Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Priesthood, 1895.” 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.
PRIESTHOOD, 1895.
1895: 24 Jan.: Must be ordained a Bishop, not High Priest.
“I went to the Office And to the Temple with the Twelve. We discussed several subjects. Among other things it had been the Custom in Cache valley by M Thatcher & others to ordain a High Priest then Set him apart for a Bishop. I decided that was wrong. No man had a right to officiate in any office of the Priesthood without being ordained to that office.” (Wilford Woodruff diary, 24 Jan., 1895)
1 Feb.: The blessing of infants.
“The following question has been asked:
‘Is it necessary in blessing an infant for the Elder to speak the entire name, as, John James Smith? Or would the child be properly named if the Elder gave it the name of John James, when the father’s name is Smith, and in reality the child’s name is John James Smith?’
The mention of the given name or names is all that is essential to the correct blessing of a child, as its name at birth is the same as that of its parents, and therefore it is not necessary to again confer upon it this name. Sometimes in blessing children, however, the original as well as the Christian name is mentioned, which is, of course, not in the least improper.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 30(3):98, 1 Feb., 1895)
1 Mar.: Authority of a descendant of Aaron.
“The question has arisen in one of the theological classes in the Box Elder Stake whether a literal descendant of Aaron, after having been duly appointed a Bishop, as indicated in Section 68 of the Doctrine and Covenants, can act as our present Bishops now act, namely, in presiding over wars, officiating in all the ordinances of the Gospel, etc., without having the Melchisedek Priesthood conferred upon him.
A descendant of Aaron who receives his ordination as a Bishop by right of descent can only act in the ordinances of the Lesser Priesthood. He would have no more right to act in the offices of the Melchisedek Priesthood than did John the Baptist, who was a literal descendant of Aaron. John could baptize with water, but he distinctly stated that one should come after him who would baptize them with the Holy Ghost, he himself not having the right to officiate in the ordinance of laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost. Our Bishops who now officiate in that office, do so by virtue of their having been ordained High Priests, and not because of their ordination as Bishops.
President Young, in discourses which he delivered while he was among us, made this very clear, and drew the distinction in a manner that all could understand.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 30(5):151, 1 Mar., 1895)
1 Mar.: Blessing children.
“We are asked the following question:
‘When a father or other persons holding the Melchisedek Priesthood blesses and names a baby when eight days old, is it then necessary for the parents to take the child to Fast meeting and have it blessed and named again?’
While it is the right of every father in this Church to bless his child when it is eight days old, if he so desires, there is, however, an order in the Church that children should be blessed in the ward, under the direction of the Bishop. One reason for this is that there may be a proper record kept of the birth of ttthe child, its parentage, the name that is given to it, ect., so that its name may be numbered among the names of the Saints of God. And this should be observed by all parents in the blessing of their children.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 30(5):151, 1 Mar., 1895)
26 Mar.: Promised he would not die; died a year later.
[Patriarchal Blessing] “I bless you that you may live whilst you desire life and life is sweet unto you. [Cannon was 36 years old at this time.] And I say unto you that if you desire it with your heart you shall never taste of death; you shall rise triumphant in the earth, and meet your Redeemer at his coming, and ever be with your Lord. . . . Thou shalt live to see Israel gathered from the four corners of the earth and Zion established and the Kingdom of God set up never more to be thrown down, and thou shalt stand as a Savior upon Mount Zion to be gathered back to the Center Stake, administer in that holy Temple, and the temples of God for the salvation of your Father’s house, your ancestors, and assist in the redemption of the House of Israel. I bless you as one of the One hundred and Forty-four Thousand saviors that shall stand upon Mount Zion.” (Patriarchal Blessing of Abraham H. Cannon, by Wm. J. Smith, 26 Mar., 1895; in A. H. Cannon diary, 26 Mar., 1895)
Apr.: Can a deacon assist a teacher in administering?
“The following inquiries have been propounded to us by a subscriber in Salt Lake City, to which we are pleased to give the accompanying answers, all of which have been submitted to the authorities of the Church who have approved of the same and consequently they may be considered authentic:
Has a deacon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints any authority to assist a teacher in the laying on of hands for the healing of the sick, though a deacon is not mouth? For example, the teachers of a certain block were called to administer to a sick person. There were also two deacons in the room at the time, and the head teacher called upon them to assist in the administration of the ordinance. Now, has a teacher the right to call upon a deacon to assist him, or has a teacher any right, to lay on his hands for the recovery of the sick, even though he be full of faith which is burning within him. Of course in Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants, paragraph 57, it says that a deacon is to assist a teacher if the occasion requires it, but in paragraph 58 it plainly states that neither a teacher nor a deacon has authority to baptize, administer the sacrament or lay on hands; but does not this latter mean that he is not to lay on hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost after baptism?
A deacon or a lay member of the Church has the privilege to lay on hands for the recovery of the sick where they are asked to do so, or are led by the Holy Spirit to take this course, though in such cases they have no right to use the authority of the Priesthood. There are instances where little children have laid their hands uopn those who were sick, praying at the same time for the Lord to heal the afflicted one. Their simple, child-like faith has prevailed with God, and those in whose behalf they have prayed have been healed. It is not infrequent for leading officers of the Church to call upon teachers and deacons to join them in laying hands upon the sick; women, too, have been invited to join in this holy ceremony, but such persons have not been asked to be mouth in administering, nor to anoint with oil. There is not the least impropriety in teachers and deacons, or even lay members who have faith, taking part to the extent above mentioned in the holy ordinances of the Gospel, though it can be readily understood that such persons have no authority to lay on hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost. In the instance mentioned above the teachers who requested the assistance of the deacons undoubtedly held the Melchisedek Priesthood and were merely acting as teachers. Otherwise, if they were only ordained teachers, they had no more authority than did the deacons to lay on hands.” (“Department of Inquiry,” Contributor 16(6):386-387, Apr., 1895)
Apr.: Ordinances performed by unworthy men.
“The following inquiries have been propounded to us by a subscriber in Salt Lake City, to which we are pleased to give the accompanying answers, all of which have been submitted to the authorities of the Church who have approved of the same and consequently they may be considered authentic:
. . . .
Second question:
Can a man holding the Priesthood of God, who has committed sin and thus defiled himself, and who is known to be impure through sinful and filthy habits, bestow the Holy Ghost upon any who have been baptized? We are told in the Scriptures that an impure person cannot have the Holy Ghost, and if such do not have it, how are they able to bestow it upon others by their administration?
There are many instances on record which confirm the fact that the Lord acknowledges the authority a man holds in administering the ordinances of the Gospel, even though the man himself at the time be a transgressor. So long as a man maintains his position in the Church and holds the Priesthood, he has the authority to act in his calling, and all proper administrations will be acknowledged of God. Where men are known to be sinful, however, and to have violated their covenants, they should not be requested to take part in the ordinances of the Gospel, but should be called to repentance. Nevertheless whatever has been done by properly authorized servants of God will be acknowledged of Him, so long as such acts have been in conformity with the laws of His Church.” (“Department of Inquiry,” Contributor 16(6):387, Apr., 1895)
3 Apr.: “Not one of the 12 to be lost.”
“Pres. [Lorenzo] Snow said he was so happy in hearing the testimonies of the brethren that he could shout hosanna, if it were proper to do so. He felt that the Lord would not permit one of this Quorum to be lost, but He would exercise a care over them for the remainder of their lives.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 3 Apr., 1895)
7 Apr.: Joseph’s conferral of keys to the 12.
[General Conference, Wilford Woodruff speaking] “When Joseph and Hyrum met with nine of the apostles for the last time, shortly before his death, he was transfigured before them, his face shone like amber, and he gave us all the keys of the kingdom.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 7 Apr., 1895)
15 Apr.: Publicizing welfare recipients.
“We learn that a practice has sprung up in at least one of the wards, of reading the names at the fast meetings, of those who draw donations and those who make donations to the poor, and that in consequence of this, some who are poor have their feelings hurt.
While it is proper that every encouragement should be given to the Saints to be liberal in their fast offerings to the poor, it is neither discreet nor necessary to read the list of donations in public meeting. To do so might bring us in conflict with the teachings of the Savior, where He says:
‘Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. * * * But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.
‘That thine alms may be in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.'”
(George Q. Cannon, JI 30(8):242, 15 Apr., 1895)
15 Apr.: Concerning re-baptism.
“An esteemed correspondent writes to us and asks questions concerning re-baptism. She is prompted to do so by hearing considerable said about re-baptism being put down as not necessary. She cites some instances, and asks whether in such cases rebaptism would not be proper.
Now, in all the public teachings which have been given by the authorities concerning re-baptism, care has been taken not to go to an extreme upon this.
The reason for speaking upon it at all has been that there is a disposition in many quarters, to push the desire for frequent re-baptism farther than is necessary. Baptism is commanded of the Lord, and is the ordinance given by Him, by which His children can enter into covenant with Him, and obtain the forgiveness of their sins. After having obeyed this ordinance and become members of the church, if people commit sin, they should repent and confess their sins. If they have sinned against their brethren or their sisters, they should confess their wrong doing to those whom they have wronged, and if to the Lord, they should confess their sins to the Lord and obtain forgiveness; for the Lord has promised to forgive all those who truly and sincerely repent of their sins. The idea should not be permitted to grow up, that forgiveness cannot be obtained in this way, and that brethren and sisters who commit sin must in every case, be re-baptized.
There have been times in the Church when the Prophet of the Lord has been led to call upon the people to reform and to repent of their sins, and the people have been aroused from their lethargy and seen their sinfulness, and they have been permitted to renew through baptism, their covenants with the Lord. This was notably the case after the Church was led to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. After the lengthy and trying journey across the plains, in which the patience of the people was tried, and their faith was severely tested, and improper things were done in many instances, because of peculiar circumstances in which the people were placed, the Saints desired to renew their covenants with the Lord. The Prophet of the Lord, himself, set the example, and it became a custom for all who came across the plains in those weary and trying days, to renew their covenants by baptism upon their arrival in the valley. There are cases also of persons committing sins of such a character that after they have confessed them, their brethren and sisters feel they could fellowship them better and more cordially, if they would renew their covenants by baptism. There are other instances where persons may absent themselves from the wards, and from association with members of the Church and be gone some time, living under circumstances where they become cold and indifferent, if not sinful, and when they return and become convinced that they have not lived as they should do, and make confession of this, they may desire to be re-baptized.
Other persons may have been baptized in their childhood and grown to be men and women, without having seriously thought of their religion, or the duties devolving upon them as members of the Church; on becoming convinced of the error of this indifference and neglect, they naturally desire to renew their covenants by baptism in order to regain the fellowship of the Saints. There would be no impropriety in re-baptism in these or in other cases of the kind.
But it is far better for the Latter-day Saints to live day by day, so as to not be under the necessity of renewing their covenants by this means. If the Church observes the sacrament properly, sins are confessed and forgiveness is obtained before partaking of the bread and the contents of the cup.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 30(8):242-243, 15 Apr., 1895)
20 Apr.: Leaders (not congregation) to nominate officers.
[Provo Stake Conference] “Pres. Jos. F. Smith read from the Doc. & Cov. as to the manner in which officers in the priesthood should be chosen. The Lord through the leaders is to make the nominations, and the people can then receive or reject them as they see fit.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 20 Apr., 1895)
21 Apr.: New Stake Presidency set apart in public meeting
[Provo Stake Conference] “The brethren were now set apart on the stand Pres. Woodruff being mouth in the case of Edward Partridge, Father in case of David John, and Pres. Jos. F. Smith in the case of Reed Smoot.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 21 Apr., 1895)
11 May: Teachers to help avoid Church courts.
[Bear Lake Stake Conference] “We had several reports from Bishops, and Bro. [F. M.] Lyman then occupied about 35 minutes in speaking to the Priesthood, and especially to the teachers, whom he admonished to be faithful in their labors so as to prevent trials before the Courts of the Church. They should also be the confidential advisers of the people, and not betray the confidence of the Saints.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 11 May, 1895)
15 May: Priesthood necessary to pass sacrament?
“Another correspondent asks some questions as to whether there would be any impropriety in members of the theological class, young men from fourteen to twenty-three years of age passing the sacrament after the offering of the prayers by an Elder or a Priest. He says that some of these young men hold no Priesthood; others are Deacons and Teachers.
It would be well always to use those who bear the Priesthood to pass the bread and the cup, although there is no fixed rule in the Church that we know of upon this point. Questions have been frequently asked concerning this, some appearing to think that it is improper or wrong for anyone not bearing the Priesthood to pass the bread or the cup. But while it is preferable always to use men for this purpose who hold the Priesthood, so as to avoid creating questions in the minds of the Saints, still there appears to be no wrong in those who do not bear the Priesthood doing this, as we frequently see in congregations women and children passing the bread and the cup to those who sit beside them, and this certainly does not detract from the value of the ordinance in any manner.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 30(10):317, 15 May, 1895)
28 Jun.: Full-time missionaries ordained 70’s.
“At two o’clock I was at the Annex of the Temple, where I assisted in setting apart and instructing twenty-nine missionaries, most of whom are going to the Southern States, though some of them are going to Europe. The most of these missionaries were young men who held only the priesthood of an elder. They were consequently ordained seventies.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 28 Jun., 1895)
6 Aug.: Lack of unity among early Apostles.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12, Lorenzo Snow speaking] “The early apostles of this dispensation on many occasions quarreled, and were not united; so was it also with the apostles in the time of Jesus; but God has given us a union which I hope will ever continue.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 6 Aug., 1895)
7 Aug.: The 12 should work full-time for the Church.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “Francis M. Lyman felt that there is sufficient work at all times among the Saints to keep all the brethren of the Quorum busily engaged in the ministry.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 6 Aug., 1895)
8 Aug.: Role of Alternate High Councilors.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “A question from Cache Stake was asked, as there seems to be a diference of views even among the Twelve upon the point. Bro. Thatcher holds that Sec. 102 of the Doctrine and Covenants makes it imperative that at least seven members of each High Council be present to transact business, and that no more than five alternates can act in any High Council. Father maintains, with several other brethren, that alternate High Councillors possess all the powers and authority which are given to regular members and they can consequently be called to fill any number of vacancies which may occur because of the absence of regular members. After some little talk Pres. Woodruff said there never would be a time or condition when the work necessary to be done would be delayed or stopped by the negligence of one or more men, consequently when enough regular High Councillors were not in attendance to do the business, alternates should be chosen to continue and do the work needful. In the absence of a Bishop a High Priest could be chosen temporarilly to perform his duties.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 8 Aug., 1895)
15 Aug.: Blessing and naming a child.
“An inquiry is addresed to us, concerning an occurrence which took place in one of the wards of the Territory. A baby girl was brought to the meeting to be named and blessed. The Elder who was mouth in pronouncing the blessing omitted to mention the name which the parents desired it to be known by. After the meeting some of the neighbors told the mother that her baby had got no name. She felt badly about this, and she feels that her baby should be blessed again. The Elder who blessed the child told the mother that the omission of the child’s name would not invalidate the child’s blessing; that it was the parents who gave the child a name; but the mother is not yet satisfied, and we are written to upon the subject.
It is the custom in blessing children for the Elder to call them by the names which their parents desire them to be knwon by, and to say to each that is the name by which it shall be known in its father’s household, and in the Church; and some seal the name upon the child; and in making a record of the blessihng, the name is thus recorded. Of course, if an Elder should omit, as in this instance, to give the child a name, it does not make null and void the blessing that has been pronounced upon it. That, undoubtedly, will hold good. In this case, however, we suggest that the child be taken to the meeting, and the name by which its parents desire it to be known, be confirmed upon it in the regular way and according to the practice of the Church. No exception can be taken to this, and it will satisfy the parents’ feelings, and will place the matter beyond question.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 30(16):497, 15 Aug., 1895)
15 Aug.: Priesthood in the pre-existence?
“We are asked if it is true doctrine to teach that those who hold the Priesthood now in the flesh, held it in the spirit world before they came here. Our correspondent informs us that some are advocating in quorum meetings that all who hold the Priesthood now held it before they were born into this world.
We might ask: ‘Suppose this is true, of what use is it, and how are people benefited by teaching it?’
We know that men must be ordained by those having authority in the flesh, or they cannot legally officiate in any of the ordinances which belong to the Priesthood. Even the Prophet Joseph and Oliver Cowdery, after being ordained by the heavenly messenger, John the Baptist, to the Aaronic Priesthood, were commanded afterwards to ordain each other. But in reply to the question as to the correctness of this doctrine, we have to say that we know of nothing that has been revealed and written which warrants any one in teaching as doctrine, that men who hold the Priesthood here were ordained to the Priesthood before they came here. Such ideas should not be advanced in public or in private.” (George Q. Cannon, JI 30(16):497-498, 15 Aug., 1895)
17 Aug.: Alternate High Councilors.
“In your communication of the 5th inst., you state that on the 3rd of March, 1887, Elder F. D. Richards, after ordaining a number of alternate High Councillors for your Stake, explained the powers and duties of a High Councillor, and stated that alternate High Councillors were High Councillors in the Stake, possessing all the qualifications of the regular members of the High Council. That since that time you have used the alternates as regular members whenever occasion required for the transaction of business even when there was not a quorum of the regular members present. That some of the High Councillors had taken exception to the rightfulness of the Council transacting business without a full quorum of the regular members; and you ask for a ruling on this point.
Your communication was submitted to and considered by the Council of First Presidency and Apostles at their regular meeting, held on the 8th inst., at which meeting there were present, besides ourselves, Elders Lorenzo Snow, F. D. Richards, Brigham Young, F. M. Lyman, J. H. Smith, H. J. Grant, M. W. Merrill and A. H. Cannon.
The object of creating alternate High Councillors was explained in substance as follows: There had been a good deal of trouble in convening High Councils throughout the different stakes, and upon the suggestion of the late President Brigham Young Alternates were Provided for so that the business of the church might not suffer in consequence of the inability of stake presidents to convene their respective councils; and it was the intention of President Brigham Young to confer upon them full powers with the regular members. To this was added the testimony of Elder F. D. Richards, who stated that pursuant to instructions given him and Elder Henry Smith by the late President John Taylor, they ordained the first Alternate members of your High Council, investing them with the same rights and powers as those conferred upon the regular members whenever they (the Alternates) might be called upon to act in this office, and that this was done in order that a competent Council might be convened in the absence of any of the regular members.
It was the sense of the Council that Alternate High Councillors possess all the powers of the twelve regular members, when called upon to exercise them; and that therefore a court composed of a majority of Alternates is a competent tribunal to transact any business of the stake needing attention. To quote the language which I (W. W.) used in rendering the decision on this point: ‘This church cannot stop doing business.’ A majority of the regular members, however, should be present whenever possible, and the vacancies filled by Alternates; but the business of the stake should not be allowed to suffer for the lack or non-attendance of a single regular member.” (First Presidency to Presidency of Cache Stake, 17 Aug., 1895. In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:269-270)
19 Sep.: Confessions to be made before as few as possible
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “It was decided in answer to a question which was asked that where persons are guilty of sexual sin, they are to be made to confess before as few as are absolutely necessary in order to make the plaster as large as the sore.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 19 Sep., 1895)
26 Sep.: Change in administration of sacrament.
“Edw. Partridge, president of the Utah Stake asks if all the elders engaged in administering the Sacrament should kneel while the blessing is being asked, or only the one who is mouth. On motion of Jos. F. Smith he was answered that only him who is mouth should kneel, though Bro. Smith thinks there is no doubt it was intended in the revelation that the congregation should kneel, but the size of the Church now prevents this being carried out.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 26 Sep., 1895)
26 Sep.: Baptist must be in water with candidate.
“It was sometime since decided by Pres. John Taylor that a baptism is not legal unless the person officiating enter into the water with the candidate.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 26 Sep., 1895)
6 Oct.: SS teachers don’t need setting apart.
“It is not necessary for S. S. teachers to be set apart.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 6 Oct., 1895)
31 Oct.: 1st Presidency on Acting Teachers.
“Instructions to Presidents and Bishops.–The following is part of a circular letter sent out by the First Presidency to Presidents of Stakes and Bishops, bearing on the subject of Acting Teachers:
At a meeting of the First Presidency and Council of Apostles, held on Thursday, October 31, 1895, the following decisions were reached and are now presented for the guidance of Presidents of Stakes, Bishops and their associate officers, and all whom they may concern: There has been a practice, at least in one of the stakes of Zion, of High Priests, Seventies, Elders and Priests, who may have been called to act in the capacity of Teachers, having an organization distinct from that of the Teacher’s quorum and being presided over by a President and two Counselors. The tendency of such organizations has been to assume functions belonging to the legitimate councils or quorums of the Priesthood. The question submitted was: ‘Is it proper for such organizations to exist, or be presided over in this manner?’ The Council felt that it was not proper, as no provision is made for them in any of the revelations of the Lord relating to Church government, neither is there any necessity for them. And the council decides that the brethren who bear the Melchisedek Priesthood, acting as Teachers, should not have a separate President and Counselors, but that they should, when acting in this capacity, be presided over directly by the Bishopric, whose aids they are in all tings connected with the well-being of the ward.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. 37-38)
31 Oct.: Concerning public confessions.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “A question was asked as to where adulterers should be required to confess their sins, as mentioned in the Book of Covenants. Pres. Woodruff said the acknowledgement should be as public as the offense, but no more exposure should be required than is necessary to correct the evil. After some discussion it was decided that where a public confession of this sin is necessary it should be made before a Fast meeting, or in the presence of the Priesthood, but in no case before a public and mixed congregation.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 31 Oct., 1895)
21 Nov.: Reorganization of Teachers’ Quorums.
[Meeting of 1st Pres. and 12] “A letter was read for the Presidents of Stakes and presiding authorities generally, concerning the organization of Teachers’ Quorums as also about the confession of adulterers.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 21 Nov., 1895)
24 Dec.: Deacons kept busy poking at the sleepers.
“The day being very warm, it was deemed wisdom to hold only an evening service. Some of the Carterton saints (Europeans) visited Papawai and in the afternoon Mr. Price, a photographer from Masterton, took a large picture of the Papawai meeting house and conference visitors, the Elders from Zion and chief Tamahau occupying a central position. A photograph was also taken of the Carterton Sunday school. In the evening the closing meeting of the conference was held. It was commenced at 7:00 o’clock and continued for fuly four hours and a half. I was one of the speakers, Pres. Wm. Gardner translating. This was the largest meeting I attended in New Zealand and towards the latter end of it the Deacons were kept busy poking away at the sleepers with their long sticks. Whenever these officers, of which there were quite a number, saw anyone dozing off, or even nodding, they would step up close to the sleeper, and if this was not sufficient to awaken him, they would apply the point of the stick to the limbs, body or head of the sleeper until an awakening was effected.” (Autobiography of Andrew Jenson, p. 286)
28 Dec.: A. H. Cannon promised long life.
[Patriarchal Blessing] “The elements will not have power over thee, nor the destroyer take thy life, for thy work will continue and thy days be many on the earth. . . .
Thine eyes will behold great changes, for while thou livest nations will fall, and the plagues of the Lord devour many; but thou will stand and witness the redemption of Zion and behold her glory, enter her center temple and gaze upon the faces of holy angels and hear their voices and wilt behold the face of thy Redeemer, and receive a crown of glory which will be imperishable, and thine inheritance will be sealed to thee both on the earth and in the temple of heaven. Thy feet will not stumble in the path of thy progress, nor thy guardian angel ever forsake thee. And thou wilt occupy the mansion prepared for thee from before the foundation of the world, and sit upon the throne of thy glory and exaltation forever and ever. And I seal thee up unto eternal life in the name of Jesus. Amen. [He died several months later.]” (Patriarchal Blessing of Abraham H. Cannon, by Charles D. Evans, 28 Dec., 1895; A. H. Cannon diary, 28 Dec., 1895)
n.d.: Don’t refuse callings.
“He [Lorenzo Dow Young] told me in 1895 when I was nursing him that the Prophet Joseph Smith asked him twice to be one of the first High Council and in humility he declined said he felt unworthy.
Father said the Prophet never asked him again to take an office.
Had he been in the lease [sic] self seeking he might have been one of the accepted leaders of his people.” (Francis M. Young, comment at conclusion of typescript. “Diary of Lorenzo Dow Young,” typescript by his son, Francis M. Young, UCLA Special Collections, Manuscript #320, box 1.)