Recently Rebekah Griffin released a YouTube video attempting to expose the LDS leadership. The video is pretty slick, and it’s definitely well done, and worth a watch. However, it is factually incorrect about almost everything and incredibly misleading. I have no love for the LDS leadership, however the current trend of stretching everything into an attack on them doesn’t get us anywhere that we should be looking to go.
Overview
The first thing to note is that in looking at Mormon history, we can reach whatever conclusion that we want based on the sources that we look at. This is why it is so incredibly important to have an understanding of the issues ourselves. It is really easy to deceive someone, if they believe everything that you say.
In looking at Rebekah’s argument then we can summarize it in 5 main points:
- Mark Hofmann made a fraudulent document which said that Joseph Smith III would be the successor to Joseph.
- In 1981, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley deceptively responded to the document and assured the church that it didn’t pose a threat.
- Elder Hinckley referenced the Council of Fifty, “last charge”, as support for apostolic succession.
- Elder Hinckley knew this reference was deceptive.
- The “last charge” event likely never happened.
The first third or so of her video is focused on point #1, and almost the entire rest is focused on the council of fifty and the “last charge” event. For context, the “last charge” is a purported event where Joseph mentioned the twelve have the responsibility of leading the church. Interestingly, the beginning of her video serves almost no purpose for her argument except to just pull in viewers. Her entire argument would still be just as incorrect with no mention of Mark Hofmann at all. However, I would recommend that you watch the series “Murder Among the Mormons” which describes the Mark Hofmann saga in detail. That is very well done and very eye opening to the state of the LDS church at the time.
Hinckley
Since the Mark Hofmann forgeries serve no real purpose to the argument, then we can just skip right to Elder Hinckley’s 1981 talk. She begins by showing an excerpt from Hinckley’s talk where he says:
During that winter, on a number of occasions, Joseph assembled the Twelve in the upper room of his brick store on Water Street in Nauvoo. Our archives contain a number of documents attesting to these meetings and what was done in them.
Elder Hinckley, The Joseph Smith III Document and the Keys of the Kingdom, April 1981
At this point, Rebekah interjects to start setting up her argument with the first of her completely unprovable assertions. She mentions:
Hinckley is referring to the Council of Fifty that was organized by Joseph Smith in early 1844 and met in his Red Brick Store.
Rebekah Griffin
This is her assumption just so she can tie Hinckley to the Council of Fifty. There is absolutely no evidence for this at all. In fact, Joseph used the Red Brick Store for almost everything. According to the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Red Brick Store was used as a school, a courtroom, a meeting room for civic and religious events. It was also the initial Masonic lodge, the location for the first endowments, the location of the Relief Society, and of course the Council of Fifty meeting location. Every one of these purposes has documents attesting to them like Hinckley claimed. The Twelve also met almost everyday for various purposes.
Rebekah then continues showing an excerpt from Hinckley’s talk where he mentions that he has no doubts about the validity of apostolic succession as it has functioned in the LDS church. He supports this with several scriptures and contemporary statements. After this Rebekah insinuates, that because Hinckley lied for the church then he was promoted. She mentions:
Hinckley delivered a masterful talk that calmed the church’s fears. Three and a half months later he was called as the third counselor in the First Presidency of the church. Not long after that Arrington was privately released from his calling as church historian with no mention or vote of thanks in the next general conference. If you’re like me, you might be wondering why Hinckley was promoted and Arrington was quietly dismissed.
Rebekah Griffin
This is another example of a complete lack of understanding on her part and is simply used in a dramatic fashion to put an air of mystery about the next thing she discusses concerning Leonard Arrington, which is a journal entry of his. However, it is quite helpful to keep in mind that at that time in the church the entire First Presidency was frankly old and sick. They were largely out of the public eye, and they needed someone younger and more vibrant to assume most of the duties. For this reason, Elder Hinkley was called as an additional councilor and was even referred to as the “acting president of the church“. There was nothing nefarious about it at all as she implies.
For Leonard Arrington though, he was released as church historian simply because there had been a growing tension between him and the church leadership. He was approaching church history from an academic perspective, while the leaders wanted it approached from a more faithful perspective. In fact, during his tenure as church historian many referred to it as Camelot because Arrington was very free and open with historical sources.
Eventually, in the ever-growing bureaucracy of the LDS church, enough people decided that open access to historical documents was not good for the church, and they restructured the entire History Division, which included Arrington. I do agree with Arrington’s view on history, however again there was nothing nefarious about this either.
The next thing that Rebekah mentions is a journal entry from Arrington where he mentions that Hinckley, and other leaders, read through the Council of Fifty meeting minutes and couldn’t find a mention of this “last charge” address. Therefore, according to her, Hinckley’s conference address, which she showed earlier, was fundamentally deceptive. She mentions:
Did you catch that? Hinckley had discovered that there was nothing in the Council of Fifty minutes about a last charge from Joseph to the 12, but the next month he reassured the church that that event had happened anyway. And they regarded him as the hero for it.
Rebekah Griffin
This is fundamentally deceptive on her part. In his conference address, Elder Hinckley made no mention of the Council of Fifty at all. Therefore, the assertion that he lied about this event is provably false. He did quote a March 1845 statement from Parley P. Pratt, however this also has nothing to do with the Council of Fifty. I don’t agree with Elder Hinckley’s views on succession, however he made a compelling argument for his views, while all Rebekah did was lie about it.
Council of Fifty
Rebekah then discusses the Council of Fifty along with some of the background information for its purpose and desired goals. I am not going to go much into this, as I think Rebekah did a fine job. However, it should be remembered that Joseph used the Council of Fifty to act as a theocratic government and to find a new settlement location for the church. Joseph knew that staying in the United States was not feasible for the church since there was growing hostility and little redress from the United States government.
During her discussion of the Council of Fifty, she addresses the fact that members were required to swear an oath with a death penalty. She however downplays this and then misapplies a quote from Joseph. In Joseph’s quote, he mentions:
Any man who did not acquiesce with our regulations could withdraw and say nothing about it.
Joseph Smith
Joseph here is saying that people can leave, however they still would be under covenant to keep the meetings secret and “say nothing about it”. Rebekah, here fails to mention that just prior to Joseph mentioning this, the council was discussing the need for secrecy. The minutes read:
We do not intend to make fools of ourselves, of each other or of our God, but when we make a covenant we intend to keep it. … Pres J. Smith followed Er Rigdon on the same subject.
Council of Fifty meeting minutes
Immediately after this, the meeting minutes describe the quote that Rebekah references. The covenant that the members were under was the covenant to keep the meetings secret. They were all bound to it by penalty of death. Everyone consented to this, including Joseph. Therefore, again Rebekah couldn’t be more wrong about this. She is saying that the members could freely leave and speak about the meetings which is frankly false. Not a single person in the Council of Fifty thought that so I am not sure why she is claiming it.
The next thing Rebekah mentions is something I have heard multiple times, however it is easily shown to be completely false. She mentions:
I get the idea that Joseph wasn’t a big fan of masonic Oaths and threats.
Rebekah Griffin
When people claim this, I find it so strange. Joseph was in fact all about masonic oaths and secrecy. Most of the things he did in Nauvoo were kept secret for a variety of reasons. For instance, we already saw how the Council of Fifty was intentionally kept secret. In fact, the early minutes of the council were so secret that it was voted that they should be burned. The minutes read:
It was considered wisdom to burn the minutes in consequence of treachery and plots of designing men.
Council of Fifty meeting minutes
The minutes themselves were burned multiple times, therefore it can’t be claimed that we have a full record of what transpired. In addition to the secrecy of the Council of Fifty, Joseph was also involved in Freemasonry which was literally a secret society. This is easily provable through lodge records in Nauvoo, and through the larger records of Freemasonry in Illinois. In addition to this, a private letter from Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt mentions Joseph’s involvement in Freemasonry.
Lastly, on a number of occasions, Joseph either mentioned the need for secrecy or swore groups to secrecy. Therefore, again Rebekah’s claim that Joseph wasn’t a fan of masonic oaths is completely false. If he didn’t like oaths and secrecy, then why did he mention it so much? For instance, these are just a few times that Joseph mentioned the need for secrecy and oaths.
Joseph says I can keep a secret till dooms day
Joseph Smith – December 19, 1841
Some among you who are not sufficiently skilled in Masonry as to keep a secret
Joseph Smith – March 31, 1842
The secrets of masonry. is to keep a secret.
Joseph Smith – October 15, 1843
Joseph asked. can this council keep what I say. not make it Public— all held up their hands.
Joseph Smith – February 15th, 1844
I am not sure how anyone can claim that Joseph didn’t support Masonic oaths, threats, or secrecy. All three are easily proven if someone is willing to look.
Kingdom of God
The next thing Rebekah discusses is how there was a disagreement on the Council of Fifty concerning the separation between the Council and the church itself. Some felt there should be no separation and some felt there should be one. Rebekah references a quote from Joseph where he clearly mentions that the kingdom of God and the church of God are completely separate. She then mentions:
So, Joseph saw the millennial Kingdom as permitting religious freedom and not exclusive to one church.
Rebekah Griffin
It seems either Joseph didn’t really think this, or he had changed his mind because about a year earlier Joseph used the phrase Kingdom of God to encompass the spiritual as well as the temporal affairs of God. For instance, in early 1843 Joseph mentioned the following:
The kingdom of God was set upon the earth in all ages from the days of Adam to the presant time whenever there was a man on earth who had authority to Administar the ordinances of the gospel
Joseph Smith – January 17, 1843
whare their is no kingdom of God there is no salvation. What constitutes the kingdom of God? Whare there is a prophet a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives his oracles there is the kingdom of God, & whare the oracles of God are not there the kingdom of God is not,
Joseph Smith – January 22, 1843
It seems then that Joseph felt, in 1843, the Kingdom of God was far more spiritual than he did in 1844. Joseph felt the Kingdom of God contained the priesthood, ordinances, and religious leaders of God. It may then be technically true that the Kingdom and Church are separate, however if what Joseph said is true then there has to be an inseparable link between the two effectively making them one and the same.
The next thing Rebekah mentions is another misleading statement designed to paint Brigham Young in a negative light. She mentions:
[Brigham] then moved forward with his plan to do exactly what he had suggested in the meetings while Joseph was alive. Which included combining the church and the government and moving it to the middle of nowhere.
Rebekah Griffin
It seems she failed to realize that the entire purpose of the Council of Fifty was to prepare for the eventuality of leaving the United States. This was Joseph’s idea, not Brigham’s, because he was being a smart leader and planning ahead. Joseph was the one who was planning on relocating to California or Texas, which were both outside of the United States at the time. Joseph is the one who sent missionaries to scout out new locations for the church. This wasn’t Brigham’s ideas, but Joseph’s. Rebekah though is painting Brigham in a negative light for doing the exact thing that Joseph planned for. Yes, Joseph wanted to stay if the United States changed, however he knew that they wouldn’t and so he was planning accordingly.
Last Charge
Rebekah then spends the remainder of her video going over what is commonly called the “Last Charge”. There have been numerous academic studies concerning this purported event, so I won’t attempt to rehash what was already discussed there. However, I do want to address a few things that Rebekah claims concerning the purported event.
The first thing is that she shows a 1995 talk from Elder Packer in which he references this “Last Charge” document from Orson Hyde. Rebekah then mentions:
So why was Packer still so confident that this event happened? Even though Hinckley couldn’t find any reference to it in the official minutes. Did he think Hinckley missed it somehow?
Rebekah Griffin
I do agree with her that Elder Packer probably shouldn’t have included a reference to that document. There should be some accountability for the leaders to understand the sources that they reference. However, her overall insistence that the event had to be a Council of Fifty meeting, and it had to be on a specific date is entirely unfounded. I agree that Orson Hyde’s account is probably more propaganda than truth, it however says nothing about the location or the specific date.
Rebekah does show, quite well, that the Orson Hyde account was never accepted by the twelve and was never signed. What she fails to understand though is, if the account is false, then this speaks to their honesty not to their deceit. She also fails to mention is that several of the twelve, and others, agreed that something similar did in fact happen. For instance, Wilford Woodruff recorded an August 25th, 1844, meeting where at least 4 apostles agreed with the overall sentiment. This of course is well before Orson Hyde’s “last charge” document. He recorded:
Elders O Hyde and P. P. Pratt testifyed that Joseph the Prophet and Seer had ordained, anointed, and appointed the Twelve to lead the Church had given them the Keys of the Kingdom of God for that purpose W. W. Phelps and R. Cahoon bore testimony to the same thing, saying that Joseph said unto the Twelve upon your sholdiers the kingdom of God must rest in all the world, now round up your sholdiers and bear it many important things were spoken that I have not time to write.
Wilford Woodruff, August 25, 1844
It seems then, from this account that Hyde, Pratt, Phelps, and Cahoon all agreed that something similar happened. The specific details may have been different, or they were all lying for some reason, however it seems they all agreed on this general concept.
On November 1st, 1844, Wilford Woodruff published his version of the event in the Times and Seasons. In this account Woodruff makes a logical case for why Rigdon shouldn’t lead the church, but the twelve should instead. By that time the church had largely already decided to be led by the twelve, however there were still numerous hold outs for Rigdon and others. Woodruff mentioned:
And thus [Joseph] addressing the Twelve, exclaimed, “upon your shoulders the kingdom rests, and you must round up your shoulders, and bear it for I have had to do it until now. But now the responsibility rest upon you. It mattereth not what becomes of me.”
Wilford Woodruff, Times and Seasons, November 1, 1844
Of course, this could be a lie, however it does sound very similar to the other accounts of the purported event. Wilford Woodruff also published a very similar account in the February 1845 edition of the Millennial Star. In that account, Woodruff mentioned:
The prophet called the quorum of the twelve together several months before his death, and informed them that the Lord had commanded him to hasten their endowments ; that he did not expect to remain himself to see the temple completed, but wished to confer the keys of the kingdom of God upon other men, that they might build up the church and kingdom according to the pattern given.
Wilford Woodruff, Millennial Star, February 1845
A last account of this, that we will look at, is found in the March 1845 edition of the Millennial Star. In this account, Parley P. Pratt publishes what he called his proclamation. In this proclamation, Parley agrees with the other accounts and mentions:
This great and good man [Joseph] was led, before his death, to call the Twelve together, from time to time, and to instruct them in all things pertaining to the kingdom, ordinances, and government of God. He often observed that he was laying the foundation, but it would remain for the Twelve to complete the building.
Parley P. Pratt, Millennial Star, March 1845
Parley then continues his account with a description of Joseph’s sentiment and actions. This largely agrees with the previously mentioned accounts. Therefore, either the apostles were all lying, which they certainly had a motivation to do, or something happened, between them and Joseph, as they claimed that it did. These accounts are also completely separate from Orson Hyde’s “last charge” document. If the Twelve didn’t agree with the overall events then why did they say they happened and why publish them in official publications? The church had already largely decided to follow them and didn’t really care about any signed “last charge” document.
Historical Malpractice
The next thing of note is Rebekah seems to go out of her way to find fault with the Joseph Smith Papers project editors, because they didn’t include a single word, in their summary, that she thought they should. She mentions:
So why did the historians leave out the word continued? As Jeremy Hoop would say, this omission is an example of historical malpractice. It’s like they’re trying to force the story of the “last charge” into the minutes by making it look like the instructions from Joseph were a unique circumstance.
Rebekah Griffin
This is so silly it is almost unbelievable that she would even say it. Has she never included partial quotes before? I know she has because she did it more than once in this video alone. However, whether they used the word “continued” or not wouldn’t impact the meaning of the text. If you read the minutes, it shows Joseph spoke, then others, then Joseph ‘continued’ whether the word is present or not. To calm her fears, that the Joseph Smith Papers project editors are running rampant, then she can look to that very date, March 26th, 1844, in Joseph’s journal. A note on that date reads:
JS then “continued his instructions on heavenly things and many other important subjects,” none of which were reported by scribe William Clayton.
Joseph Smith Papers project, note, March 26, 1844
In this case the word “continued” fits and so they used it in their note. If the word didn’t fit, then it would make sense to not use it and there is nothing malicious about it. It is evident though, that some people see malicious intent everywhere they look.
No time left
The next thing of note, is Rebekah seems to disagree with the notion that Joseph knew he didn’t have much time left. Of course, if Joseph felt he would live a lot longer then, there would be no need for a “last charge” type event. Curiously she rebuts this with a quote from Brigham more than 10 years after Joseph’s death. She mentions:
In that same meeting the Twelve also discussed Joseph prophesying that he was soon going to die and how Hyde made that the reason Joseph was so anxious to roll off the kingdom onto their shoulders.
Rebekah Griffin
From the earlier accounts we looked at from Wilford Woodruff and Parly P. Pratt, which were agreed to by Phelps, Hyde, and Cahoon, then it seems that Joseph felt his time was coming to an end. It also makes sense if you look at it from a historical perspective. The church was growing but so was the opposition. He was facing opposition on almost every side and was engaged in several legal matters which could have seriously impacted things. I doubt he thought the next 10 years were going to be as positive as the previous ones.
It seems though that even in 1842, Joseph felt that he didn’t have much time left. This would have likely got even more pressing on his mind in 1844. In an April 28th, 1842, Relief Society meeting, it is recorded that Joseph said:
that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere
Joseph Smith, Relief Society meeting, April 28, 1842
This statement from Joseph is remarkable consistent with everything else we have looked at. Joseph was getting tired of leading the church and the constant source of problems. He mentioned that he wanted a way out and God was going to give it to him. It seems though, that if this was the case then it is highly likely that Joseph would meet with the Twelve, like many of them reported that he did.
Conclusion
I have absolutely no ill feelings towards Rebekah, and I really like her content. However, for us to be God’s people then we really need to accept the truth, whatever it is. Joseph had to have known he didn’t have much time left. Things were closing in, inside and outside the church, and there are several accounts, including Joseph’s 1842 statement which exemplify this sentiment.
Joseph also had to have known that without him then there would essentially be no First Presidency. During early 1844, Joseph’s counselors were William Law and Sidney Rigdon. At that time Joseph had a very tumultuous relationship to both of them and actually had William Law excommunicated. Sidney had bouts of serious sickness and the church overall didn’t know him very well. Therefore, it actually does make sense that Joseph would think of the Twelve apostles as leading the church. To what degree though, is the question.
There are also several places in the scriptures which established the Twelve apostles has having a leading role in the church and a role similar to the First Presidency. For instance, D&C 107:24, D&C 112:30, and D&C 124:127-128 all state the Twelve apostles held unique power and authority similar to the First Presidency. In addition to this, we have minutes from an August 16th, 1841, meeting where the Twelve apostles were given additional authority by Joseph himself. The minutes mention:
President Joseph Smith … said that the twelve should be authorized to assist in managing the affairs of th[e] kingdom in this place. which he said was their duties of their office &c.
Motioned seconded and Carried that the quorum of the twelve be authorized to act in accordance with the instructions given by president Joseph Smith in regulating and superintending the affairs <of the Church>.
Meeting minutes, August 16, 1841
Historically, it seems the Twelve apostles were given a little more authority here and there, until they were essentially running the church alongside Joseph. This leadership model is not how the Twelve apostles started, however it seemed to make the most sense to Joseph. I don’t think Joseph liked making every decision since it was so mentally taxing for him.
I don’t claim that a “last charge” type event actually happened. However, it is abundantly clear that from historical sources it certainly could have happened and several of the apostles felt that it did happen. It is also clear that Joseph was constantly changing things so there is no reason to believe that he wouldn’t have changed the leadership model of the church as well. The church was fundamentally different from Nauvoo to Kirtland. If Joseph was to live longer then I believe it would have continued to have drastic changes under his leadership as well.
As was mentioned, the Twelve apostles did have ample reasons to lie about these events or stretch the truth. However, it seems the people of the time chose the apostles to lead them and didn’t really care about whether a “last charge” event actually happened. The people felt the apostles were a better choice, for whatever reason, then any of the other candidates. It also seems incredibly disingenuous to me, that some people claim that a “last charge” event would even make a difference to them. Are we to believe that some people, including Rebekah, would follow the Twelve apostles if Joseph gave them a “last charge”? I seriously doubt it.
