The origins of Apostolic Seniority

By Don Bradley

“I’d like to be released.”

It was not the first time a fellow Latter-day Saint had asked First Presidency counselor Gordon B. Hinckley if he could be released from an ecclesiastical calling.

But 87-year old Spencer W. Kimball was not just any Latter-day Saint, and being president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not just any calling. President Kimball’s son Edward recorded in his journal that in the wake of his latest surgery, the prophet had also asked his other counselor, N. Eldon Tanner, if he might be “relieved” of his presidential office. ¹ Neither counselor seriously considered the request. They embraced their president’s power to do a great many things. Resigning was not one of them.

Not that the possibility had never been raised before. In 1968, Hugh B. Brown, an apostle and counselor in the First Presidency to the declining 94-year old church president David O. McKay, recommended that all church General Authorities be given emeritus status at age 85. ²

Spencer W. Kimball enacted a similar proposal for most General Authorities in 1978, granting them automatic emeritus status upon reaching the age of 70, but he appears not to have considered extending the policy to those with apostolic callings until his own devastating health problems rendered him unable to fulfill the duties of his calling.³

Kimball’s proposal to resign was not the first a president of the church had made. Joseph Smith himself had once proposed resigning, announcing that “he would not prophesy anymore—Hyrum should be the prophet.” ⁴ Assuming the sincerity of Joseph’s proposal to resign from the office of church president, what blocked him from making good on the proposal, by his description, was that the Saints had experienced only one prophet and did not yet believe that Hyrum or anyone else could take his place. “Joseph,” they said, “Hyrum is no prophet— he can’t lead the church; you must lead the church; if you resign all things will go wrong. you must not resign.” ⁵

By the time Spencer W. Kimball was president of the church, the Saints knew that more than one man was capable of serving in this office. What, then, blocked President Kimball from resigning? The criterion upon which automatic succession to the presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been based since the mid-1840s: apostolic seniority.

Apostolic seniority necessarily increases the ages of church presidents. Thus, two of Spencer W. Kimball’s successors in office have similarly experienced multi-year periods of significant incapacitation. And current demographic trends augur that this is likely to happen repeatedly in the church’s future. The technological extension of human life without a proportional extension of human health turns apostolic seniority into a ratchet for increasing the infirmities of the church’s presidents at the time they take office. As noted by the Book of Mormon’s prominent prophet-king Benjamin, prophets, like anyone else, are “subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind” (Mosiah 2:11). And prophets, like anyone else, experience more of these physical and mental ravages as they age.

The church has already felt the impact of this trend. For instance, church presidents’ most public duty—and arguably one of their most important—is to instruct the church at its semi-annual General Conference. Prior to modern medicine’s late twentieth-century extension of lifespan far beyond healthspan, church presidents were able to fulfill this responsibility with a consistency startlingly close to perfect. Across the 78 years from Wilford Woodruff’s accession to the presidency of the church in 1889 and David O. McKay’s last in-person General Conference talk in October 1966, church presidents were unable to speak only at a combined total of two of 156 General Conferences—or 1.28%. In the 56 years since (as of the time of this writing in 2022), church presidents have missed a combined total of 24 of 112 conferences—21.4%. ⁶

Comparison with the ages of leaders in other Christian traditions may prove instructive. When Pope Benedict XVI took office as the preeminent leader of the Roman Catholic Church in 2005, he was exceptionally old for a presiding leader of the faith. At 78, Benedict was the oldest pope to take office in three centuries. He was young, however, relative to his recent counterparts at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And the trend toward increasing age of church presidents is accelerating. While only two of the church’s first nine presidents had surpassed Benedict XVI’s age of accession when they took office, seven of the last eight have taken office above this age. The most recent church president (as of this writing) took office at age 91. Given the ages of the current apostles in the Latter-day Saint Quorum of the Twelve and the steady extension of human lifespan, the operative system of presidential succession may never again produce a church president who is not an octogenarian, nonagenarian, or centenarian. 

In terms of age, there is a vast and growing chasm between the church’s earliest leadership and its projected future leadership. Joseph Smith, Jr., to whom Russell M. Nelson stands as presidential successor, began his prophetic ministry at fourteen and founded the church at age 24, making him one of the world’s youngest significant religious leaders and perhaps the most precocious founder of a major faith. By contrast, at 100, as of this publication, Russell M. Nelson is one of the oldest religious leaders in the world. ⁷ The oldest Dalai Lama across the six and a half centuries this office has existed is the current Dalai Lama, now 87. And the oldest pope produced by the Roman Catholic Church across its near two millennia of history and over 250 popes was the 93-year-old Leo XIII. President Nelson may well be the oldest presiding leader of a major faith in human history.

This fascinating study in extremes raises many questions. Given that, as we will see, the Quorum of the Twelve originally had no criteria for internal ranking, either by seniority or otherwise, how and why did seniority become the criterion of leadership within the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and, by extension, succession to the First Presidency? What was seen to be at stake in making this change? And what does the seniority system portend for the church’s future? As the ages of the church’s presidents increase, will this system necessarily produce ever older leaders, or will church leaders preempt that by changing the system? 

As a historian, I specialize in analyzing the past rather than prognosticating the future. I am, however, devoted to unearthing the details of the past, and the details of the past can both constrain and open up present and future possibilities. This is particularly true in the context of religious faith, where the past provides a sacred grounding for present and future action, and nowhere more true than in a faith whose vision is restorationist. It is the very nature of the Latter-day Saint Restoration to hark back to sacred history, taking cues from a more perfect vision established in the past. The ideal of restoration necessarily presupposes something normative in the past, which the faith aspires to return to in the future.

By identifying where the current succession system came from, we can thus determine whether the church’s past precludes or invites changes to the system. Is apostolic seniority an invariant spiritual principle, or only a prudential policy? How and why did the seniority criterion for succession to apostolic leadership first arise? Is it intrinsic to apostleship, or extrinsic and therefore separable? In answering these questions, we can also begin to say what futures are plausible for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given its past. Should the church’s leaders ever wish to change the seniority system, will they find that sacred history hedges up the way or opens it up to such change?

How Did We Get Here? The Historical Roots of the Shift Toward Elderly Church Presidents

On one level, the explanation for the graying of Latter-day Saint church presidents is clear. In the wake of Joseph Smith’s death, the Quorum of the Twelve assumed leadership of the church. And because that quorum’s senior apostle serves as its de facto president, the senior apostle (then ranked according to age, rather than ordination order) Brigham Young took the reins as president of the Quorum of Twelve and thus of the church as a whole. ⁸ After an initial period serving as caretakers in the absence of a presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve reorganized the First Presidency, with the three senior apostles ascending to its offices. Young’s rise to leadership on this basis served, in turn, as precedent for selecting all subsequent presidents of the church, effectively transforming the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency into a quorum of fifteen. The story of the Twelve’s ascendancy during this succession crisis is well documented by historians elsewhere. ⁹

But while historians have given close attention to how the Quorum of the Twelve came to succeed Joseph Smith—and how the senior apostle thereafter became president of the church—they have given scant attention to when and how seniority itself first became the basis of rank within the Twelve. Given the implications of apostolic seniority for the church’s past, present, and future, this is a glaring oversight. Seniority, first based on age order and later on order of ordination, has determined each of the church’s sixteen post-Joseph Smith presidents since his death, and thus nearly everything else about the church for close to two centuries. It shapes the internal dynamics of the Quorum of the Twelve—giving more senior apostles greater status than less senior apostles—as well as the generational dynamics of the church president’s relationship with the various age cohorts of the membership. 

Significantly, the Quorum of the Twelve did not originate as a hierarchical body. This chapter will document the Twelve’s original egalitarian polity established by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, trace the early events by which that polity rapidly transformed from a body of equals to a hierarchy based on seniority, and seek to identify the reasons for this shift—the problems it was intended to solve. This chapter’s thesis is that the concept of seniority was instituted primarily as a ballast to counterbalance another form of inequality in the Twelve—family privilege. Specifically, I will argue that apostolic ranking on the basis of seniority was introduced to check the youthful ambition and inexperience of Joseph Smith’s brother William Smith.

At the time Joseph Smith first proposed ordering the apostles by seniority, which was then based on age order rather than order of ordination, a majority of the Twelve were in their 20s. Four of them, including Joseph’s brother William, were just 23. The only quorum member appointed as a charity case rather than prayerfully selected by inspiration, William Smith was ill-suited to serve as an apostle. Temperamental, vain, and spiritually immature, he was inclined to assert familial privilege within the Twelve, and other apostles deferred to him because of his relationship to Joseph. As the first of several Smiths who would ultimately serve in the Quorum of the Twelve, how William’s assertions of family privilege were handled would create an important precedent. In the interests of the church, William’s claims to position on the basis of family ties needed to be neutralized, and the cohort of adolescent apostles to which he belonged needed to be held in check. 

It is thus not surprising 1) that a seniority principle was proposed soon after William began operating as part of the Twelve, 2) that seniority was made the basis for presidency over the Twelve after intense conflicts that William caused within the quorum and the church, and 3) that seniority as the basis for leadership in the quorum was further strengthened when the youthful majority of the quorum began to oppose and criticize Joseph Smith.

In addition to William’s youthful immaturity and volatility, what made him such a potentially disruptive force within the Twelve—one Joseph felt a need to contain—was his lineage as a Smith.

Joseph Smith’s family enjoyed tremendous leverage in the early days of the church, and even in its later days. In New York, Joseph’s family members comprised three of the Eight Witnesses. In Kirtland, his father Joseph Sr. served on the high council and was made patriarch of the church. In Kirtland his brother Hyrum would serve in the First Presidency and in Nauvoo would succeed Joseph Sr. as church patriarch. His brother Samuel would serve on the Kirtland high council and as a bishop in Nauvoo. And his brother William served in the Twelve from 1835 until 1845, when he succeeded Hyrum as patriarch. William would be joined and followed in the Quorum of the Twelve by a succession of half a dozen other members of the patrilineal Smith clan, beginning with his cousin George A. Smith in 1839.

The status borne by these men of the Smith patriline by virtue of their membership in the church’s most prominent family was reinforced by a doctrinal emphasis on the importance of lineage that arose among the Saints in 1831 and endured through the end of the twentieth century. Church leaders frequently preached on lineage and believed it qualified one for certain blessings and even shaped who chose to join the church. Since chosen lineages were understood to enjoy distinctive blessings, and Joseph Smith was noted to be a descendant of the biblical patriarch Joseph (2 Ne. 3), Joseph Smith’s family was readily accorded a privileged status. The chosen Smith lineage was even officially ensconced in power via the office of patriarch of the church, which passed lineally within the family of Joseph Smith Sr. Yet there is no evidence that Joseph Smith intended for his family to also dominate the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Indeed, as we will see, he took action to prevent this from happening.

Early Revelation and Instruction Regarding the Twelve

In June 1829, during the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, who would soon become two of the Book of Mormon’s Three Witnesses. The revelation instructed Oliver that the church should be built up on the model provided in the Book of Mormon, and it authorized Oliver and David to form a body of twelve “disciples,” modeled on the “twelve disciples” chosen by Jesus in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon’s twelve disciples were, in turn, modeled on the twelve apostles chosen by the mortal Jesus in the New Testament, by whom Jesus told the Nephite twelve they would be judged. 

The twelve in both the Book of Mormon and the New Testament were witnesses of Christ, and this witness role was intrinsic to what it meant to be one of the twelve. What distinguished the biblical twelve apostles was that they were witnesses of Jesus’ entire earthly ministry along with his resurrection and ascension. Hence, when the biblical twelve needed to replace Judas as one of their number, they required that his replacement have followed Jesus throughout his earthly ministry “unto that same day that he was taken up from us” so he could “be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21–22). Despite the replacement of Judas, the biblical twelve apostles were defined by their having been witnesses of unrepeatable events in the earthly life of Jesus Christ, and thus were not continuously replaceable. Contrastingly, the Book of Mormon twelve, though also serving as witnesses of Christ, were not defined by their experience of these unrepeatable events, and were thus continuously replaceable so long as worthy candidates could be found. When “the disciples of Jesus, whom he had chosen, had all gone to the paradise of God, save it were the three who should tarry,” “there were other disciples ordained in their stead” (4 Ne. 1:14).

The revelation to Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer regarding the twelve disciples, though initially given in 1829, was revised by Joseph Smith in 1835. For this reason, it appears, Cowdery and Whitmer fulfilled the revelation’s commandment to form a body of twelve disciples twice—first fulfilling it in its original form, in 1829, and then fulfilling it a second time in its revised form, in 1835.

In its initial form, the revelation commanded Cowdery and Whitmer to fill up a modern body of disciples “unto twelve.” Since the revelation identified Cowdery and Whitmer as themselves “apostles,” like Paul, this initial command to gather disciples “unto twelve” implied that, as apostles/disciples and witnesses themselves, Cowdery and Whitmer would select ten others to serve in this capacity with them. Cowdery and Whitmer, as two of the Book of Mormon’s chosen witnesses, appear to have done so by selecting additional men to witness the golden plates. The group privileged to share in these experiences—the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, and Joseph Smith—totaled twelve. Although an effort was made to put these men into office as the church’s first twelve officers, the church swiftly grew large enough to need further officers, obscuring the significance of these early twelve disciples. ¹⁰ Yet as witnesses of unrepeatable events, these twelve witnesses to the Book of Mormon, like the biblical twelve apostles, could not be replaced, nor their number replenished. Even in breach of fellowship or death, they retained their standing. 

The testimony of the twelve Book of Mormon witnesses would stand indefinitely, but as their significance as an ecclesiastical leadership body faded, it was soon understood that the revelation on the calling of twelve disciples needed to be fulfilled again in a new way. So, by October 1831, Cowdery and Whitmer were again searching for twelve disciples. ¹¹

In 1835, anticipating the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith revised the revelation to instruct Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer to select, not disciples “unto twelve”—including themselves—but “twelve” disciples, excluding themselves. This set of twelve was to be, like the first, a body of witnesses. The new twelve, according to a spring 1835 revelation through Joseph Smith, were to serve as “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.” ¹² Like the twelve disciples called in 1829, they were also to serve as witnesses of a new book of scripture, this time not the Book of Mormon, but the Doctrine and Covenants. ¹³ Because such witnessing did not require them to participate in unrepeatable historical events, like Christ’s mortal ministry and the display of the gold plates in connection with their translation, the new body of twelve could—like the Book of Mormon’s body of twelve disciples—replenish itself when it lost members. The new Quorum of the Twelve was thus in significant ways modeled more closely on the Book of Mormon twelve and then on the biblical twelve.

Oliver and David selected the Quorum of the Twelve’s initial members in February 1835. In selecting a new set of twelve apart from themselves, they fulfilled the revelation’s commandment in its revised form. Oliver Cowdery, who was the revelation’s primary recipient and now also “Assistant President of the Church” or “Associate President,” acted as mouth in ordaining them. ¹⁴

The words used in ordaining, blessing, and instructing the Twelve made no hierarchical distinction among them. The following ordination blessing, given on February 21, 1835 to Thomas B. Marsh, the last of the Twelve to be ordained, is typical:

Dear Brother, You are to be a minister of righteousness and to this ministry and Apostleship you are now to be ordained: and May all temporal and spiritual blessings attend you. Your sins are forgiven you, and you are to go forth and preach the everlasting Gospel. You shall travel from kingdom to kingdom and from nation to nation. Angels shall bear the[e] up, and thou shalt be instrumental in bringing thousands of the redeemed of the Lord to Zion. ¹⁵

After adding the Pratt brothers and Marsh to the quorum by ordination, Oliver Cowdery delivered the Twelve’s apostolic charge, imploring them to seek to become witnesses of the face of God and setting them on equal footing in relation to one another. Invoking divine guidance, he charged the Twelve: “With regard to superiority I must make a few remarks. The ancient Apostles sought to be great. but, brethren, lest the seeds of discord be sown in this matter, understand particularly the voice of the spirit on this occasion.” This voice of the spirit for the occasion was: “You are as one, you are equal in bearing the keys of the kingdom to all nations.”  Noting the absence of three of the Twelve from the gathering, Oliver then reiterated this principle with regard to them: “Although they are not present, yet you and they are equal.” ¹⁶

In his charge to the Twelve, Oliver alluded to the biblical twelve apostles jockeying for status. In one biblical passage, the twelve asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus’s response was to call “a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,” and tell them that “whosoever … shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:1–4). 

In another biblical passage, the apostolic brothers James and John, probably emboldened at having been made part of a subgroup of the apostles who witnessed Jesus’s transfiguration, asked him to set them above the other apostles:

And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory (Mark 10:35–37).

Jesus refused the request, and, unsurprisingly, when the other “ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John” (Mark 10:41). ¹⁷ To settle the contention over relative status among his apostles, Christ told them, 

Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all (Mark 10:42–44).

Oliver thus charged the latter-day Twelve not to be like “the ancient Apostles” who “sought to be great,” but instead to “understand particularly the voice of the spirit” on the occasion of their charge: “You are as one, you are equal in bearing the keys of the kingdom to all nations.” ¹⁸

In these teachings, Cowdery admonished the modern Twelve not to hew to the example of the biblical twelve apostles too closely, but, rather, to take their cues from the teachings of Jesus, perhaps particularly as exemplified in the Book of Mormon. Cowdery’s caution may have been born in part from the June 1829 revelation for Oliver and David Whitmer which had authorized them to select the new Twelve. This revelation explicitly enshrined the primitive church established by Christ in the Book of Mormon, rather than the primitive church he established in the New Testament, as the model for the modern church (D&C 18:1–4). And the new Twelve were clearly modeled on the Book of Mormon’s twelve disciples rather than the biblical twelve apostles in the matter of their being replaced at death.

Oliver thus likely also saw the Book of Mormon twelve as a better model for status relations among the modern Twelve than the New Testament twelve. Whereas the New Testament twelve jockeyed for status relative to one another, the Book of Mormon twelve are presented as a picture of harmony. Even though, as with the New Testament apostles, three of the Book of Mormon Twelve were able to share in an experience of transfiguration (3 Ne. 28; cf. Matt. 16), those three disciples did not use this experience as a basis for asserting authority over the others. ¹⁹ And when Jesus inserted a beatitude on hearkening to the authority of his representatives at the beginning of his Book of Mormon sermon paralleling the Sermon on the Mount, he gave no particular authority to any one of the Twelve, but simply enjoined, “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants” (3 Ne. 12:1).

Although Oliver’s charge “by the voice of the spirit” cited scriptural precedent to drive home its point, revelation to Joseph later in the year suggests it was authoritative: “Verily thus saith the Lord your God I appointed these twelve that they should be equal in their ministry and in their portion and in their evangelical rights.” ²⁰ This likely referred back to the “voice of the spirit” relayed to the Twelve through Oliver. In any case, the message of Oliver’s “voice of the spirit” and Joseph’s “thus saith the Lord” revelation was the same: the original design for the Twelve was that they were to be equal, without rank.

Joseph Smith’s First Instructions to the Twelve

On February 27, 1835, six days after Oliver Cowdery gave the Twelve their charge, Joseph Smith gave two discourses to the Twelve. Joseph’s words on that day echoed Oliver’s. Oliver had told the Twelve they were “equal in bearing the keys of the kingdom to all nations” and were “called to preach the gospel of the son of God to the nations of the earth.” Joseph said of the Twelve on the twenty-seventh that “They are to hold this the keys of this ministry, to unlock the door of the kingdom of heaven unto all nations, and to preach the Gospel to every creature,” adding “you have each the same authority in other nations that I have in this nation.” ²¹

Joseph also instructed the Twelve on the wisdom of keeping a record of all their decisions, so these could be used as precedents on later occasions, and on how to run their meetings:

Since the Twelve are now chosen, I wish to tell them a course <which> they may pursue, and be benefitted hereafter, in a point of light of which they are not now aware. If they will, on every time they assemble, appoint a person to preside over of over them during the meeting and one or more to keep a record of their proceedings, and on the decision of every question or item, let it be what it may, let such decision be noted down, such decision will forever remain upon record, and appear an item of covenant or doctrine. ²²

To fulfill Joseph’s admonition, the Twelve needed to appoint a chairperson and at least one secretary each time they assembled. Consistent with Oliver’s charge to the Twelve (and Joseph’s November revelation alluding to it), neither role was fixed upon a single Quorum member.

Soon after giving these instructions—sometime between March 1 and the opening days of May 1835—Joseph received revelation regarding the Quorum of the Twelve’s status among the quorums of the church and also the Twelve’s responsibilities—that they were to be “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.” The revelation made no changes to the quorum’s structure or operating instructions. ²³

However, two months later, Joseph proposed to the Twelve a new system for rotating the responsibility to preside. As reported in the minutes recorded by apostle William E. McLellin and copied into Minute Book 1, 

he stated that it would be the duty of the twelve to appoint the oldest one of their number to preside in their councils, beginning at the oldest and so on until the youngest has presided and then beginning at the oldest again. &c ²⁴

The prophet’s admonition made it the Twelve’s duty to appoint a leader at each meeting. Variant minutes, copied into the Record of the Twelve with apparent edits, report that Joseph said,

It will be the duty of the twelve when in council to take their seats together according to their ages. The oldest to be seated as the head, and preside in the first council, the next oldest in the second; and so on until the youngest has presided. ²⁵

McLellin’s minutes in Minute Book 1 note that the Twelve then seated themselves in accordance with that instruction:

The Twelve took their Seats regularly according to their ages as follows. T[homas] B. Marsh David W. Patten, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball Orson Hyde, Wm. E. McLel[l]in Parley P. Pratt J[ohn] F. Boynton Luke Johnson William Smith Orson Pratt John F. Boynton & Lyman Johnson. ²⁶

Whereas in his first instructions to the Twelve on February 27, 1835, Joseph had tasked them with choosing one of their number to preside at each meeting, this new instruction provided a default mechanism for rotating the responsibility to preside. The Twelve were to sit in age order and to rotate the presiding position in that order from one meeting to the next. 

Although the May 2, 1835 meeting at which Joseph Smith thus instructed the Twelve is sometimes cited as the occasion on which “Thomas B. Marsh sustained as President of the Quorum of the Twelve,” no such sustaining, ordination, or designation occurred. ²⁷ As Latter-day Saint historian Patrick Bishop has observed, the minutes in themselves “do not state that Thomas B. Marsh was called by the Lord as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.” Relatedly, Bishop also observed the following regarding Joseph’s instructions on who should preside within the Twelve:

If the minutes are read with no assumptions or interpretation and only at face value, it appears that this seniority based on age was limited to their council meetings, because junior members were to preside also at these meetings in their turns and then it was to begin again with the eldest. ²⁸

That the Twelve followed these instructions is clear from who presided at their subsequent meetings. Although the record is incomplete, extant entries show that the presiding position always rotated in age order. On May 9, one week after Joseph’s instructions, Thomas B. Marsh, who was understood to be the oldest of the Twelve, presided at a meeting: “This [traveling] High council [i.e., the Twelve] met with the church, Elder Thomas B Marsh, being the oldest man in the council, took the chair, the meeting was opened by a solem appeal to Heaven that his blessings might be shed forth upon us.” ²⁹

On May 25, the presiding officer role rotated to the apostle who was (putatively) second oldest: “Elder D[avid] W. Patten presiding opened by calling upon the Lord.” Minutes for the succeeding weeks do not record who presided, but five weeks later the minutes for June 29 record that the seventh oldest member of the quorum took the reins: “P[arley] P. Pratt presided in council.” On July 17, the next apostle in age order, the eighth, “Elder Luke Johnson presided.” On August 7, the ninth, “Elder William Smith presided.” No meeting at which the tenth apostle in age order, Orson Pratt, presided is noted in the minutes, but when the next quorum meeting was held on August 21, the eleventh apostle, “Elder Boynton presided.” And on August 28, the youngest of the Twelve, “Elder Ly[man] Johnson took the chair and presided during the meeting.”

The meaning of Joseph’s May 2 instructions, as understood by the Twelve, is thus eminently clear. Prior to these instructions, no one is noted as having presided in the Twelve’s meetings. But immediately after those instructions, a presiding function began to be rotated through the quorum in age order. The earliest version of seniority within the Quorum of the Twelve, in the form of age-ordering, was thus instituted by Joseph Smith in the quorum’s May 2, 1835 meeting, and the nature and use of this seniority principle was to determine each quorum member’s ordinal position in a rotating system of presiding at meetings. Rather than designating a president or other presiding officer over the Twelve, it instead designated the order in which a presiding function was to be rotated within the Twelve.

Why did Joseph Smith make this change? One purpose of the new system for selecting who was to preside at a given meeting of the quorum may have been to prevent quorum members who were more popular or higher in status than others from dominating the quorum’s meetings, and thus its activities. Joseph had originally told the Twelve, “every time they assemble,” to “appoint a person to preside over of over them during the meeting.” Quorum members who brought status advantages into the quorum with them may have been chosen for the presiding role disproportionately or even monopolized it, thwarting the design for equality within the quorum. 

But in attempting to avoid such tangles, did Joseph’s May 2 instructions introduce a hierarchy into the Twelve? 

In one sense, the answer is clearly no. In shifting from rotation based on vote to rotation based on age, Joseph did not change his previous instruction that they should be equal and should take turns presiding; he refined it. Notably, the new system would ensure that each apostle had a chance to preside in turn and that all did so equally, every twelfth meeting. Had Joseph intended to create a permanent hierarchy within the Twelve at this point, he could have given instructions to do just that. Age-ordered seniority did not provide a basis for rank, but the opposite; it ensured that leadership was equally shared. With equal rotation of the presiding function, each quorum member was as much president as any other.

However, the fact that a system of seniority based on age order (and later on ordination order) soon became a hierarchical system indicates that Joseph’s May 2, 1835 age-ordering instructions sowed the seeds of a new hierarchy whether he intended them to or not, and it raises the question of whether Joseph intended the move to be strictly egalitarian. While Joseph clearly still intended the Twelve to function in an egalitarian way, he did introduce the beginnings of a status hierarchy that accorded greater prestige to members based on a principle of seniority.

The version of Joseph’s instruction copied into the Twelve’s record book states that when they took their seats in age order, the oldest would be seated “as the head”:

It will be the duty of the twelve when in council to take their seats together according to their ages. The oldest to be seated as the head, and preside in the first council, the next oldest in the second; and so on until the youngest has presided. ²⁵

Given clear instances of redaction in the record-book version of these minutes after the rotation of leadership in the Twelve had been phased out, it is less than certain that Joseph identified the oldest member of the Twelve as “the head.” The identification of a “head” seems at odds with his accompanying instructions to rotate the presiding position. However, even if Joseph did not at this time identify the oldest apostle as “the head,” establishing a system of age-ordering within the Twelve was inherently inegalitarian. Since age is a traditional criterion of higher status—and seating order a traditional symbol of it—the introduction of age-ordering into the quorum necessarily accorded higher status to older members, mildly biasing the leadership system in their favor. If Joseph had not wanted to introduce any status differential into the Twelve, he could have had them rotate the presiding function on a more status-neutral basis, such as alphabetical order. That he did not do so suggests that the introduction of an age-based status hierarchy was a feature, not a bug.

Why the change, then? What was Joseph’s purpose in introducing mild status differentials by reordering the Quorum of the Twelve according to age? Why did he take this tiny, but consequential step?

The historical sources imply an important purpose he thought such ordering would serve. Joseph’s introduction of mild implicit age ranking served an important identifiable need. The reason does not seem to be an eternal principle that to be senior was better. (Joseph himself, after all, founded the church at 24, making him one of its most “junior” members.) Rather, it was because of the idiosyncratic personality of one member of the Twelve.

William Smith: The Smith-family Junior Apostle behind Apostolic Age Ranking

In introducing even a very slight authority gradient within the Twelve, Joseph placed certain persons at an advantage—and others at a disadvantage. The most “senior” (oldest) members of the original Twelve were the stalwarts Thomas B. Marsh and David W. Patten, both in their mid-30s, whereas the youngest four were only 23.

Some of these younger members were clearly chosen for their tremendous ability and unquestioned devotion—as, clearly, in the case of Orson Pratt. And then there was Joseph Smith’s own younger brother William. Events soon after William’s ordination into the Twelve would demonstrate that he was spiritually, morally, and temperamentally unsuited for this calling. And Joseph was well aware of his younger brother’s character flaws. Joseph began his Kirtland blessing to William, 

Brother William is as the fierce lion which divideth not the spoil because of his much strength, and in the pride of his heart he will neglect the more weighty matters, until his soul is bowed down in sorrow; and then he shall return and call on the name of his God, and shall find forgiveness

True to this prophecy, William did not show signs of spiritual devotion until his old age. Why, then, would Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer have selected him as an apostle?

They didn’t.

In an 1848 letter to Brigham Young, one of the apostles he had chosen, Oliver Cowdery wrote:

At the time the Twelve were chosen in Kirtland, and I may say before, it had been manifested that Brother Phinehas [Young] was entitled to occupy the station as one of the number; but owing to Brother Joseph’s urgent request at the time, Brother David and myself yielded to his wish, and consented for William to be selected, contrary to our feelings and judgment, and to our deep mortification ever since. Brother Phinehas occupied that relation to myself, that caused me to feel delicate about urging his name, and besides Bro. Joseph, about that time, was bearing down heavily upon bro. Phinehas. ³⁰

Why did Joseph insist on his brother William being called to the Twelve despite his unfitness for that role? According to David Whitmer, Joseph insisted on it because of William’s weaknesses. David reported to Zenos H. Gurley, then an apostle himself in the Reorganized Church: “Jose[ph] insisted that his brother William Smith should be put in as it was the only way by which he could be saved, otherwise we would not have chosen him.” ³¹

Thus, in the mouth of two Witnesses, as it were, it is shown that Joseph Smith insisted on putting his unfit brother into the Twelve. Succeeding events would quickly reveal his mistake.

During an intense conflict with William in the fall of 1835, discussed in detail below, Joseph made an odd plea to his apostle-brother. He asked him to not take vengeance on him (i.e., kill him) if William thinks he is an imposter: “If you think me an imposter Leave me in God’s hands and if at any time you should concider me to be an imposter, for heavens sake leave me in the hands of God, and not think to take vengance on me your self.” ³²

In making this statement—just months after insisting William be one of the Twelve—Joseph tipped his hand, revealing a suspicion that his apostle brother might be a spiritual skeptic or even nonbeliever. 

Several lines of evidence suggest this suspicion was correct.

First, Benjamin Markel, a non-Mormon resident of Kirtland with a favorable impression of Joseph Smith, is cited as having said that at a time when William and Joseph were “in a quarrel,” William Smith exclaimed to Markel: “I am not going to preach any more. The whole thing is a d — d humbug. I’m going to tell all I know about them plates.” ³³ The reported statement fits the context of Joseph and William’s massive 1835 disagreement in which William attempted to resign as an apostle and leave the church, and in which Joseph pleaded with his brother to not take vengeance on him if he thought him an imposter. 

Second, William Smith’s fellow apostles recognized his lack of faith. Despite the beating incident and his threats to leave, William remained in the church, and in the Twelve, to the chagrin of other apostles. At an 1838 conference of the church, when David W. Patten presented his fellow apostles for a sustaining vote, he gave William his own personal vote of no confidence instead.

After David W. Patten convened the conference, he “made a few remarks respecting the twelve apostles. He spake of T. B. Marsh, Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Heber C. Kimball, P[arley] P. Pratt, and O[rson] Pratt, as being men of God, whom he could reccommend with cheerful confidence. He spake somewhat doubtful of William Smith from something which he had heard respecting his faith in the work. He also spake of William E. McLellin, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, and John F. Boynton as being men whom he could not reccommend to the conference.” ³⁴

Not surprisingly, other members of the Twelve also objected to William being among their number. This was especially so when, around the same time as the conference, William displayed his lack of faith, and his apparent view that in fact his brother should have vengeance taken on him for imposture, by declaring that Joseph should have been killed years ago: “Damn him, Joseph Smith ought to have been hung up by the neck years ago and damn him, he will get it now anyhow.” ³⁵

In the wake of this statement, the church conference at Quincy, Illinois on May 4, 1839 decided that William Smith and Orson Hyde (who had openly opposed the church in Missouri) be

“suspended from exercising the functions of their office.” ³⁶  It was only after a lengthy meeting with Joseph, and reportedly the interposition of both Joseph and Hyrum on William’s behalf, that the apostles decided that William should be “restored to his Quorum.” ³⁷

As a skeptic in the household of faith, William Smith was an awkward fit for the church, 

much less for the Quorum of the Twelve. William would later go on to sleep around as one of John C. Bennett’s cronies in a Nauvoo sex ring, shielded from being excommunicated like Bennett and the other conspirators only by his indulgent older brother Joseph. After his brother’s death, William would attempt to wrest control of the church from the apostles, and, after his excommunication, he would start multiple churches of his own, in which he would declare that sex with other men’s wives would produce a holy offspring for God. ³⁸

Revisiting Joseph’s fiat that William be part of the Twelve, it appears that Joseph suspected his brother’s skepticism, or at the very least immature faith, from the start and added him to the Twelve, not despite that lack, but because of it—fearing that if his brother were not placated with a position of authority he would abandon the church or, worse, actively and publicly oppose it, putting his own soul at peril and undermining Joseph’s prophetic mantle.

It is in this context that we can best understand Joseph’s May 2, 1835 decision to introduce mild age-ranking into the Twelve. This decision had implications, most of all for the group’s youngest members, like his brash brother, who had just reached his twenty-fourth birthday.

By establishing a seniority-based rotation and seating order for the Twelve, Joseph put Thomas Marsh, a mature and stabilizing influence, first in the lineup to preside over meetings, and in a seat of honor. He thereby put his younger brother William, who likely believed he could throw his weight around as a Smith, in his place.

While William may have assumed that being a member of the church’s royal family would give him a place of superior rank in the Twelve, Joseph countered any such family preference with another bias that, in William’s case, offset it—age preference. By relegating his little brother to one of the adolescent seats in the last section of the Twelve, Joseph combatted the “pride” he had noted in his brother. 

Having William take his seat at the children’s table, so to speak, signaled to him that he would have to do something to which he was not naturally inclined: respect his elders. His elder fellow apostles would hopefully help tame the “lion” Joseph had seen in his brother’s heart. And they would establish a stable, responsible precedent for how to preside over meetings by the time it would be William’s turn to do so. The new seating arrangement Joseph established for the Twelve was thus a form of pedagogy—a young man’s first lesson in humility.

Joseph Smith knew his little brother well enough to know that he did not belong in the Twelve. Yet he also thought that being in the Twelve was necessary to keep William in the church. Introducing a mild system of age preference in the Twelve was Joseph’s way of containing the negative impact that William’s poor judgment, faith, and character might have on the Twelve and on the church.

That Joseph intended for the Twelve to nonetheless remain essentially equal is evident from his instruction that age-ordering determine, not who would be the group’s permanent president, but the order in which they would take turns being its temporary ‘president.’ In introducing age-ordering within the Twelve, Joseph was trying to balance the equality of the Twelve’s members with the need to constrain his brother, who happened to be one of the group’s youngest members.

The trouble with maintaining the initial, absolutely egalitarian vision Joseph had for the Twelve was that this vision had been undermined from the start by the introduction of William Smith into the Twelve not for the salvation of others’ souls, but for the salvation of his own. With the emotionally and spiritually immature William in their number, the Twelve were unequal from day one. The need to correct this inequality prompted the introduction of another, more deliberate inequality in order to give the more mature apostles the power to keep William in his place.

Having made William Smith an apostle, Joseph necessarily and rightly felt compelled to hold him in check for the protection of the Twelve, and the church.A more-or-less nominal age ranking of the Twelve, to put Wiliam in his place and help him respect the more mature and responsible members of the Twelve, likely seemed a small price to pay for a stabilizing influence that could save William’s soul and save the church a great deal of trouble.

But the trouble Joseph’s brother could cause within the Twelve resulted from more than just his immaturity. And the reason Joseph felt a need to introduce seniority to hold him in check, was not merely because William was young and temperamental. Rather, the reason William could cause so much trouble in the Twelve was the same reason that, ultimately, he was put into the Twelve: it was because he was a Smith.

That William Smith’s role in the Twelve was a major factor in the origin of apostolic seniority, and that his being a Smith was a big part of the reason, becomes evident when we examine the next stage in the development of seniority—and place it in the context of conflicts caused by William.

Throwing His Weight Around: William Smith’s Fall 1835 Conflicts and the Calling of a President of the Twelve

In the fall of 1835, seven and a half months after the ordination that Joseph pressed for on William Smith’s behalf, William fell into heated disagreement with his brother. William beat Joseph so badly that Joseph was severely bruised and unable to sit or stand on his own.

Two days later, Apostle William Smith visited Joseph and declared his intention to leave the Twelve and the church entirely. He said, Joseph recorded, that “we might take his license for he would have nothing to do with us.” ³⁹

After William began to show some contrition, Joseph wrote to his brother, “…alass! abuse, anger, malice, hatred, and rage … with marks, of violence <​heaped​> upon my body me by a brother, were the reflections of my disapointment, and with these I returned home, not able to sit down, or rise up, without help.” ⁴⁰

During the period when William temporarily removed himself from the Twelve and the church, another conflict came to the fore.The Twelve had been financing their missionary journeys in the eastern U.S. with donations from the local church branches they visited. Most of the Twelve received little from these donations, some scarcely enough to live on. But there was one exception. In line with Joseph’s metaphorical description of his brother in his blessing, William was taking the lion’s share of the donations. What initially seems strange about this is 1) that William would think himself entitled to a greatly disproportionate share of the donations, and 2) that other quorum members would have let him get away with this. Both oddities have the same explanation: Willam wasn’t just an apostle; he was a Smith.

Just days after his brother severely beat him, Joseph dictated a revelation that addressed this problem, as well as other disagreements that arose within the church leadership:

Thus came the word of the Lord unto me saying concerning the Twelve saying behold they are under condemnation, because they have not been sufficiently humble in my sight, and in consequence of their covetous desires, in that they have not dealt equally with each other in the division of the moneys which came into their hands, nevertheless some of them dealt equally therefore they shall be rewarded, but verily I say unto you they must all humble themselves before me, before they will be accounted worthy to receive an endowment to go forth in my name unto all nations, as for my Servant William [Smith] let the Eleven humble themselves in prayer and in faith and wait on me in patience and my servant William shall return, and I will yet make him a polished shaft in my quiver, … behold the parable which I spake concerning a man having twelve Sons, for what man amon[g] you having twelve Sons and is no respecter to them and they serve him obediantly and he saith unto the one be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here, and to the other be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there, and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just, ye will answer and say no man, and ye answer truly, therefore Verely thus saith the Lord your God I appointed these twelve that they should be equal in their ministry and in their portion and in their evangelical rights, wherefore they have sin[n]ed a verry grevious sin, in asmuch as they have made themselves unequal and have not hearkned unto my voice therfor let them repent speedily and prepare their hearts for the solem[n] assembly and for the great day which is to come Verely thus saith the Lord Amen. ⁴¹

Apparently alluding to Oliver Cowdery’s charge to the Twelve declaring that they were equal in bearing the keys of their ministry, the Lord declared that the Twelve had “sinned a verry grevious sin in asmuch as they have made themselves unequal.” The sin of inequality within the Twelve included, but was not limited to, the unequal division of donations (“their portion”). It extended also to inequality “in their ministry” and “in their evangelical rights” in the exercise of their calling. 

As but one of twelve members of the quorum, twenty-four-year-old William had no leverage to enforce inequality within the Twelve except his status as a member of the Smith clan. It was this upon which he pressed his claims to unequal status.

Yet the revelation did not chastise William alone. Although William Smith was the one who primarily pressed for unequal privilege in the quorum, this pressure would have been ineffectual had other quorum members not deferred to him because of his family status. It was thus not William alone who was chastised for this inequality, but the quorum as a whole.

The quorum thus needed means for counterbalancing both William Smith’s presumption of family privilege and other apostles’ inclination to allow him such family privilege. What William had in the way of status based on blood, he lacked in the way of status based on age. Instituting age-ranking within the Twelve had thus provided a ballast that helped offset William’s family privilege. So far, that age-ranking had proved insufficient to keep William’s Smith status in check. An effective way to change this would be to add more substantive weight to age status by instituting a seniority system within the Twelve. More than nominal age-ranking, this would require real leadership status to accompany apostolic age-ranking.

In a meeting of the First Presidency and Twelve on January 2, 1836, William was fully reconciled to Joseph and to his quorum. This was followed immediately by Joseph’s first substantive grant of leadership authority to the Twelve’s senior member. Exactly two weeks after William’s reconciliation, on January 16, in a meeting of the First Presidency and the Twelve, Joseph first identified Thomas B. Marsh as the president of the Twelve—and did so twice. 

The first time, Joseph explained that Marsh was the president of the Twelve, as if this may have been unknown: “Council organized and opened by singing and prayer offered up by Thomas B. Marsh president of the 12.” 

Six days later, on January 22, Joseph and his counselors administered “the ordinance of holy anointing” (a portion of the Kirtland endowment ceremony) for the Twelve:

We laid our hands upon Elder Thomas B. Marsh who is the president of the 12 and ordained him to the authority of anointing his brethren, I then poured the concecrated oil upon his head in the name of Jesus Christ and sealed such blessings upon him as the Lord put into my heart; the rest of the presidency then laid their hands upon him and blessed him each in their turn beginning at the eldest; ⁴²

Patrick Bishop has written of this, “The oldest historical record and the first place that Thomas B. Marsh is named as President of the Quorum of the Twelve is in the Kirtland temple, January 22, 1836.” This observation is very nearly correct, overlooking only the mention of Marsh as “president of the 12” the previous week, and confirms the absence of earlier mentions of Marsh as president. ⁴³

Joseph’s actions at the anointing of the Twelve on January 22 are significant for understanding the new precedent of seniority he was endeavoring to set. By having the other members of the First Presidency bless the Twelve’s new president in age order, Joseph modeled the very deference to age rank that he was attempting to teach the Twelve. Joseph’s next action drove apostolic age-ranking home. Rather than follow his anointing of Marsh by anointing the other members of the Twelve, he allowed Marsh as “the oldest” to anoint the other apostles, and had him do so in age order: “he [Marsh] then anointed <​and blessed​> his brethren from the oldest to the youngest.” ⁴⁴

This introduction of hierarchical rank into the Twelve based on seniority by age had substantial implications for William Smith, undermining his status based on family ties. If William’s family ties thwarted the vision of an egalitarian quorum, it could at least be offset, putting him “in his place” within the Twelve. Although William was the sole Smith in the quorum, if the Twelve were a totem pole, he was ninth from the top. 

The strategic character of Joseph’s age-ranking actions is particularly evident when we examine his use of the First Presidency to introduce status based on age-ranked seniority into the Twelve. After Joseph himself anointed Marsh,“the rest of the presidency then laid their hands upon him and blessed him each in their turn beginning at the eldest.” Thus, Frederick G. Williams (b. 1787) blessed Marsh before Sidney Rigdon (b. 1793). Yet this ran counter to their rank order within the First Presidency, in which the younger Rigdon was first counselor ahead of the older second counselor, Williams, implying that it was done to make a point. Joseph’s actions on the occasion were not patterned on an invariant theological principle, but rather were tailored to the needs of a Quorum of the Twelve in which problematic Smith family status needed to be balanced out. The introduction of apostolic seniority as a leadership criterion thus did not emerge with the Quorum of the Twelve itself, as part of the original vision for the Twelve. The original design for the Quorum of the Twelve, per both “the voice of the Spirit” in Oliver’s charge to the Twelve and Joseph’s fall 1835 revelation, was equality. Seniority was instituted in the quorum subsequently, in the apparent hope of better approximating equality when strict equality was threatened by family privilege and entitlement.

Kirtland Dissent and the Cementing of Thomas Marsh’s Position

Although Joseph had begun referring to Thomas B. Marsh as “president of the 12” at the January 16, 1836 quorum meeting, neither the other apostles nor Joseph acted as if Marsh could dictate the activities of the Twelve’s remaining members. If no one else was aware of this apparent discrepancy, Marsh himself was. While residing in Missouri along with fellow apostle David W. Patten, Marsh heard that another of their quorum mates, Parley P. Pratt, was undertaking a mission to England. On May 10, 1837, Marsh and Patten wrote to Pratt requesting him to defer his mission abroad until the Twelve could meet as a body. Marsh also called a meeting of the quorum on July 24 in Kirtland. In June, Marsh and Patten headed to Kirtland. In the meantime, Joseph Smith told others of the Twelve, Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde, to set out on missions to England. Historian Lyndon Cook, who has documented Marsh’s disaffection from and later return to the church, notes that news of Kimball and Hyde’s departure “angered” Marsh and Patten and “shattered their hopes of unifying the quorum.” Marsh, per Cook’s analysis, “desired to be the first to introduce the gospel to abroad and was jealous that another of his quorum should upstage him.” When Heber C. Kimball learned of Marsh’s anger at the situation by letter from his wife Vilate, Heber replied that “Brother Joseph sed it was all right to prepare the way for Brother Marsh.”

When Marsh and Patten arrived in Kirtland, they found greater difficulties there than mere hurt feelings. Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery had all been closely involved in the Kirtland bank, and when the bank catastrophically collapsed, they were publicly lambasted by many disgruntled church members and leaders. Two of the younger members of the Twelve even joined Joseph’s former scribe Warren Parrish in castigating Joseph from the pulpit of the Kirtland temple. ⁴⁵

Making matters still worse, rumor of a scandalous relationship between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger also peaked in summer and fall 1837. ⁴⁶ Curious and concerned, Patten and Marsh each made inquiries to verify the rumor, discussing it with fellow apostle Brigham Young and then with others. Brigham recounted in 1857 that when Patten and Marsh came to him in the summer of 1837, he routed them to Joseph Smith to hear from Joseph his side of the story. Their line of questioning was a sensitive one, particularly for Joseph. Brigham recalled, “I got Marsh to go to Joseph, but Patten would go to W[arren]. Parrish. He got his mind prejudiced and when he went to see Joseph, David insulted Joseph and Joseph slapped him in the face and kicked him out of the yard. This done David good.” ⁴⁷ The good Brigham believed this had done for David Patten is presumably reflected in Patten’s public support for Joseph through the Kirtland dissent despite these early questions. Despite his privately expressed grievance with Joseph over Fanny Alger, David Patten would be one of only five apostles who consistently gave Joseph a public vote of confidence throughout this crisis.

While the reward for David Patten’s inquiry into the adultery allegations against Joseph Smith was reportedly a sound thumping, Thomas B. Marsh was “done good” by Joseph in a more obvious and pleasant way—a revelation issued on his behalf. On July 23, 1837, Joseph dictated a revelation for Marsh. This revelation, issued the day before the Quorum of the Twelve meeting called by Marsh, warned of “A day of wrath!” coming “as a whirlwind. . . . First among those of you . . . who have professed to know my name and have not known me and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house saith the Lord.” This almost certainly alluded, as the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers suggest, “to dissenters, such as Warren Parrish, who spoke against J[oseph] S[mith] in the House of the Lord in mid-June 1837,” along with two of the younger apostles, Lyman Johnson and Parley Pratt. Refuting dissenters who claimed that Joseph had fallen from his prophetic status, the revelation declared that “the keys which I have given him . . . shall not be taken from him untill I come.” ⁴⁸

The revelation for Marsh also offered a warning to those of the Twelve who harbored doubts about Joseph’s continued worthiness: “Exalt not yourselves; rebel not against my servant Joseph.” Just as Joseph had taken offense at the rumors repeated to him by Patten and promptly shut Patten down, the revelation now expressed offense at the circulating gossip and commanded Marsh to put it down: “at thy rebuke let the tongue of the slanderer cease its perverseness.” He was to particularly reprove “your brethren of the twelve” and “admonish them sharply.” ⁴⁹

Whereas Patten had gone to Warren Parrish first, Marsh went directly to Joseph for his side of the story. Not surprisingly, Marsh was chided only lightly by the revelation, and only for “things in thine heart” with which God “was” not well pleased—past tense—for which he was now forgiven because he had “abased” himself in humility. Yet Marsh’s loyalty was met with more than forgiveness. Although Joseph had called him “the president of the 12” in January 1836, after the conflict with William Smith, that position had never been confirmed by revelation—until now. Whereas “president” of the Twelve was only a social status, the July 1837 revelation accorded Marsh a spiritual or theological status—that of holding “the keys” over the Twelve.

“Verily I say unto you my servant Thomas, thou art the man whom I have chosen to hold the keys of my kingdom (as pertaining to the twelve),” an apparent shift from the original charge to the Twelve under which, they were told, “you are equal in bearing the keys of the kingdom to all nations.” ⁵⁰

Marsh, however, was not alone in giving Joseph his unwavering public support during this crisis. Of the four members of the Twelve who were called when above the age of 30, all four publicly sided with Joseph. Meanwhile, other than Joseph’s younger brother William, whose status depended on Joseph’s own, the eight members of the Quorum of the Twelve who had been called at or under the age of 30 all publicly criticized Joseph during the Kirtland crisis. This was not lost on Joseph, who commanded Marsh to rebuke the quorum’s disloyal majority. Had the quorum still been run by majority vote, it might have moved against Joseph. The seniority system gave power to loyal older members and thus allowed Joseph to retain control. The Kirtland crisis heightened the emphasis on the seniority system within the quorum.

Seniority Based on Age? The Birth Ordering of Thomas B. Marsh and David W. Patten

Thomas B. Marsh’s presidency over the Quorum of the Twelve provides an intriguing test case for deciding between divergent understandings for why the senior apostle was to be given the keys—was it a matter of invariant principle or prudential policy for containing apostles who were immature and might try to leverage Smith family status within the quorum? 

Throughout this chapter we have discussed how Thomas B. Marsh was made president of the Quorum of the Twelve on the basis of his primacy in seniority, as seniority was then calculated—on the basis of birth order. Marsh first took the seat of honor on May 2, 1835, as soon as Joseph instructed the Twelve to arrange themselves from oldest to youngest, and his subsequent leadership was premised on this seniority in terms of age. Marsh presided over David W. Patten, Brigham Young, and the rest of the Twelve on this basis. 

It is thus jarring to realize that Thomas B. Marsh was not then the oldest member of the Quorum of the Twelve. That distinction belonged instead to David W. Patten.

The contemporaneous vital records for Acton, Massachusetts, show our Thomas Baldwin Marsh having been born on November 1, 1800. ⁵¹

David W. Patten’s birth prior to this date can be documented clearly. Patten’s father, Revolutionary War veteran Benoni Patten, had a family Bible with exact birth dates for each of his thirteen children. Benoni Patten submitted a copy of this family Bible record with his pension petition, and it is currently on file with the Pension Bureau of the National Archives. This record states that David Wyman Patten was born November 14, 1799, almost a full year prior to Thomas B. Marsh. ⁵²

The Benoni Patten family Bible record placing David W. Patten’s birth prior to that of Thomas B. Marsh can be confirmed using both the US federal census records and the ages of David Patten’s siblings. So, even if the family record were only approximately correct about Patten’s birth date, we could still deduce that he was born before 1800.

The 1800 census, enumerated August 4, 1800, for the family of Benoni Patten, shows three male children under the age of ten. Yet Benoni could only have had three living sons at that time if David had already been born. Thus, a November birthday for David necessitates a pre-1800 birth. On the subsequent federal census, enumerated August 6, 1810, if David Patten had been born in 1800, he should have appeared as one of two male children under the age of ten, and there should have been no male children aged 10–15. Instead there was only one male child under 10—clearly David’s only younger brother, Ira, then 3 years old. And there was one male child between 10 and 15, who could only have been David. Both federal census records for the Benoni Patten household during David Patten’s childhood thus place his birth prior to 1800.

In the same vein, the family Bible gave June 2, 1801 as the birthdate of David Patten’s immediate younger sibling, Sophia. ⁵³ David could not have been born on November 14, 1800, and his sister six and a half months later on June 2. In that era, a baby that far premature would not have survived to adulthood, which Sophia did. The birth year going with David Patten’s November 14 birthday had to be prior to 1800.

The researchers at the Joseph Smith Papers Project have similarly concluded that David W. Patten was born November 14, 1799 and Thomas B. Marsh was born on November 1, 1800.

Patten was thus obviously born prior to Marsh, with the upshot that neither man was put in his proper position in the apostolic queue.

How did this error occur? With virtual certainty, the other members of the 1835 Quorum of the Twelve would not have happened to possess documentation of Thomas B. Marsh’s birthdate. Thus, with similar certainty, the information they did have on this matter was supplied by Thomas Marsh himself. It is, of course, possible that Marsh deliberately misstated his age at the May 2, 1835 quorum meeting in order to get the seat of honor. Given that age-ordering was not yet at this time used to determine the presidency of the Twelve, or anything more consequential than who got to sit in the first seat, little may have seemed to hinge on the accuracy of this information. In line with this possibility, Lyndon W. Cook has documented that Marsh was later accused by others, such as Oliver Cowdery, of having tried to tear them down in order to lift himself up.

Oliver wrote to Brigham Young in 1843 regarding his 1838 excommunication:

I believed at the time, and still believe, that ambitious and wicked men, envying the harmony existing between myself and the first elders of the church, and hoping to get into some other men’s birthright, by falsehoods the most foul and wicked, caused all this difficulty from beginning to end. They succeeded in getting myself out of the church; but since they themselves have gone to perdition, ought not old friends—long tried in the furnace of affliction, to be friends still?

Oliver identified the culprits in this matter as having themselves since left the church. Marsh had announced his exit from the church in October 1838. That Marsh was one of those Oliver had in mind is indicated by Brigham’s older brother Phineas Young, who was married to Oliver’s half-sister. Phineas wrote to Willard Richards in 1842 that Marsh and others had “told [Joseph] many things prejudicial to Brother Oliver which he had no chance whatever to contradict,” because they had been seeking to “break him [Oliver] down that they might rise thereby.” In 1844, Phineas again explicitly accused “Thomas B. Marsh and others at Far West” of targeting Oliver, noting that “charges were heaped upon him you know for what.” ⁵⁴

An analysis of Oliver’s alienation from Joseph shows that Oliver was not wrong that Thomas Marsh played a key role in Joseph Smith’s alienation from Oliver, pressing the matter of comments Oliver had made about Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger, that Marsh gathered affidavits unfavorable to Oliver, and that he testified against Oliver at his April 1838 excommunication hearing. ⁵⁵

Further suggestion that Marsh may have been jealous of other leaders comes from his own lips. Upon his 1857 return to the church after years of absence, Marsh admitted to having been “jealous” of Joseph’s position. ⁵⁶ A case could thus be made for deliberate misrepresentation on Marsh’s part of his age, in order to grasp a higher position.

Yet, for all this, differences of perspective within the historical record are ubiquitous. Marsh’s actions with regard to Oliver Cowdery could have also been aimed at protecting Joseph or the church, without the poor motives attributed to him. Marsh has already frequently inaccurately been claimed to have left the church over a dispute regarding milk strippings, and we should take care not to assume the worst of him. ⁵⁷

It is quite possible that the misstatement of Marsh’s birth year was an innocent mistake. Birthdays were not regularly celebrated in the early nineteenth century, and it’s clear from census records that many nineteenth-century people did not know their accurate birth dates. Thomas Marsh’s sister Ann, who also joined with the Latter-day Saints, incorrectly reported her own birth year in Nauvoo, without any apparent motive for personal benefit. ⁵⁸ Did Thomas B. Marsh deliberately steal David W. Patten’s apostolic birthright? ⁵⁹ Or did he, like his sister, merely misremember his own birth year? Absent further evidence, we may never know the psychological facts of Marsh’s erroneous age reporting. But this case of mistaken apostolic identity has some of the same implications either way—implications for the theological understanding of these events in Latter-day Saint history.

Given David W. Patten’s birth prior to Thomas B. Marsh, Marsh had no valid claim on the presidency of the Twelve as determined by seniority. Seniority at the time was, of course, determined by birth order, in which Marsh was second to Patten. And if seniority had then been recalculated based on ordination order, Marsh, who was the very last of the original Twelve to be ordained, would have fared even worse.  

Here, then, we have a case–the original, paradigm case, in fact–in which presidency over the Twelve was determined, on a seniority basis. Marsh, who was actually second in seniority on the basis of birth rank (and would have been twelfth in seniority on the basis of ordination rank), 

was, nevertheless, set first in seating rank among the Twelve on May 2, 1835, identified and anointed as president of the Twelve in January 1836, and named as the man to hold the keys pertaining to the Twelve by revelation in July 1837. What are the implications of these historical facts within a Latter-day Saint theological framework? They can help us decide between two premises: first, that seniority is an invariant spiritual principle: the senior apostle always, automatically and of necessity holds the keys over the Twelve; or, second, that seniority is a policy that was instituted for certain ends and can be adapted so long as those ends or met, or even replaced when the reasons it was required no longer exist. 

Both premises can be tested against the fact of second apostle Thomas B. Marsh standing as the original president of the Quorum of the Twelve. If the seniority on which Marsh’s possession of keys over the Twelve was based was an invariant spiritual principle that the eldest apostle held those keys, then Marsh could not in fact have held them, and therefore did not actually hold them, since he was junior in the quorum to David W. Patten. Yet Joseph’s July 1837 revelation declared that Marsh did hold those keys, contradicting this first proposed premise.

If, on the other hand, per premise 2, seniority in the Twelve was not an invariant principle but a prudent policy aimed at particular ends (such as holding twenty-something apostles in check and offsetting Smith family privilege), then what mattered most would not be whether one senior member of the Twelve held the highest station or another did—either could achieve the desired end (checking youthful inexperience and family status). This premise, unlike that of seniority as an invariant requirement for leadership, is consistent with Thomas B. Marsh having been second in seniority within the Twelve and yet able to “hold the keys of my kingdom (as pertaining to the twelve).”

Seniority Based on Order of Ordination

The functions initially filled seniority based on recognized birth order–of holding youth and Smith family status in check–would later be filled by seniority based on ordination order. This modified system for attributing seniority arose during a series of changing 19th century circumstances as vacancies in the Twelve required filling and questions of leadership succession arose. 

As a result of widespread disaffection in Kirtland and conflicts in Missouri, the Quorum of the Twelve lost several of its original members, including its actual senior member David Patten and its recognized senior member Thomas Marsh. As a result of these various losses, new apostles were selected to fill the vacancies. In December 1838, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, the two oldest of the remaining apostles, ordained John E. Page and John Taylor to the quorum. While Taylor was younger than those who had ordained him, John E. Page (b. February 1799) was the oldest apostle yet ordained to the quorum. If, therefore, birth order remained the sole criterion for leadership among the apostles, Page would now take the place of Marsh as president of the Twelve. However, the following month the First Presidency wrote to apostles Kimball and Young adding a significant “nota bene” (“note well”) postscript instructing them, “Appoint the oldest of those of those twelve who were firs[t] appointed, to be the President of your Quorum.” ⁶⁰ This instruction added a second seniority criterion for leadership. While apostles within the first cohort of twelve had been distinguished from one another by birth order, those original twelve were distinguished from new apostles on the basis of ordination order. This use of multiple criteria for determining seniority would be described thus by John Taylor several years later: “The Twelve have a president. . . . This presidency is obtained by seniority of age and ordination.” ⁶¹

However, the new instruction for the Twelve to appoint the oldest of their first cohort as their president did not automatically constitute that individual as their president. It still fell to the Twelve, as an autonomous body, to appoint him. At an organizing meeting of the Twelve the following year, they did so. As Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal, “Elder Brigham Young was unanimously chosen as the standing president of the Twelve.” ⁶² Seniority by age and by ordination were thus the preeminent criteria for leadership selection, but the prospect that other criteria could be introduced seems implicit in the need to formally appoint a president.

Revelation through Joseph Smith a few months later reiterated the need for appointment and sustaining, offering Brigham Young’s name as that president of the Twelve for the church’s sustaining vote: “I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council; which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom.” The church as a body was then commanded to, of Brigham and the other proposed officers of the church to “approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference” (D&C 124:127-128, 144). 

The Twelve later took the reins of the main body of the church during the dramatic 1844 succession crisis occasioned by Joseph Smith’s untimely death. Because the other apostles had appointed Brigham Young their quorum president on the basis of his being the oldest continuing apostle of the 1835 cohort, Brigham was also accepted, by a majority of members, as the highest officer in the church. In 1847, he reorganized the Twelve by creating a new First Presidency of three from the membership of the Twelve, effectively extending the Twelve into a quorum of fifteen apostles, of whom the oldest of the 1835 cohort of apostles would serve as president. 

As Brigham grew older and doubtless more aware of the need for a clear mode of succession at his own death, the question of who would succeed him in this role loomed increasingly large. In 1875, two years before Brigham’s death, just two others of the 1835 cohort of apostles served in the apostolic quorum of fifteen—Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde. However, both Orsons had briefly been removed from their quorum as part of conflicts occurring in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, introducing discontinuities into their tenures as apostles. Each had been reordained to the Twelve after removal, Hyde in 1839, Pratt in 1843. While this might, theoretically, have put Elders Hyde and Pratt in new seniority standings within the Twelve, Joseph Smith did not view it this way. Given that seniority was counted on the basis of recognized birth order within the initial apostolic cohort, and that Hyde and Pratt were each members of that cohort, Joseph continued to recognize the reinstated apostles in their earlier standings. In Pratt’s case, Joseph made this explicit in Pratt’s ordination, ordaining Orson “to the apostleship & his former standing” according to Joseph’s journal, “to the apostleship & his former standing which caused Joy to our hearts” according to fellow apostle Wilford Woodruff’s journal, and “to his forming [sic] standing in the Quorum of the Twelve” according to quorum president Brigham Young’s history. ⁶³ Pratt thereby, as the Quorum of the Twelve minutes for the occasion stated, “received the priesthood & the same power & authority as in former days.” ⁶⁴

Neither Hyde nor Pratt was ambitious to acquire status, and both thus expressed themselves as unconcerned about who would lead the quorum after Brigham’s death. Responding to a rumor claiming that Brigham had ordained three of his sons as apostles, with the intention that one (Brigham Young, Jr.) would succeed him, the placid Pratt responded “with exceeding quietude,” that “the Twelve will choose their own president at the death of President Young.” ⁶⁵

Nevertheless, the issue was evidently on Young’s mind as he became progressively more enfeebled in the mid-1870s. Two years before his death, at the church’s April 1875 General Conference, when the names of the Twelve were read for sustaining vote, the names of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were for the first time placed before those of Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt. The change signaled that seniority standing for the latter two was no longer reckoned on the basis of their age position within the original cohort of the Twelve. Rather, their seniority standings were now reckoned as if they no longer belonged to the original cohort but were post-original-cohort apostles whose standing in the quorum was therefore determined by their order of (re)ordination.

This shift in the method for reckoning seniority standing within the Twelve was likely due in great measure to Brigham Young’s discomfort at the prospect of having as his successors apostles who had at any point been seriously at odds with Joseph, namely Elders Hyde and Pratt. But for this shift in the seniority reckoning, Orson Hyde would have been recognized as senior apostle for 1877-1878 and Orson Pratt for 1878-1881. 

Seniority was thus not an absolute, set concept, but one that could be pragmatically tailored toward a certain end, in this case preventing leadership by those perceived as having not been sufficiently consistent in their loyalty.

Conclusion

Given the absence of any principle of seniority in the original design for an egalitarian Quorum of the Twelve, the historical record suggests that apostolic seniority is neither original nor integral to the quorum. And Thomas B. Marsh’s status as the quorum’s president though not its senior member reinforces this conclusion. Seniority was added to the Quorum of the Twelve as a check on the inexperience of a quorum composed primarily of young men in their twenties and as a counterweight to family privilege within the Twelve. In its original form, moreover, seniority dictated only seating order and the order of rotation of the presiding function, not overall leadership of the quorum. 

But if this is correct, and a weak form of seniority was originated to check the potentially outsized influence of a Smith-family apostle and to keep in line apostles who were virtual (or literal) adolescents, why did the policy continue in an even stronger form long after immature, youthful apostles became a thing of the past?

“Easy” answers to this question include bureaucratic inertia and the after-effects of the succession crisis that followed Joseph Smith’s death. That is, once seniority was in place as a criterion, it may have been self-perpetuating. And the need to argue for apostolic seniority as a basis for Brigham Young’s leadership in the wake of Joseph’s death would have helped cement seniority as a leadership criterion for generations to come. 

There is, however, a third possibility—that the seniority criterion continued fulfilling some of its initial functions for a very long time after William Smith’s exit from the Quorum of the Twelve. Far from being the last patrilineal heir of the Smith family in the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency, William Smith was merely the first of seven. William Smith, George A. Smith, Joseph F. Smith, John Henry Smith, Hyrum Mack Smith, George Albert Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith all served in the Quorum. ⁶⁶

And because the First Presidency grew out of the Quorum of the Twelve, four of the church’s first ten presidents were also patrilineal members of the Smith clan. Although William Smith left the Quorum of the Twelve over 175 years ago, one or more of the patrilineal kin of the prophet Joseph served as an apostle in either the Twelve or the First Presidency throughout the entire period from the inception of the Quorum of the Twelve in 1835 to the death of Joseph Fielding Smith in 1972, a period of 137 years spanning from the Kirtland era to the era of Church Correlation. If non-patrilineal Smith-family descendants are included, the era of Smith-family participation in the First Presidency and Twelve extends yet further. At the time of this writing, a Smith family heir still serves in the Quorum of the Twelve, as its president. M. Russell Ballard (b. 1928) is a descendant of three Smith family members who have held positions in the First Presidency or Twelve—Hyrum Smith, Joseph F. Smith, and Hyrum Mack Smith—and one non-Smith apostle, Melvin J. Ballard. Given Elder Ballard’s position in the Twelve since 1985, Smith family members have served in these quorums for 175 of the past 188 years.

As the church’s martyred founding prophet, Joseph Smith forever stands as an enduring larger-than-life presence in the Latter-day Saint psyche. Due to early theological emphasis in the church on lineal authority and blessings, some of that esteem has been extended also to Joseph’s family, particularly patrilineal Smith family heirs who might be understood to possess “lineal priesthood” of the Smith line. For all the tremendous, and overwhelmingly positive, influence the Smith family has had in the First Presidency and the Twelve, this influence would almost certainly have been magnified to greater and excessive proportions had the policy of apostolic seniority not supplied a counterweight to status based on family connections to the Prophet.

This can be seen in the case of Joseph F. Smith’s proposed succession to the presidency after Brigham Young. After Brigham’s death, his First Presidency counselor Daniel H. Wells nominated Joseph F. Smith, then 38 years old, with ten years of service in the Twelve, to succeed Brigham as church president ahead of the three-quarters of the quorum more senior. Ten years later, at John Taylor’s death, Wells, now joined by apostle and future church president Heber J. Grant, again proposed leapfrogging Joseph F. Smith ahead of the six apostles senior to him. ⁶⁷

Given Joseph F. Smith’s youth and relatively brief church service to that point, the advocacy by Wells and Grant for him to serve as the church’s next president was almost certainly based on his status as an heir of the Joseph Smith family. Had Joseph F. Smith been chosen church president upon Brigham Young’s death, he would have served in that role for 41 years, far longer than the longest term of any other church president, including 30-year president Brigham Young. As church president for, in actuality, 17 years, Joseph F. Smith had a tendency to call his own family members to the Quorum of the Twelve, filling two vacancies in the quorum during that time with his own sons, creating the possibility of a self-perpetuating line of Smith family apostles dominating the leadership of the church.

As it was, given the church’s 137 years with patrilineal Smith heirs in the First Presidency and Twelve during a long era of theological emphasis on lineal authority, apostolic seniority provided the most significant check on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints becoming, like the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a church run by the extended Smith family. The church’s last patrilineal Smith apostle/president died in 1973, and the church only abandoned the practice of appointing a Smith family member as patriarch of the church in 1978. 

The theology of lineage connected with the office of patriarch has begun to fade only more recently. Nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints held that the restored Gospel was intended to go primarily to lineal descendants of the ancient Israelites. A number of Latter-day Saints of the early-to-mid twentieth century were influenced by “British-Israelite” ideas that spiritually privileged some ethnicities over others. And the ban, until 1978, on ordaining men of black African descent, interpreted in light of biblical curses, reinforced notions of chosen and cursed lineages. Within a Latter-day Saint culture in which spiritual blessings were often thought to hinge on physical lineage, genetic relation to Joseph Smith—particularly patrilineal Smith descent—was almost inevitably taken to signal greater spiritual blessedness and potential authority.

Given the function that the seniority policy has filled, it is only now, in the twenty-first century, when the era of patrilineal Smith leadership dominance has clearly ended and the theological emphasis on lineage is fading, that the policy appears to have not only filled but also fulfilled its evident original purpose—to prevent Smith family status from taking an undue role in determining leadership callings and decisions in the church.

In summary, the historical evidence shows that apostolic seniority was instituted as a prudential policy rather than as an invariant eternal principle, and that it has served significant but specific purposes in the church’s development. The precedent set by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the original establishment of the Quorum of the Twelve as a body of equals shows that our sacred past holds other possibilities for the Latter-day Saint future..

If, then, in the church’s future the apostles should ever deem the seniority system to no longer meet the needs of the church, they will find—the historical data analyzed here suggest—that the initial design for the Quorum of the Twelve allows them to do so and that this policy has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designed, and can be honorably released.

1. Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, Working Draft, 604. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Christopher C. Smith and Alex Criddle in reviewing this paper.[↩]
2. Edwin B. Firmage, “A Grandson’s Reminiscence: Hugh B. Brown in His Final Years,” Sunstone November 1987, 7-11.[↩]
3. N. Eldon Tanner, “Revelation on Priesthood Accepted, Church Officers Sustained” General Conference Address October 1978. [↩]
4. For the William Clayton account, see [Joseph Smith Papers] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-july-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1#source-note. For the Willard Richards account, see sermon of Joseph Smith, 16 July 1843, in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 233. For a fuller discussion of Joseph Smith’s attempt to resign as president of the church, see Don Bradley, “’The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism,’ Joseph Smith’s Unfinished Reformation,” Sunstone April 2006, 32–41, particularly the discussion on pp. 32–33 and 41n55. Joseph may have ultimately understood Hyrum to stand as co-president of the church with him, hence, toward the end of their lives,, their co-signatures as “JOSEPH SMITH, HYRUM SMITH. Presidents of said Church.” “Notice, circa 1 February 1844,” p. 423, The Joseph Smith Papers,  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/notice-circa-1-february-1844/1[↩]
5.  “History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” p. 1681, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/5. Compare to “Discourse, 23 July 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” p. [14], The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-23-july-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards/4.[↩]
6. I have drawn on and further analyzed the data provided by Gregory A. Prince, Lester E. Bush, Jr., Brent N. Rushforth, “Gerontocracy and the Future of Mormonism,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 49, no. 3 (Fall 2016): 89–108. The most recent example of a church president being unable to speak at General Conference came when President Thomas S. Monson was unable to speak at or attend the conference in October 2017.[↩]
7. At the time of writing (2022), I have been able to identify only one living prominent religious leader older than President Nelson: Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Hossein Wahid Khorasani (b.1921), one of the highest authorities of Twelver Shi’ism. [↩]
8. I do not intend to say that succession on this premise was by any means obvious at the time of Joseph Smith’s death, nor for a period of years afterward. Rather, this is the theological rationale for succession that gradually took shape, in stages, between 1844 and 1898.[↩]
9. D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” BYU Studies 16, no. 2 (Winter 1976): 187–233; Todd Compton, “John Willard Young, Brigham Young, and the Development of Presidential Succession in the LDS Church,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 4 (Winter 2002): 111–34; Ronald W. Walker, “Six Days in August: Brigham Young and the Succession Crisis of 1844,” in A Firm Foundation: Church Organization and Administration, eds. David J. Whittaker and Arnold K. Garr, 161–96 (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011); Robin Scott Jensen and Benjamin E. Park, “Debating Succession, March 1846: John E. Page, Orson Hyde, and the Trajectories of Joseph Smith’s Legacy,” Journal of Mormon History 39, no. 1 (Winter 2013): 181–205. [↩]
10.  The same twelve men who became the Book of Mormon witnesses became the church’s first twelve ordained officers at the church’s first conference on June 9, 1830, with the exception of Jacob Whitmer, for whom Ziba Peterson was substituted. Because Jacob Whitmer was the sole exception to this pattern and was not ordained to any church office until July 1834, it may be presumed that he either declined church office or had done something to temporarily disqualify himself. William E. McLellin, “Our Tour West in 1847,” Ensign of Liberty 1, no. 7 (August 1849): 104.[↩]
11. At a church conference on October 26, 1831, Oliver Cowdery declared that he and Whitmer had received instructions that day “respecting the choice of the twelve.” They had been told that the Twelve “would be ordained & sent forth from the Land of Zion.” Minutes, 25–26 October 1831, 10, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-25-26-october-1831/1.[↩]
12. “Instruction on Priesthood, between circa 1 March and circa 4 May 1835 [D&C 107],” 84, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-on-priesthood-between-circa-1-march-and-circa-4-may-1835-dc-107/3.[↩]
13. The testimony of the Twelve Apostles to the Doctrine and Covenants was sent forth in that work, just as the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses had been sent forth in that book. Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, Page 256. See also “Minutes, 17 August 1835,” 98-99, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-17-august-1835/1.[↩]
14. Robert Glen Mouritsen, “The Office of Associate President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,” M.A. Thesis (Brigham Young University, 1972). [↩]
15. Ironically, the apostle who was ranked as oldest, Thomas B. Marsh, was the last to be ordained, and the youngest apostle, Lyman E. Johnson, was the first to be ordained. This, however, was not deliberate, since the remaining apostles were not ordained in any particular order relative to their birth. Minutes and Blessings, Kirtland Township, Geauga Co., OH, 21 Feb. 1835. Featured version copied [not before 25 Feb. 1836] in Minute Book 1, 154–164, CHL, handwriting of Warren Cowdery; “Blessing to Thomas B. Marsh, 26 April 1835[b],” 156[b], The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/blessing-to-thomas-b-marsh-26-april-1835/1[↩]
16. Ibid.[↩]
17. James and John were also prominent in having been early disciples to follow him. Peter was similarly prominent as an early disciple, but Peter’s brother Andrew, despite having been according to the Gospel of John and Christian tradition, the first of the Twelve to become Christ’s disciple, appears to have lacked comparable prominence.[↩]
18. Minutes and Blessings, Kirtland Township, Geauga Co., OH, 21 Feb. 1835. Featured version copied [not before 25 Feb. 1836] in Minute Book 1, pp. 154–164; handwriting of Warren Cowdery; CHL. For more complete source information, see the source note for Minute Book 1.[↩]
19. Jesus’ biblical question of James and John after their Mount of Transfiguration experience–“What would ye that I should do for you?” is echoed by his Book of Mormon question to the three Nephite disciples prior to their transfiguration experience–“What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?” The contrast in their replies to these parallel questions is striking. While James and John ask to be able to rule over their fellow apostles in heaven, their Book of Mormon counterparts ask to remain on earth to serve others. This wish was fulfilled, and these three disciples appear to have not presided in any way over the remaining disciples, either as a presidency within the twelve or a separate body parallel to a First Presidency. The three transfigured Nephite disciples reflect an ideal in which the twelve are ministers sent to teach the world.[↩]
20. “History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838],” 635, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/89.[↩]
21. Joseph Smith, Discourse, 27 February 1835–B, as Reported by Oliver Cowdery, in Minute Book 1, p. 88, Joseph Smith Papers.[↩]
22. Joseph Smith, discourse, 27 February 1835–A, as Reported by Oliver Cowdery, in Minute Book 1, pp. 86–88, Joseph Smith Papers. For discussion of a variant version of these instructions, see footnote [Y] below. “Discourse, 27 February 1835–A, as Reported by Oliver Cowdery,” 87, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-february-1835-a-as-reported-by-oliver-cowdery/2.[↩]
23.  Instruction on Priesthood, Kirtland Township, Geauga Co., OH, between ca. 1 Mar. and ca. 4 May 1835. Featured version titled “On Priesthood”; typeset ca. mid-May 1835; in Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 ed., 82–89.[↩]
24. “Minute Book 1,” 187, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-1/191.[↩]
25. “Record of the Twelve, May 2, 1835,” 6, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/record-of-the-twelve-14-february-28-august-1835/12.[↩][↩]
26.  “Minute Book 1,” 187, The Joseph Smith Papers.

    [FOOTNOTE Y, SEE PER FOOTNOTE X ABOVE:] Confusion regarding when age-ranking was introduced into the Twelve has been caused by the practice of early church practice of editing records when they were copied. A variant recording of Joseph’s February 27 instructions, as later copied into a record book for the Twelve, has Joseph already introducing an age criterion into the Twelve, with a fixed leader to preside over their meetings: “At all times when you assemble in the capacity of a council to transact business let the oldest of your number preside”. However, several observations indicate that this criterion was retrojected into the earlier minutes when they were copied into the record book. The original minutes are now lost, but they were copied into a record book “circa late 1835,” allowing them to be redacted according to later understandings before their final recording. Whereas the version of the February 27, 1835 minutes taken by Oliver Cowdery and recorded in Minute Book 1 lists the Twelve in order of their February 1835 ordination (from Lyman E. Johnson first to Thomas B. Marsh last), the version copied into the Record of the Twelve lists the Twelve in their putative age order, indicating that in the latter the original record had been redacted in accordance with Joseph’s instructions months later on May 2. The Record of the Twelve version also gave the Twelve a fixed president, which is inconsistent with the practice documented below in which the quorum rotated its presiding function amongst its members prior to Joseph’s January 16, 1836 identification of Thomas B. Marsh as the quorum’s standing president. The Record of the Twelve version of the minutes thus bears the hallmarks of having been redacted and copied into the record book after Marsh’s January 16, 1836 appointment. In redacting earlier teachings in the record to reflect later teachings, McLellin may have been applying Joseph’s instruction (cited above) to make a record of all precedents decided in the Twelve’s meetings and employ those precedents.[↩]

27. “Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church),” Wikipedia.com, accessed December 5, 2022. [↩]
28. Patrick A. Bishop, Precept upon Precept: The Succession of John Taylor, in Mary Jane Woodger, Editor, Champion of Liberty: John Taylor. Bishop sees the May 2 minutes as having possibly “alluded” to Marsh’s calling as quorum president where one version of the minutes refers to Marsh taking his seat in the council as “the head.” This possibility will be discussed further below.[↩]
29. Entry for May 4-9, 1835, Record of the Twelve, Joseph Smith Papers.[↩]
30. Oliver Cowdery to Brigham Young, February 27, 1848,https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/4db552ae-c90c-411e-8b15-11792500395d/0/1.[↩]
31. David Whitmer, interview with Zenos Gurley, 1885,https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/cbff7497-0764-4f7d-9aec-702b5f9b8f27/0/6.[↩]
32. “History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838],” p. 671, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/125[↩]
33. Wilhelm Wyl, Joseph Smith the Prophet His Family and His Friends A Study Based on Facts And Documents (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Company), 309. [↩]
34. “Elders’ Journal, July 1838,” p. 47, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/15[↩]
35. William Smith as reported by his former quorum mate Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff Journal, February 13, 1859, LDS Church Archives[↩]
36. General Church Minutes, May 4, 1839[↩]
37. (Wilford Woodruff, Journal, May 25, 1839; MS Jan. 7, 1865, 7-8).[↩]
38. William B. Smith, The Elder’s Pocket Companion, Transcribed & Edited by Connell O’Donovan, 2009. Footnote i. http://www.connellodonovan.com/pocket_companion.pdf[↩]
39. “Journal, 1835–1836,” p. 15, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/16[↩]
40. “Letter to William Smith, circa 18 December 1835,” p. 83, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-william-smith-circa-18-december-1835/4[↩]
41. “Revelation, 3 November 1835,” p. 17, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-3-november-1835/1[↩]
42. “History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838],” p. 697, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/151.[↩]
43. Patrick A. Bishop, Precept upon Precept: The Succession of John Taylor, in Mary Jane Woodger, Editor, Champion of Liberty: John Taylor.[↩]
44.  “History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838],” p. 697, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-b-1-1-september-1834-2-november-1838/151.[↩]
45. See Ronald K. Esplin, “Joseph Smith and the Kirtland Crisis, 1837,” in Joseph Smith, The Prophet and Seer Richard N. Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson eds. (Deseret Book, 2010).https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-prophet-seer/joseph-smith-kirtland-crisis-1837.[↩]
46. Minutes, 12 April 1838, 124, JSP.[↩]
47. Woodruff, Journal, June 25, 1857, 5:63. Although Young’s memory places the return of Patten and Marsh in fall 1837, it was actually in the summer, dovetailing with Patten’s own account at Cowdery’s trial that he was making inquiries in summer 1837.[↩]
48. Historical Introduction to Revelation, 23 July 1837 [D&C 112], 73, JSP. History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], 766, JSP.[↩]
49. History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], 766, JSP.[↩]
50. Journal, March–September 1838, 73, JSP. Compare to Oliver’s charge to the Twelve in Minutes and Blessings, Kirtland Township, Geauga Co., OH, 21 Feb. 1835, JSP.[↩]
51. Vital Records of Acton, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1923, 81. [↩]
52. Archibald Fowler Bennett, A Guide for Genealogical Research, 1956, p. 110: “A Bible record of Benoni Patten , father of David W. Patten , the martyr , gives the exact birth dates for all his 13 children . A copy is on file in the Pension Bureau , National Archives , Washington , D. C. It states that David Wyman Patten was born 14 Nov. 1799.  Therefore , had they known their true ages , David W. Patten would have been recognized as the senior member of the Quorum.”[↩]
53. Sophia’s federal census entry for 1850 gives her age as 49 in September 1850, the age she would have been if, as reported, she had been born in June 1801. The census record thus tends to confirm this birthdate.[↩]
54. Lyndon W. Cook, “’I Have Sinned against Heaven, and Am Unworthy of Your Confidence, but I Cannot Live without a Reconciliation’ : Thomas B. Marsh Returns to the Church,” BYU Studies 20 (1980): 389-400; Oliver Cowdery to Brigham Young, 25 December 1843, Church Archives;[↩]
55. See Don Bradley, “‘Dating’ Fanny Alger: The Chronology and Consequences of a Proto-polygamous Relationship” in Cheryl Bruno, ed., New/Everlasting: Essays on Early Mormon Plural Marriage (fortcoming).[↩]
56. “Remarks by Thomas B. Marsh,” Journal of Discourses 5:207.[↩]
57. Trevor Alvord, “Certainty to Distrust: Conversion in Early Mormonism,” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, Vol. 30 (2010), 133-155.[↩]
58. An incorrect 1799 birthdate for Ann or Anna Marsh Abbott, apparently provided by herself, was given in the Nauvoo Temple Endowment Register: Dec. 10, 1845, to Feb. 8, 1846, p. 23, as reported in entry for Ann Abbott,  Early Church Information File, FHL microfilm 962798, item 1, Family History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Her actual birthdate was June 19, 1798. “Anna Marsh,” Vital Records of Acton Massachusetts to the Year 1850 (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1923), 81.[↩]
59. If this action was deliberate, Marsh could have found precedent for it in the biblical narrative of Jacob taking the birthright and blessing of his older brother Esau (Genesis 25-27).[↩]
60. “Letter to Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young, 16 January 1839,” [2], The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-heber-c-kimball-and-brigham-young-16-january-1839/2.[↩]
61. The Organization of the Church,” Millennial Star, November 1851, 337–38.[↩]
62. Wilford Woodruff Journal, April 14, 1840.[↩]
63. Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City:

    Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1987), 237 as quoted by Gary Bergera in “Seniority in the Twelve: The 1875 Realignment of Orson Pratt.” Journal of Mormon History 18 no. 1 (1992):19-58.

    Wilford Woodruff recorded: “Joseph then . ordaind Orson Pratt (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, edited by Scott G. Kenney, 9 vols. (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1983-85): 2:213; (emphasis Woodruff’s) as cited in Bergera “Seniority in the Twelve: The 1875 Realignment of Orson Pratt.” “History of Brigham Young,”Deseret News, 17 March 1858, 1 as cited in Bergera “Seniority in the Twelve: The 1875 Realignment of Orson Pratt” (emphasis mine).[↩]

64. Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, 20 January 1843.[↩]
65. Edward Tullidge, The Life of Joseph the Prophet (Plano, Illinois: The Board of Publication of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1880), 621.[↩]
66. George A. Smith 1839–1875

    Joseph F. Smith 1867–1918

    John Henry Smith 1880

    Hyrum Mack Smith, 1901

    George Albert Smith 1903

    Joseph Fielding Smith 1910-1972[↩]

67. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997). Quinn documents the discussion of Joseph F. Smith leapfrogging his seniors using the diaries of six of the Twelve. [↩]