Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Priesthood, 1904.” 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, 1904 (January-October).
1904: 1 Jan.: Harmony between Priesthood and Auxiliaries.
“Questions are frequently asked touching the relationship that should exist between the presiding authorities of a ward and the authorities of an auxiliary organization, such, for example, as the superintendent of the Sunday School. The organizations of the Church are intended to promote harmony, and if understood there is no reason why discord should arise between the bishop and those called upon to act in the auxiliary organizations. The question is often asked, for instance, who should select and install a superintendent of a Sunday School, or what step should be taken in cases where the superintendent of a school for any reason whatever vacates his office. The first step in case the superintendent vacates his offics is for his first or second assistant, as the case may be, to request the secretary of the school either to notify or remind the bishop of the ward of the vacancy, and at the same time notify the stake superintendent of Sunday Schools; and this notice or reminder should be given to the bishop and stake superintendent at the earliest possible convenience in order that all unnecessary delays may be avoided. The second step in such cases, is the selection of the proper officer or officers to fill the vacancy or vacancies. It is, of course, within the authority of the bishop of a ward to select and install the superintendent of the Sunday School in his ward, but bishops of wards should not take such a step without the co-operation of the stake superintendent. This last named officer represents the presidency of the stake in carrying on the work of this auxiliary organization of the Church. The stake presidency holds the stake superintendent responsible in a large measure for the character of the men and the progress of the work of the Sunday Schools throughout the stake, and the bishop, therefore, who proceeds to select and install the ward superintendent without the approval or knowledge of the stake superintendent, does not show proper respect for him or for the stake president, who is entitled to be represented, in the selection of a ward superintendent. On the other hand, a stake superintendent is not authorized to organize the superintendency of a Sunday School without consulting the bishop of the ward, with whom it is his duty to be in complete harmony. There is wisdom, as well as order, in the mutual recognition of these stake and ward authorities. In the first place, the superintendent, by reason of his experience in Sunday School work, and his knowledge of the special qualifications required, may be, from his point of view, well qualified to make suitable recommendations. On the other hand, the bishop is, or at any rate should be, more familiar than any one else with the character and daily lives of the members of his ward. After satisfying the special requirements made by a stake superintendent, there may be wanting in the proposed ward superintendent some indispensable characteristics, or there may be some unworthiness known only to the bishop. If the stake superintendent, therefore, and the bishop of the ward approach each other in a spirit of harmony and mutual helpfulness there is no reason why they may not be united in nearly every instance upon the most suitable man. Should a case arise in which the bishop and stake superintendent find themselves unable to agree, or both wish to defer to the judgment of some higher authority, the proper step to take is to submit the matter to the president of the stake for his judgment or decision, as the case may be. When such an agreement has been arrived at it is the duty of the bishop to install the new superintendent in his office.
In connection with the subject here touched upon, a question has also arisen respecting the propriety of a bishop presiding over a Sunday School when the superintendent is present. If I were bishop, I should recognize with scrupulous care all the presiding officers in my ward, and should think it discourteous to them to assume the duties to which they had been called. There are, without doubt, instances where the bishop can with propriety offer suggestions that will be helpful to the superintendent, without the least humiliation to him; and there may be extreme cases in which the bishop would be justified in assuming the control of a school, but it should not be the rule. On the other hand, if I were a school superintendent I would show the greatest deference to the bishop whenever he was present, and aim as far as possible to satisfy his wishes, and make the school all that he could desire that it should be.
In recognizing the authorities that God has placed in the Church, whether in an auxiliary organization, or in the priesthood, men and women show their proper appreciation of His divine purposes, and manifest that they understand the principles upon which the Church has been organized, and that His will is more important to them than their way. If men and women in any of the organizations of the Church look upon the exercise of their calling in the priesthood, or in any auxiliary organizations from the standpoint of harmony and good-will, and from the standpoint of responsibility to their Maker, rather than from the desire to unduly exalt themselves, they will not find much difficulty in their efforts to magnify their callings and work in unison with every other officer in the Church.
It is sometimes argued that the auxiliary organizations of the Church are not councils of the priesthood. This is admitted, but, on the other hand, the boards–general, stake and ward–are composed of men holding the priesthood, and though being called to be an officer in an auxiliary organization confers no additional office in the priesthood, it takes none away–the brother still remains a High Priest, Seventy, or Elder as before. Furthermore, the officers of these organizations are duly presented at the general or local conferences, as the case may be, and are there sustained by the vote of the people and by that vote these organizations become recognized institutions of the Church, and as such their officers should be respected in their callings and given recognition and support in the performance of their duties in all that relates to the bodies which they represent.
The principles laid down in the foregoing relating to the Sunday Schools apply equally to all auxiliary organizations of the Church.
If what is said herein were read before a stake priesthood meeting it might be helpful in correcting wrong ideas that may exist in any of the organizations of the Church.” (Joseph F. Smith, JI 39(1):16-18, 1 Jan., 1904)
5 Jan.: Salary list of Stake Presidents and Bishops.
“The Presiding Bishopric came in and we made up the salary list of Stake Presidents and the percentage to be paid the Bishops.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 5 Jan., 1904; LDS Archives)
7 Jan.: Deference due senior priesthood holders.
“[Meeting in the Temple] Pres. Smith spoke of the courtesy that was due from the brethren to their seniors. It was a small thing, he said, but when the brethren were passing through a door, the juniors should step back and allow the seniors to pass ahead. He simply mentioned this as an illustration. Due respect should always be shown to those who are above us in the priesthood. The sacrament, he said, should always be passed to the presiding authority in a meeting first.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 7 Jan., 1904)
22 Jan.: Bishops’ certificates for legal recognition.
“In the afternoon I signed a number of Bishop’s certificates. It is now made a rule to give the Bishops certificates to file with the court which will give them recognition legally.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 22 Jan., 1904; LDS Archives)
25 Jan.: Senate will investigate Mormon Church.
“The papers this evening state that there will be a commission sent out by the [U.S.] Senate to investigate the Mormon church. The ‘Telegram’ say Pres. Smith and his wives will be summoned to appear before such a commission.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 25 Jan., 1904; LDS Archives)
26 Jan.: Smoot to be attacked over new plural marriages.
“At the Pres. Office we found Bro. Teasdale who was called up to explain his marriage to Mrs. Scholes. He said that his wife ahd he were not living together as man and wife and had an understanding together in this regard. She was not capable to have connection with a man. Reed Smoot says he is going to be attacked on this ground.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 26 Jan., 1904; LDS Archives)
27 Jan.: It is the Mormon Church the Senate is aiming at.
“It is now certain that the Senate demands an investigation of the Church, for it is not Reed Smoot, but the Mormon Church they are aiming at. If this matter is pushed, where will it end?” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 27 Jan., 1904; LDS Archives)
4 Feb.: Deliberation over dividing Salt Lake Stake.
“At the Temple we had Pres. Lyman with us. . . . It was considered by the council whether we should divide the Salt Lake Stake. The brethren generally were in favor of its division. I thought an energetic Presidency could manage it, as every Sunday they had a chance to reach all their people in the Tabernacle. The one High Council could do the work and the home mission could be regulated by one Presidency as well as by four. I held that while the Bishop should know all his members, it was not necessary that a Stake President should do so. There would be more of a unity and it seemed to me more of a strength in the one stake than if divided. Against these views it was urged that no President could visit each ward in thi stake in a year, that the auxiliary organizations were too large and the Superintendents could not visit them, that four presidents would be able to look after the spiritual welfare of the whole better, and that the Bishops would be stirred up to their duties more and that the extra expense would be more than compensated by the increased tithing. Cowley, Clawson and G. A. Smith were appointed a committee to visit the priesthood meeting tomorrow evening and ask all the Bishoprics to meet at the Assembly Hall next Wednesday evening.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 4 Feb., 1904; LDS Archives)
6 Feb.: It seems certain Church will be investigated.
“In the morning at H. O. and then at Pres. Office. There was no new developments in the Smoot case. It seems now certain that there will be an investigation into Church matters.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 6 Feb., 1904; LDS Archives)
11 Feb.: Agreement to divide Salt Lake Stake.
“In the temple it was agreed to divide the Salt Lake Stake into four parts.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 11 Feb., 1904; LDS Archives)
6 Mar.: Don’t vote against Lord’s appointed w/o cause.
“[Mt. Pleasant] I spoke in the Sunday school and afterwards in the pavilion to the conference. Pres. [C. H.] Lund felt nervous about being sustained as some had threatened to vote against him. I showed the people their right to vote as they pleased, but warned them not to vote without cause against one whom the Lord had appointed.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 6 Mar., 1904; LDS Archives)
17 Mar.: Limited authority of HC in reinstatements.
“[Meeting in the Temple] Elder Clawson reported the Sevier Stake conference. Good attendance and good spirit. He ordained Parley Anderson a High Priest and Bishop and set him apart to preside over the Kooshamren ward, and Jno. E. Gledhill Jr. a Bishop and set him apart to preside over the Vermillion ward; Henry W. Nelson, who had been cut off the church some years ago for transgression and later restored to fellowship, was ordained an Elder and his former blessings sealed upon him. this action was approved by unanimous vote of the High Council. Pres. [Jos. F.] Smith enquired if the Presidency of the stake had been authorized to submit this matter to the High Council. Elder Clawson replied, not that he knew of. Pres. Smith thereupon reminded the brethren than in the future the High Councils could not take an action of this kind without special authority from the First Presidency.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 17 Mar., 1904)
25 Mar.: Church may be accused of hiding witnesses.
“Ben Rich came back from the states. He showed me a telegram to Kearnes from Dr. Jones in which the latter says [] accuses Ben of polygamy.
Bro. Franklin [S. Richards] came in and we had a long talk concerning the situation. He is of the opinion that the absent witnesses should be brought to testify. Otherwise the Church will be accused of keeping them out of the way.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 25 Mar., 1904; LDS Archives)
2 Apr.: Need to say something in General Conf. on Smoot.
“We were busy in the President’s Office. Brother Franklin S. Richards is very urgent that something be said to the Conference in regard to the investigations going on in Washington.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 2 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
4 Apr.: Conference meeting to discuss 2nd Manifesto.
“The conference today was also well attended. It had rained at night and kept storming during the day. In the evening we had a priesthood meeting. Prest. Smith spoke upon the duties of the Saints. I also addressed the meeting. Bro. Lyman said: ‘I was much interested in what you said old man!’
We had a council meeting in which we discussed the wisdom of saying something to peacify [sic] the country. R. Clawson feared that it would do no good but make many hearts ache. He thought that it would be a second manifesto and we had had manifesto’s enough. I favored letting the Saints know our status as they are beginning to doubt our sincerity or rather that of Pres. Smith before the investigation committee.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 4 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
4 Apr.: Bishoprics to meet weekly.
“[General Conference, Priesthood Session] Counselor [Presiding Bishopric] Miller: Bishops & counsilors should have meetings at least once a week.” (Anthony W. Ivins diary, 4 Apr., 1904)
5-7 Apr.: 2nd Manifesto.
“[5 Apr.] In the morning we went to the office and then to the Assembly Hall where we had a special council meeting of the leading priesthood.
In the afternoon we had a Religion Class convention which was a success. Some good papers were read.
The apostles met and the meeting concerning what should be said at conference was discussed and it was here R. C. spoke as stated under yesterday’s date.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 5 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
“[6 Apr.] A council meeting in the morning decided that we speak to the conference concerning our present condition and have Prest. Smith make an official declaration that plural marriages should not be celebrated and any one who should undertake to do so would be liable to be cut off from the Church. Bro. Owen [Woodruff] was much opposed to anything against the principle which had given him birth and which would tend to obliterate it.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 6 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
“[7 Apr.] “At the conference yesterday there was a good attendance. The declaration was read and adopted by the conference. Bro. Winder presented a resolution for the erection of a memorial for the Prophet Joseph and the Patriarch Hyrum. It was passed unanimously.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 7 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
6 Apr.: Bishop for 23 years.
“Since coming to conference we have been notified of the death of one of our most worthy men–Bishop James A. Allred–who has presided over Spring City ward for the last 23 years. A better man, a better presiding officer, I do not think we have or have had in our stake. He was 84 or 85 years of age, but until within a few months he seemed to be strong, energetic and capable of taking charge of everything pertaining to his ward, and he had its affairs in his hands just as though he were a young man.” (Christian N. Lund, President of the North Sanpete Stake, 6 Apr., 1904; CR Apr., 1904, p. 57)
13 Apr.: The President chafes under this unholy crusade.
“A telegram in the morning stated that Burrows claimed that Pres. Smith had promised to bring several witnesses and wanted Smoot to write him. Bro. Penrose wrote an editorial showing that he had not promised. I tried to get him to base his argument upon the fact that several names are mentioned in the telegram which are not mentioned in the record, and then incidentally show the wording of the promise. I am afraid the Senators will consider the denial of the promise an evasion. The important thing is to convince them of the sincerity of our people. The protestants will not be slow to use everything they can to show insincerity. The President chafes under this unholy crusade.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 13 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
14 Apr.: John W. Taylor’s financial troubles.
“I went to H. O. early and A. Jensen and I read Danish History. Then went to the Temple. I was mouth at the altar. J. W. T[aylor]. case was spoken about and the council felt he should not run in debt so much. He has been helped out of his trouble and should now keep out of debt.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 14 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
22 Apr.: Investigation aims at nothing but the Church.
“Powers was on the stand and did his best to connect the Church with politics. They seem to ignore Bro. Smoot in the investigation and aim at nothing but the Church. I still wonder how much they will be able to bring out.
Prest. Smith called me up from Logan and told me he had heard that Angus Cannon Jr. had been subpoened to go to Washington. I inquired about it and found that the Marshal says there is nothing in the rumor.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 22 Apr., 1904; LDS Archives)
5 May: 12 shocked at report of promiscuity.
“[Meeting in the Temple] Prs. Winder said that it was reported that a young girl, member of the church, 14-years of age, living at Logan had confessed to having had unlawful intercourse with 20-different persons. This information was shocking to the brethren.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 5 May, 1904)
16 May: Smoot should resign to spare the Church.
“Bro. Franklin S. Richards came in and we went over conditions in Washington. He feels we are approaching a crisis and thinks we must discipline such men who have brought reproach upon the Church. He also suggested that Bro. Smoot put a stop to these proceedings by resigning. This Pres. Smith feels should not be done unless the Church is put in jeopardy.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 16 May, 1904; LDS Archives)
19 May: There should be no degrees in MP.
“Andrew Jensen and I read. Then I went to the Pres. Office and next to the Temple. John Henry Smith was with us, but not Brother Lyman who had gone out to Fillmore. Reed Smoot was also there. The President had a firm conviction that there are no degrees in Priesthood. An Elder holds the Melchisedek Priesthood and so does an Apostle. There is difference in the offices but these all belong to the same priesthood. To say that the Apostleship is the greatest authority is false. The Melchisedek Priesthood is the highest authority. This I considered logically correct as an office in the Priesthood cannot be greater than the thing to which it belongs. I do not think there is much difference in the opinion of those who think more priesthood is added by each ordination. The precedence given by a Seventy or High-priest to an Apostle is allowed by both while the one holds it is the office which gives more authority and the other that it is the added priesthood. There will be no clash in subordination from holding either opinion. The President does not think that a man’s priesthood can be taken from him without cutting him off from the Church. This opinion was held by Parley P. Pratt. When the Lord says: ‘Take from him that which was given to him,’ I thought that meant his priesthood. To me it seems that the power that can seal can also loose. It means then that Moses [Thatcher?] holds the same priesthood as before, only he is forbidden to act in that priesthood.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 19 May, 1904; LDS Archives)
“[Meeting in the Temple] Elder Smith desired to know whether it would be proper to ask the Members of the First Council of Seventies to assist in ordaining High Pres and Bishops and Bishops Counselors.
The answer was that it is proper to ask them to lay on hands but not to be mouth.
The question arose as to whether a man’s priesthood could be taken from him by the church through any action short of cutting him off the church. The answer was that it could not, although he could be debarred from officiating in the priesthood.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 19 May, 1904)
26 May: Ordination of Presidents of 70s quorums.
“Went to the Presidents and Apostles’ meeting in the Temple. The question of ordination of Presidents in the Seventies quorum was discussed and laid on the table until more is learned concerning it. Hyrum M. Smith had not used the word ordained in setting a president of seventies apart and it was asked if he is rightly ordained. The Seventies hold that this has been ruled upon by the Presidency.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 26 May, 1904; LDS Archives)
“[Meeting in the Temple] Reports. . . . Hyrum Smith set apart Paul Ludlow as one of the Seven Presidents of a Seventies Quorum. Some of the brethren of the quorum rather objected to this method of procedure saying that they had been instructed by the First Council of Seventies that the Presidents should be ordained and not set apart. This evoked considerable discussion as to which is the proper method. The matter was laid on the table until next meeting, and the clerk was instructed to look up any decisions that might have been formulated respecting this subject.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 26 May, 1904)
2 Jun.: What to do when no record of ordination.
“[Meeting in the Temple] Elder Clawson called attention to a question that had been submitted to him regarding the standing of certain persons in the church, namely, ‘What action should be taken in reference to a man who claimed he had been ordained to the Priesthood but had no record of his ordination, and perhaps had even forgotten the name of the party who ordained him.’ The answer was that each case must be determined on its merits.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 2 Jun., 1904)
28 Jun.: Continuing persecution against Church.
“Bro. Smoot returned. He says they say that he will get his seat. If the election is overwhelmingly Republican then I fear they will not do much to hinder the persecution against the Church, but should it be pretty close and they need him in the Senate I have no doubt they will try to keep him, but perhaps with a stinging insult to the Church.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 28 Jun., 1904; LDS Archives)
30 Jun.: Keeler’s book on Priesthood.
“Bro. Smoot came into Pres. Office and talked over affairs. Bro. Penrose came in and discussion on Keeler’s book was had. It was thought best not to say the Presiding Bishop had the fulness of the Aaronic Priesthood. It was also decided to avoid saying there are several classes of Bishops such as Presiding, not presiding but extensive such as Whitney and Partridge, traveling Bishops and ward bishops. It is better to reckon the two: Pres. Bishopric and Ward Bishop and explain the position of the others. It was also considered best to say there are three standing courts in the Church: The Bishopric, High Council and First Presidency. The other councils such as the High Council abroad and the Traveling High Council composed of the Apostles and the Presiding Bishop and 12 high-priests to sit on the President of the Church are all for special purposes and hence not standing courts.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 30 Jun., 1904; LDS Archives)
“Bro. Penrose came in and discussion on Keeler’s book was had. It was thought best not to say the Presiding Bishop had the fulness of the Aaronic Priesthood. It was also decided to avoid saying there are several classes of Bishops such as Presiding, not presiding but extensive district as Whitney and Partridge, Traveling Bishops and Ward bishops. It is better to reckon the two: Pres. Bishopric and Ward Bishop and explain the position of the others.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 30 Jun., 1904; in D. Michael Quinn, “The Evolution of the Presiding Quorums of the LDS Church,” Journal of Mormon History 1:21-38, 1974)
Jun.: Approved and sanctioned by 1st Presidency.
“This little treatise on the Lesser Priesthood and Church Government and also the Brief Concordance of the Doctrine and Covenants, is issued with the approval and sanction of the First Presidency of the Church.
These brethren appointed Elder Charles W. Penrose of the Deseret News, a committee of one to criticise the manuscript before its publication, which labor he has kindly and promptly performed.
While the matter was being prepared, the author received much aid and many helpful suggestions from President Joseph F. Smith, President Anthon H. Lund, Apostle Rudger Clawson, and Bishop William B. Preston; he has also had the friendly criticism of Prof. N. L. Nelson, and his fellow teachers of the Brigham Young University.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. iii)
Jun.: Duties of AP offices.
“To narrow down these remarks to the needs of young men holding the Lesser Priesthood, What would seem the best course to follow? It will not be enough for them to become thoroughly acquainted with the matter contained in this little book, and other books and articles referred to; there must be actual labor performed. If it be Deacons who are expected to become efficient workers in the Church, they must be taught their duties on the practical side. An experienced Elder must say to the Deacons: ‘Come!; If they have chopped wood for some poor widow or furnished fuel for a missionary’s family, their hearts will burn with satisfaction, being conscious that some one has been made happy and comfortable. If the house of worship needs to be cleaned, warmed and lighted, let some experienced person say: ‘Come!’ Then show the way and explain how such things may be done properly–dignify the labor. Is the meeting house isolated, without fence, the grounds void of vegetation, or covered with weeds; are the walls and roof dilapidated, the window panes broken, or any portion out of repair? If so, let some one who knows what is wanted say to the Deacons: ‘Come!’–And you may depend on it, that generation of Deacons will consider the spot holy ground ever after, which their hands have thus transformed.
Likewise the teacher must be trained in his duties. To be a teacher among the Saints, to be a ‘standing minister,’ is no ordinary calling; it requires skill and ability. Any presiding officer will surely be disappointed who expects a young man, however faithful, to magnify the office of Teacher, if he has had little or no preparation beyond his ordination. To be an efficient minister, he must come into actual contact with the people in the line of his duty. One prayer offered in the home of his neighbor; one quarrel satisfactorily settled between members; or one night of ministering at the sick-bed, will do more to fit him for his position than a hundred pages of the dead letter, or a dozen lectures listened to in his quorum meetings.
So with the Priest, he also must be trained and encouraged by experienced, kind and God-fearing companions, until he can ‘walk alone.'” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. vi-vii)
Jun.: Editorial in Deseret News referred to.
“An editorial in the Deseret Evening News, August 29, 1903, and the Semi-Weekly, September 1, 1903, on ‘The Priesthood,’ has an interesting bearing on this lesson, and on other lessons passed over.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 26)
Jun.: Duties of Deacons–including ordaining others.
“Deacons May Assist the Priests and Elders.–Inasmuch as the offices of Deacon and Teacher are appendages to the Aaronic Priesthood, the Deacons and Teachers may also assist the Priest and Elder in the performance of some of their respective duties when called upon. For example, they may assist the Priest or Elder at sacrament table, by furnishing the bread and wine, or water. And after the bread is broken and blessed, they may pass it to the multitude; so also the water; but they cannot direct in administering the sacrament, nor bless the bread nor bless the cup.
Care of the Poor.–One of the important duties of this office is the care and support of the poor. Under the direction of the Bishop, houses may be built or furnished for the poor, especially the widow and the orphan, who are without shelter; also the educating of the orphan and the children of the widow and the worthy poor. The Deacon may assist in furnishing labor for the needy who can work, and be otherwise helpful. He may collect money, food, clothing, etc., of those who have such things to supply to them who have not; notably the fast-day offerings.
Miscellaneous Duties.–No one can possible enumerate all the duties that belong to the Deacon’s office; for new conditions will continually arise as the Church goes forward, and the work of the Lord unfolds; but the Deacon must be ever ready to obey counsel and follow the lead of the authorities over him, that he may be ready to perform any new duty placed upon him.
Like the Levite of old, even down to Zachariah, the Deacon may do service in the house of the Lord and in places of public worship. (See Num., 18:2-7; Luke 1:9) If it is required of him, he may keep the meeting house scrupulously clean, also well lighted and warmed, thus doing honor to the congregation of the Saints who assemble to worship the Lord.
When called upon the Deacon may collect means for the erection of meeting houses and other public buildings, and also for furnishing them. He may assist in planting shade trees around meeting houses, planting shrubs and trailing vines, setting out lawns, etc., thus making the grounds surrounding the house of worship attractive to the eye and restful to the soul.
In fact the Deacon may do many things to bless the people and make them happy, and thereby dignify his office. It is an office which, if magnified, will give its possessor a most valuable experience and tend to broaden him out into a man of affairs in the Church. Let any young man fill this office faithfully and he will be honored of men and blessed of God.
Deacons May Ordain persons to the office they themselves hold; but not to a higher office.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. 30-31)
Jun.: Duties of Teachers.
“For the purpose of study and analysis it will be profitable to go over the duties of the Teacher’s calling more in detail.
1. ‘The Teacher’s duty is to watch over the Church always, and be with and strengthen them.’ This constitutes him a standing minister, and requires him to be constantly watchful of and helpful to the members within his jurisdiction. His association with the Saints should therefore be very intimate and close.
2. He is to ‘see that there is no iniquity in the Church.’ He is to be active, not passive; his eyes are to be wide open. He might, with propriety, be called the policeman of the Church.
3. When members fall out and have ill feelings, it is the Teacher’s duty to have them reconciled to each other if possible. He is to see that the liar is warned of his evil. His duty is also to see that there is no ‘backbiting nor evil speaking,’–sins that poison the stream of brotherly love, undermine fraternal confidence, blacken innocent character and canker the souls of those who are guilty of such meddlesomeness. Duty bids him to see that these things shall not exist. In fact, his office requires him to be constantly on guard against evil among the members placed under his charge. He warns and rebukes the law-breakers; he exhorts and entreats the negligent; he counsels and persuades in the fear of the Lord; and in order that he may more fully understand the spiritual condition of the members within his jurisdiction, he is required to visit them in their homes.
4. Furthermore, it is his duty to see that the members of the Church ‘meet together often,’ to partake of the sacrament and to be instructed and also to be an example by meeting with them. And again, he is to see ‘that all members do their duty’–that they pay their tithes and make their offerings; observe the Word of Wisdom; refrain from speaking evil of the Priesthood; that they keep holy the Sabbath day; that they do not steal, slander, quarrel, fight, cheat, nor do any immoral or unvirtuous thing.
5. The Teacher is to act as peacemaker between brethren or sisters who have difficulties one with the other. He does not hold a court nor place anyone on trial; but with kindness, persuasion, and prayer, he endeavors to settle personal difficulties among members. If occasion acquires, he may sign complaints against transgressing members who are to be tried on their fellowship in the Bishop’s court.
6. Besides all that has been mentioned, his duty and calling direct him ‘to warn, expound, exhort and teach, and invite all to come to Christ.’ What an extensive field for labor! In all of his work the Teacher must have the spirit of his calling, which is nothing less than the Spirit of God, to illumine his mind and make effective his labors.
. . . .
The Teacher may Ordain persons to the office of Teacher and of Deacon. The Deacon may ordain others to the office of Deacon, provided these officers are so directed by the proper authority.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. 35-37)
Jun.: Acting Teachers.
“There are a number of men selected in every ward to be acting teachers under the direction of the Bishopric. These usually hold the office of either Elder, Seventy, or High Priest, and are called to act in the capacity of Teachers and Priests among the Saints. When thus acting their duties are similar to those mentioned above. They are appointed as aids to the Bishop, himself a High Priest, and he or one of his counselors presides at their meetings.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 37)
Jun.: Aaronic Priesthood may lay hands on the sick.
“Aaronic Priesthood may lay on hands and pray for the sick; see Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 29, No. 10 page 318. (Be careful, however, to distinguish the difference between praying for the sick and performing the ordinance of anointing with oil and the laying on of hands by the Elders.)” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 38)
Jun.: All bishops so far have been High Priests.
“Since the organization of the Church to the present, High Priests have universally been selected and appointed Bishops [except Edward Partridge?], and this procedure will probably continue until the Lord, through His authorized servants, shall designate the sons of Aaron.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 46)
Jun.: Two classes of Bishops.
“With reference to powers and jurisdiction there are two classes of Bishops:
1. General Bishops, and 2. local Bishops.
Among the general Bishops there are different grades; as (a) the Presiding Bishop over all the Bishops and Lesser Priesthood of the whole Church, which office is now held at this writing by Presiding Bishop William B. Preston and Counselors; (b) Bishops, whose jurisdiction is quite extensive or special, yet not over the whole Church, as the callings of Bishops Edward Partridge and Newel K. Whitney in the early days of the Church, and subsequently that of Bishop George Miler. (See secs. 41:9, 10; 72:8; 84:112, 113; 124:20, 21); and (c) Bishop’s agents, as Sidney Gilbert (Secs. 53:1-4; 57:6, 8-10, 14, 15).
Of the local Bishops there is but one grade of the class–Bishops of wards or small jurisdictions.
[Footnote:] The offices of special Bishops, and Bishops’ agents, provided for in the Doctrine and Covenants, are not now filled on account of the more perfect organization of stakes and wards. But should the necessity arise men would be appointed to fill them.”
(Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. 46-48)
Jun.: Bishops as presidents of wards.
“The person who presides over a ward acts in two capacites; first, he is a Bishop in that he officiates in the Aaronic Priesthood; second, he is a President in that he acts as a High Priest, presiding over all councils, quorums, and members generally holding the Melchisedek Priesthood within his ward. A Bishop then virtually holds two offices: he is a President of the Lesser Priesthood of a ward, and also President of the Members, and of the High Priesthood generally, and of all auxiliary organizations within his jurisdiction. However, in the ordinary acceptation, the word Bishop covers both these grounds.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 47)
Jun.: Procedure for selecting bishops.
“The following is the usual procedure in selecting ward Bishops:
1. The Stake Presidency chooses a suitable man for the position.
2. The name of the person so chosen is presented to the High Council for approval. (Sec. 20:67.)
3. After being passed upon by the Stake Presidency and the High Council, the name is presented to the First Presidency of the Church.
4. If the First Presidency approve of the selection, the person is informed of his call, to ascertain if he accepts the appointment.
5. If he accepts, his name is presented to his ward.
6. Anf if the people approve, by their vote what has been done, he is ordained. (Sec. 124:141-144.)
The First Presidency, however, may appoint and ordain a person direct to this office, subject to the approval of the Saints.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 48)
Jun.: “Appoint” vs. “nominate.”
“The customary procedure in the Church today is for the Priesthood first to select and then by their vote appoint men for office. It is thus that the Presiding Priesthood express the mind of the Spirit. Afterwards the names of appointees are submitted to the conferences, to be upheld by the ‘confidence, faith, and the prayer of the Church,’ or to be rejected.
The word ‘appoint’ is more frequently used than the word ‘nominate.’ In rare instances, those whose right it is to present names for office, have waived their prerogative and given it to the members. But this is not the rule; it is rather the exception.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 80)
Jun.: Six types of courts, three being standing courts.
“There are three standing Courts or Judicial Councils established in the Church, known as
1. The Ward Bishop’s Court.
2. The Stake High Council; and the
3. Council of the First Presidency, (mainly a court of review).
Besides these regular courts, there are three other tribunals which, however, are convened but rarely, and then only for special purposes, namely:
1. The Presiding Bishop’s Court,
2. the Council of High Priests Abroad, and
3. the Traveling High Council of the Twelve Apostles. These are described in chapters 34, 35 and 36.”
(Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pa. 117)
Jun.: The Bishop’s Court.
“Of the many or the few difficulties which may arise in any community of Saints, only a small percentage find their way into the Bishop’s Court; and a fewer still, into other Church tribunals. The counsel is now as of old, for members to settle their own differences; but if they cannot do so, they are to call to their aid two or more of that great body of peacemakers, the Teachers, and with their friendly assistance bring about reconciliations. These and other agencies failing, the next step is the Bishop’s Court.
Constitution and Jurisdiction.–This tribunal consists of the Bishop of the ward and his two Counselors. Should one or both Counselors be unable to act on any particular case, the Bishop may choose one or two High Priests to sit with him. The jurisdiction of this court is limited to members of the ward presided over by the Bishop; unless upon a change of venue he is directed by the Stake Presidency to hold court in some other ward. The extreme penalty that can be inflicted by this court is excommunication from the Church, provided the accused is a lay member of holds only the Lesser Priesthood; but if the accused holds the Melchisedek Priesthood, he can only be disfellowshiped and his case referred to the Stake High Council for further action.
Procedure. The Complaint.–The first step taken in a trial is the making out or the submitting of a charge or complaint. This paper is a formal charge against a member of the Church by another member for dereliction of duty, for a wrong done, or for a crime committed. The person or persons making the charge sign their names to the document, which is then attested by the Bishop. The words ‘accuser’ and ‘accused’ are used to denote the parties in the trial, and are similar, respectively, to ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’ in an ordinary civil case. (The Forms here presented, namely the complaint, the summons, the testimony of witnesses, the decision of Bishop’s Court, the notice of appeal, and the report to the High Council, are suggestive only).
. . . .
A Summons is a paper which cites the accused person to appear before the court to answer to the charges preferred against him. This document is signed by the Bishop and the Clerk. This paper should be placed in the hands of two Teachers for service, that they may testify if required that the accused has been notified to appear.
. . . .
The Trial is conducted by the Bishop, assisted by his two Counselors. The court is formally opened by prayer. The complaint is then read to the accused and he is asked to make answer to the charge. If his answer amounts to a plea of guilty, all that is then necessary is for the Bishopric to render a decision; buit if the answer is the reverse of this, the trial proceeds.
Witnesses are then examined to establish the charge, after which witnesses are examined on the side of the accused. The witnesses for either side may be re-heard and cross-examined. The accused and the accuser may each have the privilege of being heard on his own behalf.
. . . .
The Decision.–After all the evidence is heard a decision is rendered by the Bishop, which should be in writing, and a copy of which should be given to the parties. If the Bishop and one of his Counselors agree, the decision is valid; but if both Counselors disagree with the Bishop, there is no decision in the case, and it must be retried or go to the higher court.
Appeal.–Either of the parties not satisfied with the decision may appeal to the High Council.
. . . .
Disfellowship and Excommunication.–If the decision is that the accused be cut off from the Church, and he is a lay member of holds only the Aaronic Priesthood, then the case ends with the Bishop’s Court. But if the accused holds the Melchisedek Priesthood, the Bishop’s Court has authority only to withdraw the hand of fellowship. Such action is immediately reported to the High Council of the Stake, and that body decides whether or not he is to be severed from the Church on the findings of the lower court. In case a report is made to the High Council the following form may be used: . . . .
The Steps to be Observed in the course of a trial may be summarized as follows:
1. The complaint is drawn up and signed by the accuser and attested by the Bishop. (Form No. 1).
2. The summons is issued, in which a reasonable time is given for the accused to appear for trial. (Form No. 2).
3. When ready for trial, the court is opened with prayer.
4. The complaint is read and the accused is asked to plead, if his written answer is not already filed.
5. If he plead ‘guilty,’ judgment is rendered.
6. If he plead ‘not guilty,’ the trial goes on.
7. Witnesses are examined to establish the truth of the charge.
8. Then witnesses are examined for the defense, and the accused may also testify in his own behalf.
9. The evidence of each witness is taken in writing by the clerk. (Form No. 3).
10. The testimony is read to the witness, errors corrected, then the witness signs it.
11. After all evidence is given, the Bishopric render their decision.
12. The decision is written on a blank paper prepared for that purpose. (Form No. 4).
13. The accused should receive a copy of the decision.
14. If the accused holds the Melchisedek Priesthood, and the Bishop’s Court recommend that he be excommunicated, a report is made at once to the High Council. (Form No. 5).
15. All papers entered in their consecutive order in a book kept for that purpose, make a complete record of the case.”
(Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. 119-123)
Jun.: Stake High Council.
“Organization.–Twelve High Priests constitute this body. They are presided over by the Stake President, assisted by his Counselors, or by either of them. The first High Council of a stake is organized by the First Presidency, or by one or more of the Apostles acting under their direction. Afterwards vacancies are filled by the appointment of the Stake Presidency and sanctioned by a Council of the Priesthood convened for that purpose, or by the voice of a general stake conference. The High Council of a stake, in all its constitutional details and procedure, is patterned after the High Council first organized, February 17, 1834, at Kirtland, Ohio, and presided over by President Joseph Smith, Jr., for a number of years.–Sec. 102.
Alternate High Councilors.–Besides the regular members of the Council, there are a number of High Priests, usually six, who have been set apart as alternate High Councilors. These attend all sessions of the Council and take the places of absent members.
Its Functions are largely judicial, yet important legislative and executive powers are conferred upon it. Cases may be reviewed, or reheard on appeal from the Bishop’s Court, or they may begin there; thus the High Council has both appellate and original jurisdiction. It is the rule, however, that only the most important matters of stake or ward concern shall come before this assembly. When decisions are made by this council upon questions entirely within its jurisdiction, and when its members are unanimous, and there have been no irregularities, such decisions are final.–Sec. 102:21, 22.
In an Appeal from the Bishop’s Court, there are three modes of procedure:
1. If the testimony from the lower court is satisfactory to both parties, the Council may either affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Bishopric.
2. If the testimony is object to by either of the parties, the Council may hear the case over again, as if it had never been heard.
3. If the Council shall discover irregularities, or find that new testimony could be adduced, it may remand the case back for re-hearing in the Bishop’s Court.
An appeal may be taken also from a Stake High Council to the Council of the First Presidency, who may review the proceedings, and if there have been irregularities, order a re-hearing.*
[*Footnote:] Appeal to the First Presidency.–‘It is well understood by the Saints that if the accused in a case brought before a Bishop’s Court is not satisfied with the decision, he can appeal to the High Council of the Stake and have his case submitted to the judgment of 15 impartial men, who are able to judge whether the decision of the Bishop is just or not. From the decision of the High Council the case can be appealed to the First Presidency, and if they discover any irregularities in the proceedings in either court, they can order a rehearing of the case. The Lord has provided sufficient safeguards for the protection of the rights and privileges of His Saints.’–See decision of the First Presidency in the Rydman case, Deseret News, April 4, 1903.
Co-ordinate Powers.–‘The standing High Councils at the Stakes of Zion form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the Church in all their decisions to the quorum of the Presidency, or the traveling High Council.’ (Sec. 107:36.) Only matters pertaining legitimately to stake and ward government and policy, however, can be at all considered by a standing or fixed High Council of a stake. Notwithstanding the fact that the decisions of a Stake Presidency and High Council, when made in righteousness, are of force equal to that of the First Presidency or the traveling High Council of the Twelve Apostles, stake authorities should, and they generally do, take counsel and advice uopn questions that are obscure and difficult.
Number Authorized to do Business.–Of the regular Counselors, the least number authorized to do business is seven; and even this number is not empowered to act alone, further than to complete the Council of twelve. This they do by assigning the Alternate members places, or appointing other High Priests to act for absent or disqualified regular Counselors.
Voted: that the High Council cannot have power to act without seven of the above named Counselors, or their regularly appointed successors are present.
These seven shall have power to appoint other High Priests, whom they may consider worthy and capable to act in the place of absent Conselors. (Sec. 102:6, 7)
Procedure of High Councils.–Cases involving the standing or fellowship of members of the Church, are brought before the Council, (1) on appeal from the Bishop’s Court, or (2) by citation from the Council based on an original charge or complaint.
When a High Council is organized, the twelve Counselors are divided equally by lots. Those drawing even number, that is: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are to stand up in behalf of the accused or defendant, to prevent injustice or insult; not, however, to take sides as an attorney would advocate the cause of his client. Those members drawing odd numbers are to take the part of the accuser or plaintiff.
Whenever the Council convenes to consider any matter, the twelve Counselors determine by vote whether it is a difficult case or not. If it is not, only two speak, one for each side; if it is, then four are appointed; and if still more difficult, then six. But in no case are more than six appointed.
The accused is then asked to make answer or plead to the charge against him, which may be made orally or in writing. If the answer amounts to a plea of not guilty then the trial proceeds. If the accused pleads guilty to the charge, a decision is at once given without further investigation.
If the trial proceeds, evidence is introduced through witnesses and otherwise.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. 124-126)
Jun.: First Presidency as a judicial council.
“How Constituted.–This Council is the highest of all. It consists primarily of the President of the Church and his two Counselors, who constitute a body competent to decide any and all cases that may arise in the Church. However, if, for any important reason, the Presidency desire assistance, they ‘shall have power to call other High Priests, even twelve, to assist as Counselors.’–See sec. 107:79.
Probably the most notable case adjudicated by a court of this character was the difficulty existing between members of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion and the Utah Stake, regarding the waters of Utah Lake and their flow in the Jordan river. President John Taylor convened this court and its Counselors were High Priests from each Stake especially appointed to determine this particular matter.
Jurisdiction.–This Council or Court is co-extensive with the jurisdiction of all other councils and courts of the Church; that is, it may take notice judicially of a matter concerning any member, officer, or organization; in other words, it has original jurisdiction. But its most important function is that of a Court of Appeal. (See sec. 102:27.) It reviews, on appeal or writ of error, the final decisions of any of the Church courts. And if it discovers any irregularities, errors or omissions in the findings of any of these tribunals, it may order a rehearing. On the other hand, if it finds that any case which has been appealed was regularly heard, and was decided upon the facts and according to the laws of the Church, it will affirm the same, and its decision is final. ‘Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.'” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; pp. 131-132)
Jun.: Special court: Presiding Bishop’s Council.
“Should the occasion ever arise that one of the First Presidency must be tried for crime or neglect of duty, his case would come before the Presiding Bishop with his Counselors, and twelve High Priests especially chosen for the purpose. This would be a tribunal extraordinary,–from which there is no appeal.” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 133)
Jun.: Special court: Council of High Priests Abroad.
“This council was instituted for the adjustment of important difficulties, and for meeting emergencies which might arise outside of the organized Stakes of Zion. It is now unnecessary as there is ample provision for all cases in the regular organizations of the Church.
No common or ordinary case was to be sufficient to call such council. Should either of the parties be dissatisfied with the decision they might appeal to the High Council of the seat of the First Presidency, and have a re-hearing. The procedure of this tribunal is similar to that of a Stake High Council.–Sec. 102:24-31)” (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 135)
Jun.: Special court: Traveling High Council (Twelve).
“This Council when abroad may take notice of any question pertaining to the Kingdom of God, judicial or otherwise. Within their sphere of action their decisions, if made in righteousness, are final and admit of no appeal. They can, however, be called to account in two ways: (1) by the First Presidency in case of transgression, (sec. 102:30-32) and (2) by a general assembly of the several quorums forming the spiritual authorities of the Church, in case their decision is made in unrighteousness. (Sec. 107:32.)
The Twelve as a Council ‘form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three Presidents previously mentioned;’ that is, the quorums of the First Presidency.” [Keeler lists two trials conducted in this manner, 1835 and 1843.] (Joseph B. Keeler, The Lesser Priesthood and Notes on Church Government, 1904 edition, Jun., 1904; p. 136)
7 Jul.: Selection of a new Apostle.
“I went to H. O. and opened my letters. Then to Pres. Office. Transacted business there and then went to the Temple. Pres. Lyman prayed at the altar and asked the Lord to give us a man qualified to fill Owen Woodruff’s place. We met at the Sacrament table afterwards and before we partook of the emblems Pres. Smith said that he felt impressed by the spirit to lay the name of C. W. Penrose before the Apostles as one to fill the vacancy of Bro. Woodruff. All felt to acept him. He was sent for and ordained by Pres. Jos. F. Smith. Pres. Lyman gave him the charge. Pres. Lyman was set apart as President of the Apostles.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 7 Jul., 1904; LDS Archives)
7 Jul.: Confidentiality of Quorum of 12 meetings.
“[Quarterly conference of the Twelve] [John Henry Smith]: Spoke of the importance of keeping sacred matters that are discussed in our Council meetings. He learned a lesson years ago on this point when he was severely rebuked by his father for repeating some things that had been said in the School of the Prophets.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 7 Jul., 1904)
7 Jul.: What to do with elderly 70s.
“[Meeting in the Temple] The clerk read a written report from the First Council of Seventies. Among other things they said that there were 145 quorums, and an enrollment of 8004. The brethren of the Seventies desired to be advised as to whether the aged and infirm Presidents of Seventies should be transferred to the High Priest Quorum, and as to whether brethren who are called to be presidents should be ordained or set apart to said office. They had been instructed (they said) some years ago by the First Presidency to ordain them. (Note: No such instructions were of record, but it was not doubted that such instructions had been given.)
The clerk now read a copy of the letter written by the Presidency in which they answer yes to both questions. In the discussion that followed, it was conceded that to ordain men to be presidents with the idea that ‘once a president always a president’ might in some cases lead to aukward situations for in filling vacancies presidents coming in from other quorums could claim recognition regardless of their fitness.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 7 Jul., 1904)
15 Jul.: The Church rule of consent.
“Some years ago the Church promulgated a rule of discipline requiring its leading officers to consult those to whom they were responsible before accepting duties or obligations that might be incompatible with their duties to the Church. Such a rule is the unwritten law of every important organization. Law firms, business houses, railroads and other organizations of men to promote industry subject their members or officers to like regulations. Such firms are often represented in the affairs of state without objection; but the question of extending the rule to officers of the Church seems to have met violent opposition. Of course the reason is that officers in a religious organization exercise an influence that is neither political nor financial; an influence that is supposed to constitute a mastery over the minds of others.
Then again, it is thought that the Church may have motives inconsistent with poilitical or party advancement. It may give consent, it is argued, to churchmen of one political party and withhold it from those of another. Such motives of self-interest are no different in case of a Church than in other or secular organizations, unless it be a difference in degree. It really constitutes one of those excuses which ambitious men avail themselves of to limit, as much as possible, political rivalry. Politicians certainly have no traditional grounds for imputing selfish motives to others.
The liberty of service is certainly fundamental in our republic; and men may choose their occupation in the church or state at will. There is no more ground for saying that men hold their country in lower esteem than business because they prefer business to political pursuits, than there is to say that they hold church above state because they are reluctant to abandon wholly church duties when they seek political honors or emoluments. What the state needs most is honest administration; and there is no reason to believe that the standard of service is likely to be lowered by religious convictions.
The fact is that there exists a strong tendency among people to run to extremes. In the early history of our country, religious beliefs and profesions were so strong that men without them were excluded from their just participation in the affairs of the country. Today, the opposite tendency prevails and religous professions and duties give rise to violent political opposition. The excuse for such discrimination is that the church will rule the state. Did it ever occur to such protestants that there is just as much danger that the state will undertake to regulate the affairs of the church? In the earlier centuries the heads of the state were called to account before the authority of the church; today the heads of a church are called to account before the authority of the state. Those churches that have been so ready to humiliate the authorities of a persecuted Church before the heads of the nation and to deprive it of its fundamental and constitutional rights of managing its own affairs are simply sowing to the wind. If such churches lose the wholesome moral influence they might otherwise have exercised upon the political life of the nation, they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not support a hired ministry. Its officers are men of a wide range of experience and may engage in business and political affairs; and yet the Church asks that they accept the rule of consent that it may be known whether new obligations would be inconsistent with those already assumed. Where added duties, political or financial, would be detrimental to the Church calling, men act with the fullest freedom, if it becomes necessary to make a choice. The Church seeks an amicable adjustment wherever there is a conflict, and wishes those well who either accept additional responsibilities, or resign positions in the Church to assume new duties in political or business life.
That such a rule could be brought into question by the state and be made an issue in a contest to oust a man regularly elected to an important office in the service of his country shows an unwarranted interference on the part of the state with the affairs of the Church. Such an attitude on the part of the state toward a church is cause for the gravest alarm for the rights of men in the exercise of their religious beliefs. Certainly the Church has no thought of abandoning the rule of consent; and to what is purely a church rule, politicians have no just right to give a false political coloring; and the question of the wisdom or unwisdom of a purely church rule of discipline is one with which outside parties should have nothing to do and should cease to interfere.” (Joseph F. Smith, JI 39(14):432-433, 15 Jul., 1904)
4 Aug.: Quorum recommends no longer needed.
“[Meeting in the Temple] Hyrum Kay wrote desiring to know if it were necessary for a brother who moves from one quorum to another to take a recommend of standing. The answer was, no; he should take a recommend of removal to the new ward, and should have a certificate of ordination to the Priesthood, and that would admit him to his quorum.
It was also decided that a certificate of ordination should be issued to the Presidency and Apostles, and that the Apostles and others in the future when they ordain to the Priesthood should give certificates of ordination.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 4 Aug., 1904)
16 Aug.: Mission President’s call rescinded.
“I went to H. O. and had George Christensen call on me. He has received a call to go to Scandinavia to preside but his circumstances are such that it will require his selling his home. His case was considered by the Presidency and Apostles and they concluded that he ought not be required to make such a sacrifice.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 16 Aug., 1904; LDS Archives)
4 Oct.: 12 should cut loose from business deals.
“[Quarterly conference of the Twelve] Elder Geo. A. Smith said that he felt he would like to see the time come when the Twelve could be cut loose from business and secular affairs that they might give themselves wholly to the work of the ministry and yet he realized that if they devoted all their time to preaching, the would become narrow and bigoted.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 4 Oct., 1904)
5 Oct.: 12 ordered not to keep detailed diaries.
“[Meeting in the Temple] Pres. [Jos. F.] Smith said that he wanted to refer to a matter that had given him much concern, namely, the private journals of the brethren of the Council. Many things were written in them which if they were to fall into the hands of the enemy might bring trouble upon the church. [Such as Smoot hearings?] After the death of the brethren, you cannot tell what may become of their journals, and even now the brethren felt an anxiety in relation to Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon’s journal, who made a pretty full account of everthing that transpired in the Councils of the brethren; the same with Abram Cannon and others. Elder Jno. H. Smith said that he was very much concerned about this matter and had been for a long time, and felt that some action should be taken in the premises. Pres. Winder said that it was very unsafe and risky for the brethren to write down that which occurred in these meetings. this duty belonged to the clerk of the Council and nobody else. Pres. Winder moved that it be the sense and feeling of the Council that the brethren should not write in their journals that which took place in the Council meetings. Carried by unanimous vote.” (Rudger Clawson diary, 5 Oct., 1904)
6 Oct.: The Seventy hold an apostolic calling.
“We have also in the Church today, I am informed, 146 quorums of Seventy. These constitute a body of Elders of somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 men, whose special duty it is to respond to the call of the Apostles to preach the Gospel, without purse or scrip, to all the nations of the earth. They are minute men. It is expected that they will be ready, whenever they are called, to go out in the world, or to go out to the various organizations of the Church to fulfill missions and to perform such duties as shall be required of them, in order that the work of the Lord and the work of the ministry may be upheld and sustained and carried on in the Church and throughout the world. These councils or quorums of Seventy are not always full, a full council being 70 Elders. But there are approximatly 10,000 Elders who now hold that position in the Church. They are called to an apostolic calling. They are required to be special witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Joseph F. Smith, 6 Oct., 1904; CR Oct., 1904, p. 3)
6 Oct.: Deacons & Teachers ordained at 12 or 13 years.
“We call our young men very early in life to bear the Priesthood. When they are 12 or 13 years old we ordain them Deacons or Teachers, if they are worthy. We give them something to do in the Lord’s house. We call upon them to look after the meeting-houses and to visit the Saints. In some places Deacons look after the widows, and see that they are furnished with fuel, and attend to the chopping of wood for them. Being called to the Priesthood, they feel that these services are honorary ones. They are called on also to collect fast-day offerings from the people, many of whom may not have ready money to give unto the poor. If they have not the cash they give provisions and other things which they can spare, and which the poor need. In many stakes the Deacons are called upon to perform such duties as these, and this gives them in their youth a love for doing good and for helping the poor.” (Anthon H. Lund, 6 Oct., 1904; CR Oct., 1904, pp. 7-8)
7 Oct.: Stake president for 22 years.
“I represent what is known as the Tooele Stake of Zion, located between the county of Salt Lake and the Great American Desert. The population of the stake is something over 3,000; and to give you a brief idea of the condition of the people I will here state that it is 22 years this month since I was chosen to preside over the Tooele stake.” (Hugh S. Gowans, 7 Oct., 1904; CR Oct., 1904, p. 18)
7 Oct.: Stake president for 25 years.
“On the twenty-first of next month it will be two years since I was called to take the position that was filled by my father for twenty-five years in the Millard Stake.” (Alonzo A. Hinckley, President of the Millard Stake, 7 Oct., 1904; CR Oct., 1904, pp. 21-22)
7 Oct.: Current Stk. Pres. has been in mission 38 months.
“Our stake was organized on the 26th day of February, this year. It is one of the four new stakes which formerly constituted the Salt Lake Stake. Our President, Elder Hugh J. Cannon, is at present on a mission, presiding over the Swiss and German mission, where he has been for the last 38 months. During his absence it falls to the lot of myself and fellow counselor to take charge of the affairs in the stake, and I can testify to you that while we feel our unworthiness in our positions we have experienced great joy in our labors among the people.” (A. H. Schulthess, Counselor in the Liberty Stake Presidency, 7 Oct., 1904; CR Oct., 1904, p. 23)
1 Nov.: 70’s Handbook of Instructions.
“PREFACE.
To the Presidents of Seventies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
Dear Brethren:–We are impressed that there is a great necessity for a hand-book of instructions to the presidents and members of our Seventies’ Quorums of the Church, giving them information, in a concise form, of their general duties. This Digest of Instructions has been prepared by the First Council of the Seventy, being compiled from the revelations of the Lord, and from official circular letters issued by the First Council during the last twenty years. It is to be distributed free, with the request that the presidents will preserve it and thoroughly inform themselves in relation to its contents. We have endeavored to bring forth the main points relating to our Seventies’ work, and believe that the book will be of great service to all presidents of Seventy, and especially those who have recently been ordained. In placing this Digest of Instructions before our quorums we feel that there will be no further excuse for pleading unfamiliarity with the work of the Seventies, and the duties and responsibilities placed upon the presidents. With the hope that it may be of great service in accomplishing this end, we are,
Your brethren,
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF THE SEVENTY.
Salt Lake City, Utah, November 1, 1904.
No. 409 Templeton Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.
(Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; p. 3)
1 Nov.: Calling and duties of the Seventies.
“I. Calling of the Seventy.–The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was brought into existence for the accomplishment of two great things: First, the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world; and second, the perfecting of those who accept that Gospel. The Church, of course, is organized with reference to the accomplishment of these two purposes and has a foreign ministry and a home ministry. In defining the duties of a Seventy it is with the foreign ministry that we have to deal.
The business of the foreign ministry is to make proclamation of the Gospel in all the world, and gather, as soon as wisdom dictates, those who accept it into the organized Stakes of Zion. This foreign ministry, strictly speaking, is composed of the Twelve Apostles and the quorums of Seventy. ‘The Twelve traveling counselors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world, thus differing from other officers in the Church in the duties of their calling.’ (D&C 107:23) ‘The Twelve are a traveling presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations; first unto the Gentiles, and secondly unto the Jews.’ (D&C 107:33) ‘The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ–and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.’ (D&C 107:35)
This is the special calling of the Twelve Apostles, and the calling of the Seventy is like unto it, as witness the following:
The Seventy are also called to preach the Gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world. Thus differing from other officers in the Churc in the duties of their calling. (D&C 107:25)
The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling High Council, in building up the Church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all natins–first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews. (v. 34)
It is the duty of the traveling High Council to call upon the Seventy, when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching and administering the Gospel, instead of any others. (v. 38)
And these seventy (the reference is to the whole body of that Priesthood) are to be traveling ministers unto the Gentiles first, and also unto the Jews. (v. 97)
Whereas other officers of the Church, who belong not unto the Twelve, neither to the Seventy are not under the responsibility to travel among all nations, but are to travel as their circumstances shall allow, notwithstanding they may hold as high and responsible offices in the Church. (v. 98)
When the Church was set in order at Nauvoo, in 1841, by direction of a revelation (D&C 124), after naming the First Seven Presidents who were to preside over the quorums of Seventies, the Lord said:
Which quorum is instituted for traveling Elders to bear record of my name in all the world, wherever the traveling High Council, my Apostles, shall send them to prepare a way before my face. The difference between this quorum and the quorum of Elders is, that one is to travel continually, and the other is to preside over the churches from time to time; the one has the responsibility of presiding from time to time, and the other has no responsibility of presiding, saith the Lord your God. (D&C 124:139-140)
In these passages the special calling and duties of the Seventies are so clearly set forth that neither comment or amplification is necessary, since these foregoing quotations are the word of the Lord and evidence the fact that the Twelve, with the Seventy, constitute the foreign ministry of the Church. They are special witnesses of God and Christ to the truth of the Gospel, and that is their special and peculiar calling in the Church. Not that the whole responsibility of preaching the Gospel rests upon the Twelve and the Seventy alone. That responsibility rests upon the whole body of the Church. These quorums, the Twelve and Seventy, are merely the instrumentality through which the Church discharges its obligations to the people of the world in making known to them the truth.
II. Other Duties of the Seventy.–While preaching the gospel unto all nations is the special business of the Twelve and Seventy, it must not be thought that that is the only function which the Seventy may discharge. As on occasion the High Priests and Elders and members of the lesser Priesthood can be used to assist in the work of the foreign ministry, so also, when at home, and not engaged in the special work of their calling, the Seventy may be employed in the home ministry, and assist the standing ministry in the wards and stakes of Zion in perfecting the Saints and edifying the body of Christ until they shall all come unto a unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, ‘unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.’ Paul, in his most excellent description of the Church organization, likens it unto the body of a man. Accepting his illustration it may be said thatthe foreign ministry may be regarded as the right arm of the Church, and the home ministry as the left arm. Now, because one is the right arm and one the left, shall each refuse to assist the other at need? Or shall this organization (the Church) which is said to be the body of Christ, be as reasonable in the performance of its functions as the natural body of man is, and in every case of need have the right hand come to the assistance of the left, and visa versa. Right reason will approve an affirmative answer.
III. Organization of the Seventy.–The quorums of Seventy are organized with special reference to their calling as the foreign ministry of the Church. It will be observed that their organization is different from that of every other quorum of the Church, for whereas in all other quorums of the High Priesthood the presidency consists of one president and two counselors, in the quorum of the Seventy there are seven presidents of equal power and authority. That is to say, there is not one president and six counselors, buit each of the seven is a president and in power and authority is equal with his fellow-presidents: but for the sake of order the right of presidency is recognized as being vested in the senior president by ordination. ‘And it is according to the vision, showing the order of the Seventy, that they should have seven presidents to preside over them, chosen out of the number of the Seventy. And the seventh president (counting from the one last ordained) of these presidents is to preside over the six.’ In the absence of the senior president the next senior in ordination becomes the acting president. By this simple arrangement all confusion as to the right of presiding is obviated, for no sooner does the council of a quorum or any part thereof convene, than each president knows at once upon whom the responsibility of presiding rests, let them meet where they may.
By virtue of having seven presidents a quorum of Seventy is not easily disorganized, and this doubtless was one of the objects in view in this arrangement. One, two, three, or even six of the presidents could be sent abroad upon missions, (although that is not likely to be the case at any one time) and yet the quorum would have a president left, who, with the quorum, would be competent to transact whatever of business might be necessary for that quorum.
Other duties and advantages growing out of this organization are apparent on a little reflection. Suppose, for instance, that a quorum of Seventy should be sent out bodily to preach the Gospel, as the quorum of the Twelve at times have been. You would then have an organization which could be broken up into seven groups of ten men each, with a president for each group. These groups could be broken up into five pairs, and the Elders travel two and two, as the law of the Gospel requires. It can be readily seen that such a quorum could be a flying column, capable of being broken up, first into groups and sent into different districts; and the groups again broken up into pairs and spread out over a wide area of country. The groups could be called together for conference, for adjustment and rearrangement of traveling companions, and the groups occasionally brought together in conference, report, or transact whatever business might be necessary, and again be scattered into fields of labor. In all of which there appears the very finest adaptation of means to an end; and also there appears more than mere human wisdom displayed in this organization of the quorums of the foreign ministry.
IV. Of the First Quorum of the Seventy.–In the revelation before quoted it is said:
And it is according to the vision, showing the order of the Seventy, that they should have seven presidents to preside over them, chosen out of the number of the Seventy. (D&C 107:93-94)
And these seven presidents are to choose other Seventy besides the first Seventy, to whom they belong and are to preside over them; and also other Seventy, until seven times seventy, if the labor in the vineyard of necessity requires it. (v. 95)
It must not be understood that this passage limits the number of quorums to seven times seventy, for the Prophet, at the time the quorums were being organized, stated that ‘if the first Seventy are all employed and there is a call for more laboreres, it will be the duty of the seven presidents of the first Seventy to call and ordain other Seventy, and send them forth to labor in the vineyard, until if needs be they set apart seven times seventy, and even until there are one hundred and forty-four thousand thus set apart for the ministry.’ (History of Joseph Smith, May 2nd, 1835. Millennial Star, volume 15, page 261. Also John Whitmer’s Notes on Church History, chap. 15.)
It will be observed in the quotation from the Doctrine and Covenants above that provision is made that the presidents of Seventy are to be ‘chosen out of the number of the Seventy.’ It is because of this special provision that when inadvertently High Priests have been selected for presidents of Seventy they have taken their place again in the quorum of High Priests and others from among the Seventy, as provided by the law of God, chosen to fill their place. It will also be observed that the council of the first Seventy, in addition to presiding over their own quorum, (the first) have a general presidency over all the quorums of Seventy of the Church. It is this first quorum, members and presidents together, which constitutes what, by way of explanation, we may call the quorum of Seventy, and the quorum of which it is said that they are ‘equal in authority of that of the twelve especial witnesses, or Apostles.’ (Doctrine and Covenants, section 107:25-56.)
It may be said by way of recapitulation that the Seventy hold the Melchisedek Priesthood; that with the Twelve, under whose direction they labor, they constitute the foreign ministry of the Church; that their special calling is to travel and preach the Gospel in all nations, first to the Gentiles and then to the Jews; that they can, on occasion, be employed in the work of the ministry at home, because their Priesthood authorizes them to do good and bring to pass righteousness wherever they may be, and when acting in order and under the direction of the Twelve Apostles they may do whatever is necessary to be done in order to accomplish the purposes of God, whose special ministers they are; but their organization has particular reference to their special work of preaching the Gospel in all the world.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; pp. 9-17)
1 Nov.: Duties of 70s pres. other than 1st Quorum.
“The seven presidents constitute the presidency of the quorum, and they should decide all questions that come before the Council, where a difference of opinino exists, by vote, the majority determining the final action. The absence of one or more presidents does not destroy the efficiency of the Council, as a majority is competent to transact business. The same rule applies in the official actions of the quorum. The same responsibility rests uon each of the presidents; the absence of the senior president in no wise excuses others of the Council from attending to their duties in the transaction of the business of the Council, nor does such absence invalidate the decisions of the Council. Where presidents are found who are unworthy to preside because of their delinquencies, neglect of duty, or inefficiency, the fact should be immediately reported to the First Council of the Seventy, who will take such steps as wisdom may direct to bring to pass their reformation, or failing in this, the suspension or removal of such offending or careless presidents. (See Revelation on Instruction, page 8.)
The presidents of the quorums are instructed to hold monthly council meetings, at which the general interest of the quorum can be considered, labors reported, programs arranged, plans devised for the reformation of delinquent and careless Seventies. Minutes of such proceedings may be inserted in the general records of the quorum.
It is the duty of the presidents of the respective quorums, not only to preside at the meetings and take general supervision of the quorum and its work, but they are also expected to keep themselves well informed concerning the spiritual, moral, physical and financial condition of their individual members, and they are to regard themselves as having general and continuous supervision of the Seventies as members of their quorums. This is necessary in order that when inquiries are made for missionaries the presidents can give all the information that may be required. In pursuance of this labor, presidents should act as teachers, visiting their members at their homes and paying special attention to those neglectful of their duties.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; pp. 18-19)
1 Nov.: Allegiance of 70s to their calling and quorums.
“All presidents and Seventies owe their first allegiance to their quorum and quorum meetings, and it is their first and paramount duty to do this in preference to attending to duties pertaining to auxiliary organizations of the Church.
Where worthy Seventies, through age or physical disabilities, find themselves unable to meet the calling of a Seventy, which, of course, involves foreign missionary work, they may be encouraged to join the High Priests’ Quorum, on proper recommendations.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; pp. 19-20)
1 Nov.: Dealing with negligent 70s.
“Where members of quorums persistently fail to attend their quorum meetings, and have no reasonable excuse to offer for such neglect, or who may in other respects be guilty of conduct unworthy of men holding the Priesthood of the Seventy, they should be labored with by the presidents of the quorum, and if they continue in a course of general neglect of duty, after sufficient patience has been manifested towards them to satisfy the claims of mercy, they should then be formally notified by letter to be present at a meeting of the quorum, especially appointed for the purpose of permitting them to show why they should not be dropped from the quorum. And in the event of their refusing or neglecting to attend the summons of the quorum, and if a reasonable excuse is not sent to the quorum, the quorum may take action in their case, notwithstanding their absence. In all cases where members of quorums are called in question, a majority of their respective quorums will have jurisdiction in all cases involving their standing in the quorum; but in case there is not a majority residing in the district where the quorum is organized, or in the case of scattered members, the members present should investigate the matter and report their findings to the First Seven Presidents. Any member from whom fellowship has been withdrawn by a quorum should be reported to the High Council having jurisdiction–the High Council of the Stake where the delinquent resides. In the event, however, of the delinquent member responding to the summons of the quorum, and if he show the proper spirit of repentance, the quorum can, at its discretion, continue to hold him in fellowship.
A ‘suspended’ Seventy is one from whom fellowship is not absolutely withdrawn, but who is deprived of the privilege of exercising the functions of his office until he repents of his transgressions, and makes satisfactory amends to his quorum. He is still a member of the quorum, but not privileged to act until suspension is removed.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; pp. 20-21)
1 Nov.: Filling vacancies in 70s presidencies.
“Whenever vacancies occur in the presidency of a quorum the Council should at once be called together and nominations of suitable men be made from among the members of the quorum, to fill such vacancies. The number of nominations should be from two to four for each vacancy, and the list submitted to the First Council. The brethren whose names are suggested should not be informed of their nomination until the First Council has taken action in the matter.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; p. 21)
1 Nov.: 70s who move should reenlist in new quorums.
“When presidents ascertain that there are Seventies residing in their district who have not yet joined the quorum, they should be invited to do so, and should such Seventies persistently refuse, their names should be reported to the High Council of the Stake in which they reside; for it is not proper that men holding the High Priesthood should be allowed to ignore the councils of the Priesthood, and remain unconnected with quorums to which they properly belong.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; p. 22)
1 Nov.: Which Elders should be selected to be 70s?
“When instructed to select Elders to be ordained Seventies care should be taken to choose men likely to develop within them the qualifications of becoming successful preachers of the Gospel.
Whenever a quorum of Seventy is reduced in its membership, and it is deemed advisable to increase the number, the council of the quorum should confer with the First Council of the Seventy and notify them of this fact. The quorum will then be instructed to obtain the consent of the presidency of the Stake in which the quorum is located, and then meet with the presidents of the Elders’ quorums from which brethren are to be chosen, and mutually agree upon the names of such Elders as are worthy for the proposed ordination. The list of names should be endorsed by the presidency of the stake and the presidents of the Elders’ quorums, and said list forwarded to the First Council. An appointment will then be made, which one or more of the First Council will attend.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; p. 24)
1 Nov.: Selecting 70s as full-time missionaries.
“Men are wanted for missions whose age and physical condition will enable them to perform the arduous duties that devolve upon a missionary. Therefore, consideration should be given to their moral, spiritual, physical, educational and financial condition. The presidents of Seventy are held responsible for the worthiness of brethren whom they recommend. Only men who are mentally and physically sound should be considered for missions. So far as it is possible Seventies should be selected for missions who have given some evidence of the workings of the Spirit of the Lord in their own souls, as manifested in their interest in the work of the Lord at home.
Due regard should be paid to the ability of those recommended for missions to meet the necessary expenses. No one’s name should be suggested who is not able to bear these expenses, unless the Bishop of his ward and the quorum of Seventy to which he belongs are willing to assume the obligation.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; pp. 24-25)
1 Nov.: Necessity of theological study by 70s.
“It should be remembered by Seventies that the object to be accomplished by the organization of a quorum of seventy is to prepare men for the work of the ministry, and such course of study should be pursued as will qualify them for this work. In the early history of the Church, on the occasion of a number of Elders about to engage in the ministry asking the Lord what His will was concerning them, the answer was given in the following words:
[D&C 88:78, 80]
It will be conceded after reading this passage that it is not the Lord’s intention to have an ignorant ministry. He commands His servants to inform themselves with reference to all things that are enumerated here, and we are justified in believing that this general information is necessary to qualify one fully for the work of the ministry. Knowledge, however, can only be obtained by degrees, line upon line and precept upon precept. We therefore urge upon our Seventies to take up this work of acquiring information in this spirit. Do not attempt to accomplish too much at once, but select those things which are more immediately necessary to equipment in the work of the ministry. It is urged that this study be pursued in a systematic manner until it is mastered. In this connection attention is called to the necessity of being thoroughly familiar with the coming forth of the great work of the Lord in the dispensation in which we live, and the principles that have been directly revealed to this generation; and to the fact that the Church is now publishing the history of the Church in a series of volumes in which the narrative of the Prophet Joseph Smith respecting the coming forth of the work is made the body of the narrative, to which is added such introductory matter and explanatory notes as will make the information more complete, and correlate its various parts. These volumes are published by the Church, not for financial advantage, but for the purpose of placing within the reach of all the people, and the Elders especially, the information that will make them thoroughly familiar with the work of the Lord from the commencement to the present time. One thing is especially advantageous, and that is in the first volume of the history one hundred and one, out of one hundred and thirty-four, revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants are published in connection with the circumstances which brought them forth, so that our modern revelations can be studied under conditions which make their meaning perfectly clear, since the circumstances under which they were given are known. We therefore urge upon our brethren that they consider the advantage of taking up this subject as a main line of study until it is completed.” (Seventies’ Handbook of Instructions, Issued by The First Council of the Seventy, 1904; pp. 28-30)
1 Dec.: Instructions for Aaronic Priesthood.
“An Annual Report of the organization, duties and labors of the Aaronic Priesthood will be required for the year 1904, which we trust will form a basis for renewing interest in this important branch of the Priesthood. Many Latter-day Saints are holding the office of Priest, Teacher and Deacon, but in some instances, little attention has been given to training them in their several duties and callings. These quorums are admirably adapted for teaching young men their duties and preparing them for higher callings as Missionaries and Presiding Officers. The Bishop, as President of the Aaronic Priesthood of the Ward, should take a fatherly interest in the young men and whenever, in his opinion, a person is eligible for the office of Priest, Teacher or Deacon, he should be ordained and set to labor in such office under the Bishop’s direction. We earnestly hope that the Presiding Officers, both in the Ward and Stake, will give this subject careful consideration and make every reasonable effort to organize the Quorums of this Priesthood throughout the several Wards and to raise their standard of efficiency in the way suggested by the spirit of Revelations of the Lord concerning this Priesthood.
In this connection, we would suggest that, as in the case of Deacons, who are as a rule young and inexperienced in the matter of conducting the exercises of a meeting, that an older person be selected, who is better informed and who could act as an instructor, or class leader, in conducting the lesson exercises, of the Quorum. The President of the Quorum could take charge of the opening and closing exercises, and also in the transaction of the business of the Quorum; the instructor to have charge only when conducting the lesson exercises.
We recommend for text books, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and ‘The Lesser Priesthood,’ by Professor Joseph B. Keeler, and suggest that they be used in all the Quorums of the Aaronic Priesthood throughout the Stakes of Zion.” (First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric, Annual Instructions, No. 6, to Presidents of Stakes and Counselors, High Councilors, Bishops and Counselors, and Stake Tithing Clerks in Zion, 1 Dec., 1904, pp. 18-19)
1 Dec.: List of Non-Tithepayers to Quorums; confidential.
“In examining the accounts of the year 1903, we were pleased to notice that a number of the Wards have eliminated this unfavorable feature [Non-Tithepayers] from their records by converting the non-tithepayers; but there is still a large number of persons claiming to be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who have not been converted to the payment of their Tithes and Offerings. We, therefore, urgently desire Presidents of Stakes, High Councilors, Priests, Teachers and Presiding Officers of the several quorums and organizations of the Ward and Stake to labor with the Non-tithepayers, and use their influence by kindness and persuasion to convert them to the observance of the Law of Tithing.
The Stake Tithing Clerk will furnish the Presiding Officers of the several Priesthood Quorums of the Stake a list of the Non-tithepayers of their respective quorums as they appear on the Bishop’s reports, so that a labor can be taken up in a quorum capacity, which should be done privately. In no way should individuals be mentioned in this connection at quorum meetings, or in a public capacity.” (First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric, Annual Instructions, No. 6, to Presidents of Stakes and Counselors, High Councilors, Bishops and Counselors, and Stake Tithing Clerks in Zion, 1 Dec., 1904, pp. 23-24)
8 Dec.: Bringing 1st. Pres. decision before Church.
“At the Temple we met with the Twelve and there was discussed the question of letting our records go to Washington. It was agreed not to exasperate the Investigating Committee and Bro. Nickolson took them with him. . . .
We met with Bros. C. W. Penrose, B. H. Roberts & J. E. Talmage upon the doctrinal points that may be raised in the Investigation. The questions were about the method to bring the First Presidency’s decision before the General Assembly. If for instance a High Priest quorum felt aggrieved at a decision they could lay the case before the Twelve and if they should refuse, they could call upon the Seventies to decide it. That is upon the special quorum mentioned in the revelation. Personal matters can be heard against the First Presidency by the special council ordained in the 107:84.” (Anthon H. Lund diary, 8 Dec., 1904; LDS Archives)
Dec.: Passing of the gift of tongues.
“I was somewhat startled a few days ago, while in conversation with a young brother who had just returned from a mission to Scandinavia, by hearing him remark that he had never in his life heard anyone speak in tongues. This same young brother was reared in Utah. His father and mother, as also he himself, are good Latter-day Saints. He has filled an honorable mission, and is today strong in the faith, and yet, he has never heard and experienced one of the most common gifts of the gospel, as enjoyed years ago.
The remark was somewhat of a shock to me; because in the early days of the Church–where I was reared–there were so many of the Saints who enjoyed the gifts, and there were none among my acquaintances who had not heard the sweet sound of the gift of tongues. Many times there would be both speaking and singing in tongues, in the same sacrament meeting. The interpretation of tongues was equally as common as the tongues themselves. In fact, we were wont to regard the speaking in tongues, the interpretation of tongues, the relating of dreams and prophesying, as an essential part of the latter-day gospel. These gifts were a great comfort to the new converts. They strengthened our faith, and served as abiding testimonies to many of us.” (James X. Allen, “Passing of the Gift of Tongues,” IE 8(2):109, Dec., 1904)