Читать книгу History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Joseph F. Smith - Страница 112

1. It should be observed here, that this arrangement had reference only to the first organization of the quorum of the Twelve. After this first arrangement, the brethren of that quorum held and now hold their place in it and preside according to seniority of ordination, not of age. Though it must be admitted, that this order was not always strictly observed; for instance, the late President Woodruff, for a number of years, ranked in the quorum of the Twelve before Elder John Taylor; although the latter was ordained first, and actually assisted in the ordination of President Woodruff at Far West in the spring of 1839. I think this case illustrates the inconsistency of the idea that seniority of age should govern in fixing the standing of the members in the quorum of the Twelve. Surely it would be nothing short of an absurdity in order, for one just ordained to out-rank one that had taken part in his ordination. The slight irregularity here noticed was corrected by President Brigham Young some two years before his death, and President Taylor was accorded his place, which gave him priority of standing in the quorum to Elder Woodruff. President Taylor himself gives the following explanation of the matter: "Through some inadvertency, or perhaps mixed up with the idea of seniority of age taking the precedence, Wilford Woodruff's name was placed on the records at the time, and for many years after, before that of John Taylor. This matter was investigated, some time afterwards, by President Young and his council, sanctioned also by the Twelve, whether (or not) John Taylor held the precedency and stood in gradation prior to Brother Wilford Woodruff; and it was voted on and decided that his name be placed before Wilford Woodruff's, although Wilford Woodruff was the older man. The reason assigned for this change was, that although both were called at the same time, John Taylor was ordained into the Twelve prior to Wilford Woodruff; and another prominent reason would be, that as John Taylor assisted in the ordination of Elder Wilford Woodruff, he therefore must precede him in the council." (Succession in the Priesthood, a Discourse by President John Taylor—October, 1835—p. 16).

2. But a temporary High council of High Priests abroad may be organized when necessity requires it, the High Priests abroad (i.e., outside organized stakes of Zion) having the power to determine when the organization of such High Council is necessary. (See the revelation at page 30 this volume, verses 24-32).

3. In his notes on Church History, John Whitmer, who was the Church Historian at that time, says concerning the organization of the seventy: "About the same time (i.e., that the quorum of the Twelve was organized) there were seventy High Priests chosen, who were called to be under the direction of the Twelve, and assist them according to their needs; and if seventy were not enough, call seventy more, until seventy times seventy." (Ms. p.51.) John Whitmer, however, is mistaken in saying that they were High Priests that were chosen. They were chiefly chosen from among the Elders, and the few High Priests that were called into the quorum were afterwards requested to take their place with the High Priests again, and others were chosen to fill the vacancies thus created. (see "History of the Organization of the Seventies," Joseph Young, pp. 4, 5.)

4. Presumably on the 4th of May, since that was the date fixed for starting on this mission by the Twelve at their meeting on the 28th of April preceding (see p. 219). John Whitmer, in his notes on Church History, however, fixes the date on the 5th of May. He says: "On the morning of the 5th of May, the Twelve took leave of their families and brethren, to fill their first mission under their commission, being commissioned to carry the Gospel to Gentile and also unto Jew, having the keys of the Gospel to unlock, and then call upon others to promulgate the same." (Whitmer's Ms., p. 50.)

5. What the case in question was cannot now be ascertained.