← Back to Prince’s Research Excerpts: Priesthood & Mormonism Index

Prince’s Research Excerpts: Priesthood & Mormonism – 1893

Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Priesthood, 1893.” You can view other years here.

Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.


1893:  1 Jan.:  A disfellowshipped elder.

“A question is asked to this effect:  Can an Elder officiate in another ward as an Elder in performing any of the ordinances which belong to the office of an Elder when he has been disfellowshipped in his own ward and his case is on appeal to the High Council?

It would be a very improper thing for a man in that position to officiate in any of the ordinances of the Melchisedek Priesthood, because he is not in good standing, and it is too sacred a matter for any man to act in the Priesthood unless he is fully authorized to do so.  It would not be reasonable to expect that the Lord would bless anyone in acting in the Priesthood while in that condition.”  (George Q. Cannon, JI 28(1):25, 1 Jan., 1893)

15 Jan.:  Procedural questions:  Bishops and Stk. Pres.

“The question is asked by a correspondent, and he desires the answer published in the Juvenile Instructor:

First.  ‘Can a Bishop make a binding decision with his two counselors against him?’

He adds:  ‘Some claim that when a Bishop votes one way and both counselors against him, no binding decision is made; while others claim that if a Bishop makes a decision under such circumstances, it will stand until set aside by the High Council.’

At a recent meeting, at which were present the First Presidency and six of the Twelve Apostles, several questions of this kind came up for consideration; among them were the questions:

Second.  ‘Can the two counselors of a Bishop make a decision upon a case tried before a Bishop’s court if the Bishop is not agreed with them?’

Third.  ‘Can the President of a Stake, presiding over a High Council, give a decision upon a case which has been tried, when his counselors and the members of the High Council are not in agreement with him?’

The answer to the first question is, that for a Bishop’s court to make a proper decision the Bishop and one counselor, at least, should be united.  The Bishop cannot make a decision that would be binding if both his counselors do not agree with him.

The answer to the second question is:

The counselors to a Bishop do not have the authority to make a decision upon a case tried before a Bishop’s court when the Bishop disagrees with them.  That the Bishop’s voice is necessary, and that he is the proper authority to make the decision, is clearly evident from the following words of the Lord, paragraphs 71-74, Sec. 107, of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants:

Nevertheless, a High Priest that is after the order of Melchisedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth.

And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the Church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen, or will choose among the Elders of the Church.

This is the duty of a Bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a Stake of Zion, or in any branch of the Church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion be enlarged, and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion, or elsewhere.

As to the third question:

It is necessary, to make the decision of a President of a Stake, acting as the President of the High Council, binding in the case which has been tried, that a majority of the Council agree with him in the decision.  In paragraph 19, Section 102, of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, it is stated that the President of the High Council ‘shall give a decision according to the understanding which he shall have of the case, and call upon the twelve counselors to sanction the same by their vote.’

It is clearly apparent that the majority of them, at least, were expected to sanction the decision in order to have the decision stand, or there would be no necessity to call upon them for any expression.”  (George Q. Cannon, JI 28(2):60-61, 15 Jan., 1893)

18 Jan.:  Older 70s to join High Priests.

“[Meeting of the 70s quorum in the Second Ward House.]  [I] suggested that it would be proper and consistent for members of the quorum who are pretty well advanced in life, say 60 and past, to join the High Priest quorum, and thus make way for younger men.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 18 Jan., 1893)

21 Mar.:  “Acts of the Latter-day Apostles.”

“In the afternoon the apostles met.  Bros. Young and Teasdale spoke and felt well to be home again and free.  A good spirit prevailed.  The reading of the manuscript ‘Acts of L. D. Apostles’ was very interesting.”  (Anthon H. Lund diary, 21 Mar., 1893)

22 Mar.:  Misuse of priesthood by Thatcher, Roberts, Penrose.

“We met at the Historian’s Office at 10 a.m.  We intended to have met in the Temple but as it was not dedicated we stayed in this upper chamber.  It is small and ill ventilated.  Bros. Snow, Richards, Young, Lyman and Thatcher spoke in the forenoon, and Bro. Smith and Teasdale in the afternoon.  We sent for Bro. Thatcher and the First Presidency met with us.  They laid before us their grievances in the past, how Moses’ course had undermined their influence with the saints.  Moses asked their forgiveness and explained his course. . . .

23 Mar.:  Bp. Preston came for Bro. Smith and me at one oclock to come and administer to Moses Thatcher.  We went and stayed with him until 5 oclock a.m.  He was in a bad state.  He vomited and brought up clotted blood.  He had no rest would get up and walk the floor and then lay down.  Sr. Preston kept putting on hot cloths wrung out of hot water.  A mustard plaster seemed to do him most good.  We administered twice to him.  After the last he fell asleep and we went home.  I slept till nine.  It was fast day.  We met at 10 a.m. and the First Presidency with us.  They showed the hurtful influence the course of Moses Thatcher has had upon the people in opposing the policy of the First Presidency.  B. H. Roberts course was also blamed and so was C. W. Penrose’s.  They used their priesthood position to influence the people.  They were to be labored with and made to see the error of their way.”  (Anthon H. Lund diary, 22 Mar., 1893)

25 Mar.:  Many rebaptisms prior to Temple dedication.

“The reports from the various meetings of the Saints indicate that the fast and subsequent meetings have had a very excellent effect upon all who participated.  The result in some cases is that a large number of people have applied for baptism for past sins and to renew their covenants.”  (A. H. Cannon diary, 25 Mar., 1893)

Apr.:  No more divisions between 1st Pres. and Twelve.

“Upon several occasions [during the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple] remarks were made concerning the union which characterizes the Priesthood, and extends to some extent at least to the people.  Such union, President Woodruff said, he had never before witnessed in the Church.  There exists a perfect harmony and oneness between the Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles, and this feeling of unity extends to the First Seven Presidents of the Seventies.  It was also predicted that division should no more exist between the Presidency and Twelve as had heretofore been the case–a most glorious contemplation for them as well as for the people.  With this union continued there is no reason why the revelations of God should not be poured out more abundantly uopn His people.  Without doubt there will be a growth in the Church which past years cannot by any means equal.”  (Editorial, Contributor 14(6):304, Apr., 1893)

4 Apr.:  Right of 1st Pres. to lead in all things.

“[General Conference]  F. M. Lyman [spoke] on the necessity of following the priesthood.  The First Presidency have a right to lead in all things and if any one teaches that they have not that right they are on the way to apostasy.”  (Anthon H. Lund diary, 4 Apr., 1893)

16 Apr.:  First meeting of 12 in new Temple.

“[Sunday]  In the evening the Apostle met for the first time in their new room in the Temple.  What a lovely room it is, how nice in all its appointments and how well furnished.  The apostles have furnished it themselves.  I have promised one hundred and fifty dollars towards it.  Two thousand dollars have been subscribed by the quorum.

We knelt down around the table and Bro. Snow offered a very earnest prayer, asking the Lord to make that room a room of inspiration, a room where the Spirit would delight to dwell, also asked the Lord to spare the life of Bro. Moses Thatcher.

It was a beautiful sight to see the apostles kneeling in that beautiful room and all felt the inspiration of the prayer.

There is a feeling that Bro. Moses will not stay long with us.  I heard that he vomited a gallon of blood yesterday.

Bro. Richards spoke on the delight he felt in meeting with the apostles.  He felt warmly towards all the members, and said he: ‘If I have appeared cold it is not the heart but the manner.’

Brigham Young:  I feel very thankful to behold what I see tonight.  We are enjoying the fruits of the labors of our predecessors.

F. M. Lyman:  When I see so few members left in the quorum of those that were acquainted with Prest. Jos. Smith I tremble at the thought that they may soon leave us and we be left without their experience.  He had enjoyed the company of Franklin Richards when treavelling with him as he found him full of experience and information.  Paid a glowing tribute to the memory of Erastus Snow.

J. H. Smith gave us some of his experiences with President Young.  He had been very free to ask him questions, and the President took pains to answer him.  He was present at a conversation between Prest. Young and his father when the question of moving Bro. Hyde and Orson Pratt back in the quorum came up.  Geo. A. Smith said: ‘Prest. Young: I have always counselled against making this change, hoping that Brother Hyde might die and thus be spared that humiliation, but seeing how sick you have been for some time I feared the consequences if you should have died.  I shall no longer oppose the move.’  J. H. Smith said: ‘My great fault is insubordination but I strive to school myself against it and want to be one with you.  I love you all.

Geo. Teasdale spoke on the great privilege he esteemed it to be present.  The Lord had shown him may manifestations that had been strengthening to him.  He loved Bro. Woodruff like a father yet the Lord had shown him that he was to be adopted to the Prophet and on a new-Years day he was given to Eliza R. Snow wife of Joseph as son.  He had at once felt a love as son to a mother.

Brother Heber Grant next spoke.  He had often wondered  why the Lord called him to this office and once while riding over the burning sands of Arizona on a mule, it came to him by revelation that he had not been placed in the quorum on account of his own merit, but on account of his father’s merit and of that of the prophet, his mother being a wife of Joseph.  He had passed through deep waters since former time he met with the quorum.  He had a mission given him to raise means for the Temple and yet he asked to be allowed to take his girls east that they might sooner get over the grief of losing their mother and he thought it would be a resto to him but he had found it anything but rest.  It had been a sore trial to have the children suffer as they had with diphtheria.  He had been pleased to hear the rumor that he would go to England on a mission, but he feared from what he heard to day that this would not be the case.  We adjourned till tomorrow night.  Going home Heber and I walked together.  He said he wanted me to come to his house and get acquainted and put up as he had a spare bed.”  (Anthon H. Lund diary, 16 Apr., 1893)

24 Apr.:  Responsibility of Bishops for individuals.

“I went to Prest Woodruffs this evening and staid all night.  In conversation he told me he wanted me to work in the Salt Lake Temple.  also directed me to get out a circular letter to the Presidents of Stakes and Bishops of Wards.  instructing them to have the Ward Records examined and enquire into the standing and fellowship of each member, or of each name which appears therein, and on finding those persons whose past conduct has not been consistent with the life of a Saint, they be labored with and admonished to repentance.  And if found unworthy of membership that they be dealt with an their names stricken from the records that the vineyard may be pruned.”  (L. John Nuttall diary, 24 Apr., 1893)

9 May:  Pruning of unworthy from the Church.


President____________________and Counselors,

________________________Stake of Zion.

Dear Brethren:

With this we return the recommends given by you to members of your Stake to be present at the dedicatory services at the Temple.  We do so for the purpose that you may carefully examine them and become acquainted with the standing of the persons recommended.  There were numbers who gained admission to these services whose lives had, for many years, been inconsistent with their calling as Saints; in fact, in some cases they were not known to be members of the Church.  But their names were found on the records, fellowship had not been withdrawn from them, and they claimed the right, under the ruling of the First Presidency, to be present at the dedication.  These persons having claimed this privilege by reason of their membership in the Church, it now becomes the duty of the local authorities, Bishops and others, to see that all such assume the responsibilities of their profession.  When, in your search through the recommends, you meet the name of any of whose standing you are in doubt, they should be labored with in the divine spirit of love and patience, and be admonished to repent of all that is unseemly and inconsistent with their callings as officers or members of Christ’s Holy Church.  If any turn a deaf ear to these warnings, continue in ways of indifference or sin, and they be found unworthy of membership, they should be dealt with by the proper councils of the Church, as the word of the Lord directs, and their names should be stricken from the records, that the vineyard of the Lord may be pruned and no further opportunity given to the unworthy to repeat the course they took to gain admission to the Temple Services. 

[page 2]Our Heavenly Father having exercised His right to forgive whom He will forgive, and to say to each one of us, “Son (or daughter) thy sins be forgiven thee,” on condition  that we forsake our sins and live unto Him in newness of life, it would be well not to impose further conditions or to require that nay of the Saints should be re-baptized before they can be recognized as in full fellowship; on the other hand, none should be forbidden to, in this way, renew their covenants, if they feel that by so doing they will more fully satisfy their consciences, or will receive thereby renewed strength to commence a life more faithful in the observance of God’s commandments.

We desire that the Presidents of quorums should act in harmony with the Presidents of Stakes and Bishops.  They should examine the rolls of their quorums and where they find men entirely neglecting the duties of their Priesthood and ignoring its responsibilities, they should take the usual action therein.

Praying the Lord to bless you with His Holy Spirit, not only in carrying out these instructions, but at all times and under all circumstances,

We remain, your Brethren in Christ,

/s/ WILFORD WOODRUFF ) First Presidency

GEO. Q. CANNON ) of the Church of

JOS. F. SMITH ) Jesus Christ of

  Latter-day Saints.

P. S. We send you a number of extra copies of this circular for distribution among the Bishops and Presidents of Quorums in your stake.”  (Levi Edgar Young Papers, Utah State Historical Society, B12, Box 8, Fd 12, Office of First Presidency to Presidents and Counselors, 9 May 1893)

15 May:  Length of missions.

“The president of a mission was speaking to us the other day in relation to an idea which has become very prevalent among the Elders concerning the duration of their missions.  It seems to be the opinion of many that when they have been absent two years they should be released to return home, and some feel if they are detained beyond that time that it is more than should be required of them.  This president had occasion to say to an Elder, whose circumstances were such as to make his return almost a necessity, that when two years were expired he thought he ought to be released.  Another Elder was present at this conversation, and when he afterwards was required to stay a little longer than his fellow-laborer, he felt as though he was being imposed upon; and yet his family at home was well situated, and there was not the least necessity for him to hurry home.

We think this impression that two years is the limit of time that Elders ought to be required to stay on missions is not a good one, and it should not be fostered in their minds.  Circumstances might required them to stay for a longer period, as it might be an injury to the mission and a serious disadvantage to release them earlier.  We have known of cases where it has been necessary for Elders to stay three years, and sometimes longer, and in thus remaining they were able to perform an excellent work, sometimes accomplishing in the last year of labor more than they had done in all the time previously.

When Elders are called to go on missions they should make up their minds that they will remain as long as it may be deemed necessary for the good of the work.  A judicious president of a mission will not neglect his fellow-servants, and will not impose burdens upon them which they should not carry.  He, especially when he meets with other Elders in conference, is in a position to judge as to the propriety of making releases, and an Elder should be quite content to stay until the Spirit indicates that he can be spared to return home.  There is reason to believe that the usefulness of many has been impaired by their getting the idea that at the expiration of two years they must be released.  Such a feeling should not be encouraged.”  (George Q. Cannon, JI 28(10):325-326, 15 May, 1893)

25 May:  Gerrymandering a new Bishop.

“The proposition of the Presidency of the Davis Stake to appoint David Cook Bishop of South Hooper Ward, and to enlarge the Ward a little to take in his residence, was approved, the former Bishop having resigned.”  (A. H. Cannon diary, 25 May, 1893)

1 Jun.:  Bishop’s trials.

“One of our correspondents asks:

‘Can a Bishop make a decision that will be binding without hearing both sides?’

A Bishop before making a decision should have his counselors with him, and then they should be all means have both parties represented, or a decision wil not be binding.  The Prophet Joseph in giving instruction to the High Council on one occasion said he wished his words recorded, and although they were for the High Councils, they are equally applicable for bishops:

‘That the Council should try no case without both parties being present, or having had an opportunity to be present; neither should they hear one party’s complaint before his case is brought up for trial; neither should they suffer the character of anyone to be exposed before the High Council without the person being present and ready to defend him or herself; that the minds of the Counselors may not be prejudiced for or against anyone whose case they may possibly have to act upon.'”

(George Q. Cannon, JI 28(11):352, 1 Jun., 1893)

1 Jun.:  Bishops must be ordained AND set apart.

[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “The question was asked by Bro. [F. M.] Lyman whether or not it was necessary in setting apart a Bishop to ordain as well as set him apart.  Father read three passages from the revelations which proved to our satisfaction that an ordination as well as setting apart is necessary.”  (A. H. Cannon diary, 1 Jun., 1893)

4 Jun.:  Some women think they ought to hold Priesthood.

“It is said that this is woman’s day.  It is only a few centuries since men could take their wives into the market places and sell them to the highest bidder, but there has been a wonderful change.  I see the hand of God in it.  I remember the legislative enactment giving women the right to hold property.  Some of the brethren thought that was giving them too much liberty, but I thought that if a woman could bear children for me she could be entrusted with a little property.  Well, these privileges are good and proper, and I would say to the young women use them wisely and do not attempt to go too far.  There are occasional reports that some women think they ought to hold the Priesthood, that they should permitted to dedicate a meetinghouse.  This is not her prerogative.  It has been said, that woman was not taken from man’s head to rule over him, nor from his fet to be beneath him, but from his side to be a companion to him.”  (George Q. Cannon, address at M.I.A. Annual Conference, 4 Jun., 1893; Contributor 14(9):462-463, Jul., 1893)

11 Jun.:  Proposed Bishop voted down.

[Alpine, Utah] “We met Counselors John and Partridge of the Stake Presidency and had some talk with them about the Bishopric for this Ward.  Three weeks ago Pres. Smoot came to this place and tried to make James W. Vance Bishop, but he was only sustained by 27 votes, while 13 opposed him, and about 100 did not vote at all, and they should be counted against him.  We decided to hear from the Priesthood of the Ward before deciding, and after prayers we met with the brethren at 11 o’clock.  Full liberty was given to the brethren to express themselves, and they were also asked to suggest the names of some brethren whom they thought could successfully fill the position of Bishop.  The following brethren were named: John Alma Vance, James W. Vance, Thos. F. Carlisle, Albert Marsh, I. R. Vance and W. J. Strong.  There was very little evil said of all these brethren, and a great deal of good.  A vote was taken on the various candidates with the result that Albert Marsh received 15, James W. Vance 11, Thos. F. Carlisle 9, John Alma Vance 8, and each of the others one.  Bros. Lyman, John and Partridge and myself retired and quickly decided to make Bro. Marsh Bishop, and Jas. W. Vance First and Thos. F. Carlisle Second Counselors.  We presented the matter in this way to the brethren and without a dissenting vote it was passed.”  (A. H. Cannon diary, 11 Jun., 1893)

29 Nov.:  Change in doctrine of baptism?

“I went to the President’s [Woodruff] office with Bro. James E. Talmage in the forenoon to get some doctrinal points answered by the brethren.  Concerning a change in the articles of faith, and about the subject of baptism an answer will be given after these matters have been submitted to the Quorum meeting this afternoon. . . . It was decided to change the fourth article of Faith to read ‘We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are,’ etc.  This is to overcome the error which occurs where it says in the third article ‘We believe that mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.’, and fourth ‘We believe that these ordinances are,’ etc., when faith and repentance are not ordinances but principles.—-It was also decided that only the form given for baptism in the Doctrine and Covenants shall be used in the administration of this ordinance, except in the performance of baptism for the dead in the temples, where for adults they use the words, ‘Being commissioned of Jesus Christ I baptize you—-for and in behalf of—-, who is dead for the remission of your sins,’ etc.  It was decided that this matter of temple work shall be considered later.—-It was also decided that frequent baptisms will not be allowed, and that this sacred ordinance is becoming too common.”  (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 29 Nov., 1893)

1 Dec.:  Seek counsel.

“There was a time in our history when it was the prevalent fashion for the Latter-day Saints to undertake no important enterprise without first asking counsel upon the subject.  It is a sorrowful fact that that fashion has almost entirely died out.  In these days it is very rarely that you hear of men going to their brethren to ask counsel of them concerning affairs of this character.  They are ready enough, when they get into ‘hot water’ and financial straits to come for counsel and aid; but while they are in, or think they are in, the floodtide of prosperity, they have little or no use for their brethren in the Priesthood.

Nevertheless the old fashion of which I speak was an excellent one.  It was certainly attended with good results in the olden time of which we read in the Bible; and in the early days of our Church very many had good reasons to be thankful that they had sought for and obtained counsel; for by doing so they frequently either avoided serious trouble, or gained many advantages.  Experience proves that no one ever received injury through asking counsel of those who hold the Priesthood.  In business affairs it can be no harm to consult friends who have experience, and if those friends are servants of God, why should not their advice be sought?  The Lord having chosen them, and given them the spirit of counsel and instruction, and made them leaders among His people, qualifies them in a high degree for this important service.

When a man has sought and obtained counsel of the Lord through His servants, he has strength and confidence that he would not otherwise have.  His reflections are pleasant, for he has a consciousness that he has done his duty.  If embarrassment should follow, he can go to the Lord and ask for His blessing with a faith that he could not possibly exercise if he had undertaken his enterprise in utter disregard of or indifference to counsel.”  (George Q. Cannon, JI 28(23):733, 1 Dec., 1893)

7 Dec.:  Baptist should enter water with candidate.

[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “In baptizing the person officiating should enter the water as well as the candidate.  This is fully explained in the Doctrine and Covenants.”  (A. H. Cannon diary, 7 Dec., 1893)

17 Dec.:  Repeated baptisms of the same person.

“Repeated baptisms of the same person should not be sanctioned in the Church.  It is easy to fall into the error of belief that baptism offers a ready means of gaining forgiveness of sins, however oft repeated.  Such a belief tends rather to excuse than to prevent sin, inasmuch as the hurtful effects seem to be so easily averted.  Neither the written law of God, nor the instructions of His living Priesthood designate baptism as a means of securing forgiveness unto those who are already within the fold of Christ.  Unto such, forgiveness of all sin, if not unto death, has been promised on confession, and repentance with full purpose of heart (see remission of sins, lecture 6); and of them baptism has not been required; and were subjects of this class repeatedly baptized, unto them remission of sins would in no wise come, except they repent most sincerely.  The frailties of mortality, and our proneness to sin, lead us continually into error; but if we covenant once with the Lord at the waters of baptism, and thereafter seek to observe His law, He is merciful to pardon our little transgressions, through our repentance sincere and true; and without such repentance, baptism, however oft repeated, would avail us nothing.”  (James E. Talmage, “The Articles of Faith,” lecture given 17 Dec., 1893; in JI 29(5):153-154, 1 Mar., 1894)

31 Dec.:  Speaking during administration of sacrament.

“Attended the Sabbath School.  Spoke while the Sacram[e]nt was being admin[i]stered.”  (L. John Nuttall diary, 31 Dec., 1893)

ca. 1893:  “Fallacies of the Mormon Priesthood.”

“Orson Pratt says in his ‘Divine Authority;’ ‘We know, that so far as the offices, doctrines, ordinances, ceremonies are evidence, this church can exhibit a perfect pattern.  In these things, then, both ancient and modern Saints are exactly alike.  By the N. T. then we cannot be condemned. * * * We again assert that this perfect coincidence in teaching, in every point, is a strong presumptive evidence that Mr. Smith was sent of God.’

This is the claim of the Mormon church, that it is in perfect accord with the N. T., while all other churches are out of harmony with it; and their ministers without authority to preach the gospel or administer the ordinances.

They also claim that apostles, prophets, bishops etc., were priests.

As the N. T. is silent regarding such a priesthood, it may be taken for granted that no such priesthood exists, except it be in a spiritual sense, in which sense all Christians are priests.  (1 Peter 2:5,9.)

That the honest in heart who seek the truth may no longer be deceived, let us examine these claims, and also the foundation on which these claims are built.

Two priesthoods exist in the Mormon church; the Aaronic and the Melchisedec.

The Aaronic priesthood and the sacrifices of the Mosaic dispensation passed away when Christ ushered in the new and ‘better covenant,’ because they were only types and shadows of that which was fulfilled in Christ.  Therefore the Aaronic priesthood has no place in the N. T. dispensation, and the Aaronic priesthood of the Mormon church has no similarity to the Aaronic priesthood of the O. T.

There was only one high-priest at the same time in the Mosaic dispensation, and only 80 high-priests in the long period of 1370 years.  Mormon high-priests are too numerous to mention. 

The Mormon church has boy deacons, but in Acts 6:3, we read, ‘Men, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,’ were called to fill this office; and in 1 Timothy 3:12, we read that deacons were to be married men.

Patriarchs are not found among the N. T. officers.  Patriarch means a father or founder of a family, as was Abraham.  Evangelist is one sent to carry the gospel; which gospel was not known in the Patriarchal age.  The good news was first heralded by the angels at Bethlehem.

Joseph Smith has confounded these two offices, and we are told in the Compendium of 1892, p. 73 that, ‘An Evangelist is a Patriarch.’

In these offices the Mormon church fails; and it is not a perfect pattern as asserted by Mr. Pratt.

The Melchisedec is the only priesthood belonging to the N. T. and Christ himself is its only representative.  Whoever claims the right to the High Priesthood of Melchisedec, or the right to bestow it, is an USURPER and BLASPHEMER, for this authority belongs alone to JESUS CHRIST, who never has nor ever will bestow it upon a sinful man.

It is taught in D. & C. Sec. 107; 14, that the Aaronic priesthood is an appendage to the Melchisedec.  In Hebrews, and especially in chapter 7, these priesthoods are shown to be as separate and distinct from each other, as the old dispensation is from the new. . . .

This is the foundation of the Mormon priesthood, laid in ignorance and deception; yet it claims unlimited authority over all mankind, and that its voice is the voice of God.

Friends, be no longer bound by the carnal desires of a man-made priesthood, but take the religion of the New Testament–the religion of Christ.  Be free in Christ Jesus; ‘For if the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.'”  (Rev. J. C. Andrews, Provo City, Utah, “Fallacies of the Mormon Priesthood,” [pamphlet] ca. 1893; xerox)

Temple Lot Case:  Concerning re-baptism.

“909 Q:  Was it not advised and counselled by every important officer in the church from the President down?  A:  What?

910 Q:  That re-baptism should be performed upon the arrival of the people who followed Brigham Young here to the Valley, upon their arrival?  A:  Yes sir, that is a fact.

911 Q:  It was advised and counselled by the whole kit and hoods of them?  A:  Yes sir, I suppose so,–when they came here I understand it was, but that and nothing to do with our original baptism.

912 Q:  What were you baptized for the third time,–was that because you got out of Christ the second time?  A:  I don’t know,–I think not.

913 Q:  Well what was if for?  A:  I did not say any thing about getting out of Christ.

914 Q:  Well you were baptized the third time?  A:  Yes sir.

915 Q:  Had your second baptism been knocked out, and was that the reason you were baptized the third time?  A:  No sir.

916 Q:  Was that third baptism legal too?  A:  Yes sir.

917 Q:  Your first and second baptism was legal and binding?  A:  Yes sir.

918 Q:  They were legal and binding?  A:  Yes sir.

919 Q:  So you were baptized three times in all?  A:  Yes sir.

920 Q:  Does it require three baptisms in the kingdom fo heaven, or in this church out here?  A:  Yes sir.  Three baptisms,–what is the question?

921 Q:  I asked you if it required three baptisms in this church out here in the Valley, in Utah territory here, to enable a member of the church here to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?  A:  No sir, it is not necessary.

922 Q:  Now they teach that baptism is a doctrine,–?  A:  They have taught it.

923 Q:  Wait until I get through with the question,–they teach that baptism here as a doctrine,–that re-baptism?  A:  I suppose they have.

924 Q:  The authorities in the church here in Utah have?  A:  Yes sir, they taught it.

925 Q:  And insisted that every one that came here should be baptized and have baptized them the third time since coming here?  A:  That is the understanding.

926 Q:  So the teachings of the church here in Salt Lake City under the Presidency of Wilford Woodruff teaches that persons must be baptized three times?  A:  It don’t.

927 Q:  It does not?  A:  No sir.

928 Q:  Did you not just say that it did?  A:  No sir it does not say any thing about the number of times.

929 Q:  Don’t they teach that, and have they not required that of their members?  A:  No sir.

930 Q:  Don’t they teach that publicly from the stand?  A:  No sir.

931 Q:  And that you solemnly affirm to?  A:  They baptized them after they came here.

932 Q:  They baptized them after they came here?  A:  Yes sir.

933 Q:  Even if they were baptized before they came here?  A:  Yes sir.

934 Q:  That did not make any difference?  A:  No sir, for their baptism was good before they came here,–

935 Q:  It did not make any difference whether or not they belonged to the church,–they were re-baptized when they came here?  A:  Yes sir.”

(Joseph C. Kingsbury, Temple Lot Manuscript, Book One, Respondents Testimony, p. 220)