the first counselor in the First Presidency, with Rudger Clawson as second counselor to President Snow. Four days later Lorenzo Snow died, and Joseph F. Smith became the senior apostle, one position ahead of Brigham Young, Jr.

On 17 October, 1901, one week after the death of President Snow, Joseph F. Smith was sustained as the sixth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was the first one to come to this position after having served as a counselor in the First Presidency, but, as was the case with each of his predecessors, he was the recognized senior apostle on earth. (Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr. Prophets, Priesthood Keys and Succession [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991], 89)

Ryan L. Rippee on the Post-Ascension Functional Subordination of the Son to the Father

In his book defending the thesis that the Son (and Spirit) are functionally subordinate to the Father, even after the Son’s ascension and super-exaltation, Ryan L. Rippee offered the following on 1 Cor 15:20-28, with particular focus on the singular person of the Father exhausting the category of θεος in v. 28:

Some have taken the phrase “that God may be all in all” to refer to the Godhead . . . [however] if θεος here were a reference to the full Trinitarian God, it would be Paul’s only usage in his entire corpus. Furthermore, a careful examination of the implied and relative pronouns (in the masculine singular) most likely make the reference to θεος the Father: (1) the implied subject of the verb θη (v. 25) is identified with the implied subject of υπεταξεν (v. 27), both of which are taken from Psalm 110 where the Father puts the Messiah’s enemies under his feet, (2) the subject of the verbless clause εκτος (v. 27) and the participle του υπαταξαντος is God the Father, for it is clear that the Father is not subject to Christ, (3) the implied subject of the participle τω υποταξαντι (v. 28) is the Father, consistently arguing in these verses that the Father puts all things in subjection under the Son. Therefore, the referent to the pronouns is identified as θεος v. 28.

Thus, θεος normally refers to the Father and exceptionally refers to the Son and Holy Spirit, while apparently never referring to the Trinity . . . If the person of the Son (ο υιος, v. 28) gives up the kingdom to the person of the Father, then is it only in his human nature as the Davidic Messiah, or does it also include his divine nature as the second person of the Godhead? In the context, Paul is quoting from Psalm 110 (v. 25) and Psalm 8 (v. 27) where the Davidic king rules God’s kingdom as regent. Also, Paul uses the terminology Χριστος, arguing that he is the second Adam (vv. 22-23). So, at the very least, Paul is speaking of the man Jesus. Nevertheless, as James Hamilton argues in his recent article,

Paul does not appear to be discussing the difference between the human Jesus and the divine Jesus, nor is he making a statement about how all three members of the Trinity are involved in everything one member does. He is discussing the order of the events at the end and the way that Christ “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). (James Hamilton, “That God May Be All In All” in One God in Three Persons, ed. Bruce Ware and John Starke [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2015], 100)

Thus, Hamilton is summarizing the assymetrical nature of the eternal taxis consistent with inseparable operations. The Father will, for all eternity, be the initiator of the one work of divine rule.

Finally, the use of αυτος ο υιος (“the Son himself,” v. 28) is theologically significant. The absolute use of the title without any genitival modifiers is used only here in the writings of Paul. Ciampa and Rosner, in their commentary, explain the significance:

Since the language of “Father” and “Son” is covenantal language, it reminds us that the Son’s role in the biblical and covenantal meta-narrative was always that of restoring and reflecting the glorious reign of the Father over all of his dominion. Paul simply takes us to the ultimate conclusion of the biblical narrative of redemption and restoration, which is that the creation which went astray and which the Son was commissioned to redeem and restore has come full circle to its complete submission to God—and beyond. But it was always about bringing creation to perfect submission to God . . . This verse does not demean or marginalize Christ, but emphasizes that his mission will be fully and perfectly accomplished. (Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010], 778)

Thus, the person of the Son, as the God-man, hands over his kingdom to the Father at the end, not in an absolute sense, such that his sovereignty is temporary, rather with the idea that or all eternity the Father (with the Son and Spirit alongside him) will reign over the new creation. John Frame concludes,

As the servant of God, who remains eternally man as well as God, Jesus demonstrates his obedience by subjecting himself and his kingdom to the headship of God the Father. (Frame, The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002], 683) Ryan L. Rippee, That God May Be All in All: A Paterology Demonstrating That the Father Is the Initiator of All Divine Activity [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2018], 39-40, 168-70; comment in square brackets added for clarification)

On p. 170, Rippee correctly notes that “[the book of ] Revelation provides further evidence” of this functional subordination of the Son to the Father after the ascension, and on pp. 170-72 discusses Rev 11:15-19 and 22:1-5. With respect to Rev 22:1-5, Rippe (pp. 171-72) writes:

Revelation 22:1 pains a beautiful picture of this eternal taxis: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life [the Spirit], bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God [the Father] and the Lamb [the Son].” The throne in Revelation is the place of authority, and here we see all three persons of the Godhead revealing themselves from that throne. The first is the Holy Spirit, pictures as living water flowing from the Father and Son. An ancient picture from the days of the new covenant promised in Ezekiel (Ezek 336:25-27), John 7:37-39 makes clear that “living waters are a reference to the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:5; 4:10-24; 1 John 5:7-8 where water is symbolically tied to the Spirit). This would mean that John used the same imagery for the Trinity earlier in the book of Revelation: “For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to the springs of living water [the Holy Spirit], and God [the Father] will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev 7:17).

In both passages, the Spirit is the giver of life. Revelation 22;2 continues this theme for the river provides nourishment, watering the “tree of life,” whose leaves are for “the healing of the nations,” and gives sense to the Spirit’s appeal of 22:17, “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” For all eternity, the Spirit appeals to the saints to come and drink fully of him, partake of him, and be filled by him, so that they might serve, worship, and reign as king priests in the kingdom (22:5). As to the Lamb sharing the throne with the Father (22:1), Hamilton’s insight is instructive:

Here the reference to God is clearly a reference to the Father, and the reference to the Lamb is likewise a reference to Jesus. This would indicate that the role of Christ as the Redeemer remains relevant in eternity future . . . Both are God, as 22:3 speaks in the singular of his servants worshipping him, referring back to both God and the Lamb. And yet the hierarchy and roles seen from Revelation 4-5, where the Lamb approached the one on the throne, remain in that depiction of the new heaven and new earth. So it would seem natural to conclude that by continuing to depict Jesus as the Lamb in Revelation 22:3, John is saying in a different way what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 28—that Christ has rendered the kingdom to the Father and been subjected to them. Thus, Christ’s kingdom is everlasting, but he reigns in the kingdom he has delivered to the Father, in which he is subject to the Father. (Hamilton, “That God May Be All In All,” 107)

Thus, the divine work of eternal rule will be exercised by Father, Son, and Spirit for all eternity, and it will reflect the eternal taxis: rule initiated by the Father, accomplished through the Son, and perfected by the Spirit.

Mormon 9:36-37 and God "Remembering" His Covenant

Moroni, writing in Mormon 9:36-37, wrote the following:

And behold, these things which we have desired concerning our brethren, yea, even their restoration to the knowledge of Christ, are according to the prayers of all the saints who have dwelt in the land. And may the Lord Jesus Christ grant that their prayers may be answered according to their faith; and may God the Father remember the covenant which he hath made with the house of Israel; and may he bless them forever, through faith on the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

In this text, we read of how the prayers of the righteous/holy ones (“Saints”) can be efficacious (cf. Jas 5:16), not just for themselves, but for the larger community itself (cf. Exo 32-33, where Moses’ intercession results in God’s wrath against the Israelites being propitiated).

Furthermore, the theme of God “remembering” his (saving) covenant is mentioned in this passage, too. The concept of God remembering his covenant is common in Scripture (e.g., Gen 9:15-16; Lev 26:42, 45; Ezek 16:60-61; 3 Nephi 16:11, 12; 20:29; 29:3; Mormon 5:20; 8:21, 23; cf. passages where men plead with God for him to remember his covenants, such as Neh 13:29; Jer 14:21).

Speaking of the meaning of “in remembrance of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24-25, Joachim Jeremias wrote the following, which can shed light on, not just on the Eucharistic theology of these New Testament texts, but also other texts that speak of God remembering His covenant:

For the expression לזכרון, Aram לדכרן, Greek εις αναμνησιν, εις μνημοσυον, although it means both man’s remembering and the merciful remembrance of God in the Old Testament, has in the Palestinian religious texts of the pre-Christian era much rather the second meaning than the first. Thus in the LXX we find εις αναμνησιν used three times of God’s remembrance (cf. LXX Lev 24.7; Ps. 37 [38] tit.; 69 [70] tit.), and only once of human memory (Wisd. 16.6), and εις μνημοσυνον means in Ecclesiasticus (45.9, 11, 16; 50.16) and in the newly discovered Greek fragments of Enoch (in the Chester-Beatty papyri (Aeth. Enoch 99.3 [twice])) always God’s remembrance. The same applies to the expression דכיר לטב in inscriptions recording the dedication of a synagogue, and of the analogous Hebrew expression זכור לתוב. In the New Testament too εις μνημοσυνον, which is the equivalent of εις αναμνησιν, means God’s merciful remembrance in both passages where it occurs, Mark 14.9 (par. Matt. 26.13) and Acts 10.4. This is obvious in Acts 10.4 εις μνημοσυνον εμπροσθεν του θεου, and at least highly probably in Mark 14.9. These facts make it very probably that εις την εμην αναμνησιν in 1 Cor. 11.24-5 and Luke 22.19 should be understood in the same way, “that God may remember Me.” God’s remembrance, however, has always a quite definite meaning in Holy Scripture: it never means a mere recollection on the part of God; but when God remembers somebody, He acts, He does something, He sits in judgement and grants His grace, He fulfils His promise. In what way, therefore, is God expected to “remember”, when the Messianic community meets and pays to Him that He should “remember His Messiah”? The only answer possible is: God remembers the Messiah by bringing about His kingdom in the parousia. (Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [rans. A. Ehrhardt; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955], 162-63, emphasis added)

 Therefore, when God is said to "remember" his covenant, it means that he promises to act in salvation history and bring about the eschatological salvation of his covenant people.

The Post-Ascension Functional Subordination of the Son in the Doctrine and Covenants

There are many texts in the Bible that reveal that the Son, even after his ascension into heaven, is functionally subordinate to the Father (this is a heated debate in some modern Evangelical circles). Interestingly, some of the earliest revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, as with 1 Cor 15:20-28, teaches the post-ascension functional subordination of the Son to the Father:

I am Jesus Christ; I came by the will of my Father, and I do his will. (D&C 19:24)

And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father with almighty power according to the will of the Father. (D&C 20:24)

Such texts from March and April 1830, respectively, teach that the Son, even in his glorified, exalted state, functions under the authority and permission of the Father. What is even more interesting is that this disproves the charge that early Latter-day Saint theology was that of Modalism, as such a theology necessitates a distinction of persons.

"Jehovah" as the Father in John Taylor's Writings

John Taylor (1808-1887), third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wrote a hymn, "Go ye messengers of glory." In the fourth stanza, we read:

Bearing seed of heav'nly virtue,

Scatter it o'er all the earth.

Go! Jehovah will support you;

Gather all the sheaves of worth.

Then, with Jesus, Then, with Jesus

Reign in glory on the earth.

What is interesting is that Taylor, in this stanza, seemingly uses "Jehovah," not of the Son, but of the Father (cf. D&C 109:34, 42, 56, 68 where Joseph Smith uses “Jehovah” of the Father). Furthermore, this was not the only time he would use the name-title "Jehovah" of God the Father and distinguish "Jehovah" from Jesus Christ. In his masterful An Examination Into and an Elucidation of the Great Principle of the Mediation and Atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (1882), we read the following on p.149-50:

Again, there is another phase of this subject that must not be forgotten. From the commencement of the offering of sacrifices the inferior creature had to suffer for the superior. Although it had taken no part in the act of disobedience, yet was its blood shed and its life sacrificed, thus prefiguring the atonement of the Son of God, which should eventually take place. The creature indeed was made subject to vanity not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope. Millions of such offerings were made, and hecatombs of these expiatory sacrifices were offered in view of the great event that would be consummated when Jesus should offer up Himself. With man this was simply the obedience to a command and a given law, and with him might be considered simply a pecuniary sacrifice: with the animals it as a sacrifice of life. But what is the reason for all this suffering and bloodshed, and sacrifice? We are told that "without shedding of blood is no remission" of sins. This is beyond our comprehension. Jesus had to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, the just for the unjust, but, previous to this grand sacrifice, these animals had to have their blood shed as types, until the great antitype should offer up Himself once for all. And as He in His own person bore the sins of all, and atoned for them by the sacrifice of Himself, so there came upon Him the weight and agony of ages and generations, the indescribable agony consequent upon this great sacrificial atonement wherein He bore the sins of the world, and suffered in His own person the consequences of an eternal law of God broken by man. Hence His profound grief, His indescribable anguish, His overpowering torture, all experienced in the submission to the eternal fiat of Jehovah and the requirements of an inexorable law.

Elsewhere (pp. 150-51), we also read:

Groaning beneath this concentrated load, this intense, incomprehensible pressure, this terrible exaction of Divine justice, from which feeble humanity shrank, and through the agony thus experienced sweating great drops of blood, He was led to exclaim, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." He had wrestled with the superincumbent load in the wilderness, He had struggled against the powers of darkness that had been let loose upon him there; placed below all things, His mind surcharged with agony and pain, lonely and apparently helpless and forsaken, in his agony and the blood oozed from His pores. Thus rejected by His own, attacked by the powers of darkness, and seemingly forsaken by His God, on the cross He bowed beneath the accumulated load, and cried out in anguish, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!" When death approached to relieve Him from His horrible position, a ray of hope appeared through the abyss of darkness with which He had been surrounded, and in a spasm of relief, seeing the bright future beyond, He said, "It is finished! Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." As a God, He descended below all things, and made Himself subject to man in man's fallen condition; as a man, He grappled with all the circumstances incident to His sufferings in the world. Anointed, indeed, with the oil of gladness above His fellows, He struggled with and overcame the powers of men and devils, of earth and hell combined; and aided by this superior power of the Godhead, He vanquished death, hell and the grave, and arose triumphant as the Son of God, the very eternal Father, the Messiah, the Prince of peace, the Redeemer, the Savior of the world; having finished and completed the work pertaining to the atonement, which His Father had given Him to do as the Son of God and the Son of man. As the Son of Man, He endured all that it was possible for flesh and blood to endure, as the Son of God He triumphed over all, and forever ascended to the right hand of God, to further carry out the designs of Jehovah pertaining to the world and to the human family.

This notwithstanding, previously, on p. 138, "Jehovah" and the related title of "I Am" was used by Taylor of Jesus. Speaking of the Messianic prophecy in Isa 9:6, he wrote:

"His name shall be called Immanuel," which being interpreted is, God with us. Hence He is not only called the Son of God, the First Begotten of the Father, the Well Beloved, the Head, and Ruler, and Dictator of all things, Jehovah, the I Am, the Alpha and Omega, but He is also called the Very Eternal Father. Does not this mean that in Him were the attributes and power of the Very Eternal Father? For the angel to Adam said that all things should be done in His name. A voice was heard from the heavens, when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," and when the Father and the Son appeared together to the Prophet Joseph Smith they were exactly alike in form, in appearance, in glory; and the Father said, pointing to His Son, "This is my beloved Son; hear Him." There the Father had His apparent tabernacle, and the Son had His apparent tabernacle; but the Son was the agency through which the Father would communicate to man; as it is elsewhere said, "Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son. And thou shalt repent, and shalt call upon God, in the name of the Son, for evermore."

A very useful recent discussion of “Jehovah” as a name-title in LDS theology and Scripture can be found in D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye Are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented),  pp163-99. It provides a lot of useful information on a topic that can often be confusing to those unfamiliar with the use of such titles in both the Bible and even uniquely Latter-day Saint scripture and other writings.

Doctrinal Disunity among Protestant Denominations and Dissenters within the LDS Church

Sometimes Protestant apologist attempt to respond to the charge that Protestantism is splintered, as Protestants disagree on many primary doctrines, not secondary doctrines merely (e.g., baptismal regeneration). It is not rare for some to attempt to charge the critic of Protestantism and Sola Scriptura of belonging to a group that has its own dissidents, but it is a false comparison (the official teachings of the various Protestant denominations vs. dissidents rebelling against the official teachings of one Church).

Catholic apologist Phil Blosser wrote a response to Catholic critics; I have slightly reworked it to suit a Latter-day Saint context:

It will not do to object that the charge of Protestant disunity can be turned back on the LDS Church. It is true, as Protestant apologists enjoy pointing out, that the “scandal of liberalism” and disunity can be found among Latter-day Saints just as it is among Protestants (e.g., those who reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon; “spiritualise” the First Vision and other foundational events in both Latter-day Saint and biblical history, etc). But there is this ineluctable difference. The problem of disunity on the Protestant side is the disunity between the official teachings of different denominations, not, as on the LDS side, the disunity between official Church teaching and the views of various dissidents who happen to also be (at least nominally) church members. Hence it is beside the point that liberals theologians and even professing atheists can be found who call themselves “Mormons,” perhaps in some cultural sense, as there are secular Jews. This does not mean that LDS teaching is divided against itself. The conflict is between the Church’s unified teaching and the dissenting opinions of various dissident individuals and groups. By contrast, Protestant disunity is between the conflicting official teachings of various denominations.

For more, be sure to read my book critiquing Sola Scriptura:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

An online version can be found here