In October 1979, Eldred G. Smith, the patriarch of the LDS Church, was summoned to the office of President Spencer W. Kimball in Salt Lake City. For more than three decades, Eldred Smith had served as a general authority in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. During his tenure, he gave “Patriarchal Blessings” to tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints, delivered occasional talks at general conference and traveled worldwide to perform his duties alongside the apostles.
Among the general authorities, the patriarch’s office was highly unique. The reason? It was the only position in the entire LDS hierarchy determined exclusively by bloodline. Eldred G. Smith was a direct descendant of Hyrum Smith who had once served as the Church’s Patriarch—a role then known as the “Presiding Patriarch.”
As Eldred Smith entered President Kimball’s office, he was completely unaware of the change that Kimball was about to make. Unbeknownst to Smith, President Kimball was about to announce a decision that would bring an end to a 150-year-old high office in the LDS Church: the position of Church Patriarch was to be permanently eliminated.
President Kimball informed Smith that he would be granted the title of “Patriarch Emeritus.” While Smith would retain his office in the church building, continue receiving a living allowance, and still provide patriarchal blessings, his official role as the patriarch was effectively over.
Patriarch Smith was shocked and devastated. Despite this, he accepted that President Kimball, by the authority of his office, had the right to make such changes. He disagreed with the decision, but he would accept it.
A couple of days later in the October 1979 general conference, it was formally announced that Eldred Smith was “relieved, not released” from his duties. Henceforth, he’d be “Patriarch Emeritus.” The reason given? Because “of the large increase in the number of stake patriarchs and the availability of patriarchal service throughout the world” (N. Eldon Tanner, “The Sustaining of Church Officers,” Ensign, November 1979 (Conference Edition), p. 18)
Yet, some Latter-day Saints had reason to think that something more was going on behind the scenes. One article said that “there has been speculation among the church members that the position of Patriarch to the Church is being abolished or that Patriarch Smith and his position are being ‘placed on the shelf.’ (Salt Lake Tribune, October 10, 1979, p. 28)
Was the entire office going to be mothballed? As it turned out, that was precisely the case—though this was never officially communicated to the members of the LDS Church. After the conference, Eldred Smith asked an apostle if they were going to appoint someone else to the patriarch’s office. The answer? The intent of church leadership was to retire the office. (Bates, Irene M.; Smith, E. Gary. Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch. University of Illinois Press, p. 13)
Eldred Smith retained emeritus status until he died in 2013 at the age of 106. No replacement was ever appointed, and thus this action effectively ended the office of the Patriarch to the Church.
The decision to eliminate the office of the Church Patriarch was far more controversial than it appeared at first glance. It directly contradicted statements made by early LDS leaders about the importance of this role. In 1839, Joseph Smith had himself declared that “whenever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints” (History of the Church 3:381). He was specifically referencing a Presiding Patriarch, not local patriarchs.
To understand why the elimination of this office was such an issue, let’s consider a brief history of the LDS Church’s Presiding Patriarch.
The Beginning: Joseph Smith Sr.
In the early years of the fledgling LDS Church, Joseph Smith Jr. was claiming to restore true Christianity to its original organizational structure, with Prophets and Apostles and the like. Latter-day Saints often reference Ephesians 4:11-12, which says
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”
Smith had taught that Christianity had lost these offices in the Great Apostasy, but that they were now being restored in these latter days. But Joseph didn’t stop with the New Testament. He also sought to revive elements of the Old Testament order, including the roles of prophets and patriarchs. The Old Testament patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—were foundational figures in Israel’s history.
Smith believed that if God had called a patriarch in those days, then the Latter-day Saints should be calling a patriarch now. In fact, he identified the Old Testament patriarch with the New Testament office of evangelist, as it was reported, “An Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham” (History of the Church 3:381).
In December of 1833, three years after the LDS Church was officially organized—and two years before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles even existed—alleged prophet Joseph Smith appointed his father, Joseph Smith Sr. to the office of Church Patriarch. Smith Jr. blessed his father in this role saying,
“he shall be called a prince over his posterity, holding the keys of the patriarchal priesthood over the kingdom of God on earth, even the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and he shall sit in the general assembly of patriarchs, even in council with the Ancient of Days when he shall sit and all the patriarchs with him and shall enjoy his right and authority under the direction of the Ancient of Days.” (Oliver Cowdery, Minutes in Joseph Smith Sr. Patriarchal Blessing Book, 1835, 1:9)
This appointment granted Joseph Smith Sr. far more than just an honorary position. Within the context of the Restoration—which sought to restore “every key, power, and authority ever dispensed from heaven to men on earth” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 200)—the role carried profound theological and organizational weight. Being entrusted with the keys of the patriarchal priesthood was undeniably significant, a fact underscored in 1836.
Patriarch Smith Sr. gave blessings to the entire First Presidency:
“We then laid our hands upon our aged Father Smith, and invoked the blessings of heaven. I then anointed his head with the consecrated oil, and sealed many blessings upon him. The Presidency then in turn laid their hands upon his head, beginning at the oldest, until they had all laid their hands upon him, and pronounced such blessings upon his head, as the Lord put into their hearts, all blessing him to be our Patriarch, to anoint our heads, and attend to all duties that pertain to that office. The Presidency then took the seat in their turn, according to their age, beginning at the oldest, and received their anointing and blessing under the hands of Father Smith. And in my turn, my father anointed my head, and sealed upon me the blessings of Moses, to lead Israel in the latter days, even as Moses led him in days of old; also the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (History of the Church, 2:379–80. Bold added)
Smith Sr. was blessed to be “our patriarch” and to “attend to all duties that pertain to that office.” These duties were never clearly laid out, but at minimum, they included the giving of patriarchal blessings. A patriarchal blessing
“represents personal revelations from God…the Patriarch lays his hands on the head of the person seeking a blessing and pronounces blessings…Traditionally, the blessings contain an inspired and prophetic statement of the life mission of the recipient, together with such blessings, cautions, and admonitions that the Patriarch may be prompted to give” (The Handbook for Stake Patriarchs (after 1963), cited in R. Clayton Brough and Thomas W. Grassley, Understanding Patriarchal Blessings, Horizon (1984), p. 35.)
Today, there are a host of local patriarchs that give blessings to Latter-day Saints. Part of the original duty of the Presiding Patriarch was to preside in authority over all the local patriarchs. B.H. Roberts wrote that there should always be
“a presiding patriarch over all the patriarchs of the church, and he is known as the presiding patriarch of the church, holding the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of the Lord’s people…and he presides over, instructs and directs the labors of all the patriarchs of the church.” (A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Century I, 1:387)
During Joseph Smith Sr.’s tenure as Church Patriarch, he regularly gave blessings where he would seal people up to eternal life. Clearly, the early Latter-day Saints regarded him as someone who wielded real authority. This authority was further emphasized in September 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. said that Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, his uncle John Smith, and the three in the First Presidency, “are to be considered the heads of the Church” (History of the Church 2:509.)
It’s worth noting that though Smith spoke highly of the Presiding Patriarch, not everyone agreed with him. Oliver Cowdry took issue with the strength of Smith Jr.’s language about his father; he clarified that Smith himself was to be considered the “First Patriarch.” Despite this, there’s no evidence that Smith Jr. shared Cowdry’s concerns.
Patriarch Joseph Smith Sr. died in September of 1840. Just prior to his death he appointed his son Hyrum Smith to the office of Presiding Patriarch. His blessing said that Hyrum “…shall stand in the tracts of his father and be numbered among those who hold the right of patriarchal priesthood, even the evangelical priesthood and power shall be upon him….” (Recorded by Oliver Cowdery, Manuscript History of the Church, December 18, 1833)
The High Patriarch: Hyrum Smith
Hyrum Smith was the LDS Church’s second Presiding Patriarch. During his tenure, the office of Presiding Patriarch rose to its highest levels of authority and prominence—a golden era for the office.
Because Hyrum and Joseph were brothers, there was a degree of institutional ambiguity about the lines of authority. What specific ongoing role was the office of Presiding Patriarch to have? What were his duties? What was his relationship to the Twelve or the First Presidency? These questions were never clearly addressed and led to sharp controversy in the coming years.
Details of Hyrum Smith’s appointment to the office is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 124,
“…my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right; That from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people,”… And from this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph; That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph” (D&C 124:91-95)
According to this section, Hyrum’s status as a “prophet, seer, and revelator” was integrally tied to what he received through his father’s blessing. The only office which was conferred by Smith Sr. to Hyrum Smith was the office of Presiding Patriarch. In other words, Hyrum Smith was seemingly made a “prophet, seer, and revelator” because he inherited the office of Church Patriarch.
In a pivotal revelation concerning the organization of the LDS Church’s leadership, D&C 124 goes on to say,
“Verily I say unto you, I now give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood, that ye may hold the keys thereof… First, I give unto you Hyrum Smith to be a patriarch unto you, to hold the sealing blessings of my church, even the Holy Spirit of promise, whereby ye are sealed up unto the day of redemption… I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet. I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and First Presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church. 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 upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature.” (D&C 124:123-128).
Remarkably, Patriarch Hyrum Smith was the first to be sustained above all other Church leadership—even before Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration. Joseph even claimed that “the patriarchal office is the highest office in the Church.” (Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, James Adams, Newel K. Whitney, et al., Nauvoo, 27 May 1843. In Miscellaneous Minutes, Brigham Young Collection, Church Archives; cited in Michael Quinn, The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844, pp. 201-202.)
That’s a staggering claim, and one that modern Latter-day Saints are likely to balk at. Who could possibly have more authority than the church president? Apostle LeGrand Richards noted,
“The importance of this calling is evident from the fact that the Lord, by revelation, took Hyrum Smith, the brother of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, out of the First Presidency of the Church and called him to be Patriarch of the Church” (“A Chosen Vessel unto Me,” Instructor 99 (December 1964): 466).
In July of 1843, Joseph preached a sermon saying the he
“would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation,” he said, “and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God (History of the Church 5:510).
As it was his birthright? The only office Hyrum held by virtue of his birthright was the office of Church Patriarch. Joseph was presumably alluding to the idea that Hyrum, as the Church Patriarch, could claim legitimate authority over Joseph Smith. The Millennial Star said that “the first presidency of the Mormon hierarchy which consists of four dignitaries—to wit, a principal prophet, a patriarch, and two councillors” (New York Herald (19 February 1842); cited in Veritas, “The Mormon Prophets,” Millennial Star 3 (May 1842): 8.)
Though the degree of authority Hyrum held can be debated, the office was clearly not an obscure position in the back of the LDS hierarchy. It was an office with incredible levels of authority, and an integral part of Joseph’s Restoration project.
With the death of Joseph and Hyrum in 1844, the office of patriarch would become a spark leading to deep division and infighting amongst the Latter-day Saints. Who was to become the next leader of the LDS Church? There were at least some grounds to argue that it should have been the next patriarch.
The Succession Crisis: William Smith
After Smith’s death, Brigham Young, then head of the Quorum of the Twelve, argued that the apostles should retain leadership over the church. Part of his claim for legitimate leadership was that he was prepared to appoint the next patriarch over the church. Notably, he was prepared to do that well before appointing the next prophet or president. Young said,
“Do you want a patriarch for the whole church? To this we are perfectly willing…Do you want a patriarch? Here is Brother William [Smith] left; here is Uncle John Smith, uncle to the Prophet Joseph Smith left; it is their right. The right of patriarchal blessings belongs to the Smith family” (History of the Church 7:234)
Though there were other potential candidates, William Smith was chosen. At that time, William was also an apostle, which led some Latter-day Saints to believe that perhaps he should become the next president. Times and Seasons (a newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois) published the words of William Smith in December of 1844 who said,
“It will be his privilege when he arrives, to be ordained to the office of patriarch to the church, and to occupy the place that his brother Hyrum did, when living; and he will stand in the same relationship to the Twelve, as his brother Hyrum did to the First Presidency, after he was ordained patriarch….” (Times and Seasons 5 (December 1, 1844): 727).
The apostles were not enthusiastic about this proposal to elevate William Smith to the same prominence that Hyrum Smith had enjoyed. While Joseph had attributed Hyrum’s elevated status to his position as patriarch, the apostles were reluctant to grant that same authority to William, even though Hyrum would have had he survived. Simply put, William Smith was not Hyrum Smith.
Despite these concerns, in May of 1845, nearly a year after Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths, William Smith was appointed the third Presiding Patriarch. He instructed the Latter-day Saints to
“Support and uphold the proper authorities of the church—when I say authorities, I mean the whole, and not a part; the TWELVE and not one, two, six, eight, ten, or eleven, but the whole TWELVE follow me as I follow Christ.” (William Smith, “Patriarchal,” Times and Seasons 6 (May 15, 1845): p. 904)
The apostles, aware of the implications of the statement “the whole twelve follow me as I follow Christ,” responded quickly. John Taylor, who would eventually serve as the third president, responded to William’s claims in the next edition of Times and Seasons. Taylor made clear that William was not patriarch “over the whole church” but rather patriarch “to the church.” (John Taylor, “Patriarchal,” Times and Seasons 6 (June 1, 1845): 920)
Taylor argued that William was not to be granted a position of prominence or authority above the apostles. Taylor reasoned that because William had been appointed to the office of presiding patriarch by the apostles, he could not hold authority superior to theirs. Despite this, Taylor did acknowledge that William was to hold some degree of legitimate authority.
He stated that the presiding patriarch was to hold the keys of the patriarchal priesthood and preside over a council of patriarchs. This was a meaningful, though more constrained, role for the office, but marked a clear departure from the prominence the Presiding Patriarch had enjoyed during Hyrum’s tenure.
To make matters worse, shortly after these articles were published, Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph Smith’s mother) claimed to have received a vision from God saying that her son William was to be the next president:
“Thy son, William he shall have power over the churches, he is father in Israel over the patriarchs, and the whole of the Church; he is the last of the lineage that is raised up in these last days. He is Patriarch to regulate the affairs of the Church. He is President…. The Presidency of the Church belongs to William, he being the last of the heads of the Church, according to the lineage, he having inherited it from the family from before the foundation of the world…. Brother and children, I want you to take notice that the burden of the Church rests [on William].) (June 27, 1845, “The John Taylor Nauvoo Journal, January 1845-September 1845,” BYU Studies 23:3 (1983). Ellipsis mine).
Brigham and the apostles acted swiftly to address the situation and sought a solution that would appease Lucy Mack Smith. While it seems they managed to satisfy her concerns, William was not so easily deterred. As both an apostle and the Presiding Patriarch, should he not have more authority? In a letter to Brigham Young, William wrote that
“it was my wish that you should stand as the President of the church, but I claim to be patriarch over the whole church…this gives me my place and proper standing, and what I inherit…no man being my head…I want all men to understand that my father’s family are of the royal blood and promised seed” (William Clayton’s Nauvoo Diaries and Personal Writings, Nauvoo 4, Monday, June 30, 1845).
Eventually, public perception turned against William, culminating in his excommunication during October’s general conference in 1845 (History of the Church 7:483). In that conference, Parley Pratt publicly criticized William Smith, saying,
“I have proof positive that he is an aspiring man; that he aspires to uproot and undermine the legal Presidency of the church, that he may occupy the place himself…. In the second place, while Brother William was in the east…his doctrine and conduct have not had a savory influence; but have produced death and destruction wherever he went” (History of the Church 7:458-59).
Not only had the office been reduced in prominence by the apostles, now it was certainly viewed with skepticism and trepidation. Would this kind of controversy happen again later?
The Decline of the Church Patriarch
After the catastrophic tenure of William Smith, the apostles were not inclined to give the office much authority. It’s important to note that in this era of instability, the presiding patriarch was a wild card. Apostleship was granted to those deemed worthy, but the patriarch’s office was held simply by virtue of bloodline.
It couldn’t be controlled or checked. Such a strictly lineal nature introduced the potential for future division. Who knows what kind of man might end up in that office? This concern began a century-long back-and-forth conflict regarding the office of presiding patriarch and what degree of authority it should have.
Still, Brigham Young understood the importance of the office, even despite the controversy it introduced. He said in 1847 that
“it was necessary to keep up a full organization of the Church through all time as far as could be. At least the three first Presidency, quorum of the Twelve, Seventies, and Patriarch over the whole Church so that the devil could take no Advantage of us” (Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833–1898, Signature Books (1983–85), 3:301).
After the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844, the apostles were patient in reestablishing the First Presidency. For a few years, there was none at all. For several years, there was no First Presidency at all. Eventually, however, the apostles sought to reestablish the First Presidency following the model Joseph Smith had outlined. On December 23, 1847, church leaders stated that
“we now, having it in contemplation soon to reorganize the church according to the original pattern, with a First Presidency and Patriarch….” (“General Epistle from the Council of the Twelve Apostles to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abroad, dispersed throughout the earth,” Millennial Star 10 (March 15, 1848): 86, 114–15.)
Thus, the First Presidency was reestablished with Brigham Young assuming the role of president. Additionally, Joseph Smith’s uncle, John Smith—affectionately known as “John Smith”—was appointed to the office of Presiding Patriarch. Young later claimed that “the Kingdom is set up and you have the perfect pattern and you can lead the Kingdom in at the gate” (Minutes of the Conferences in the Log Tabernacle, December 27, 1847).
The structure of the church was set: a First Presidency, a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and a Presiding Patriarch. According to Brigham, this was the proper pattern of the organization of the church.
Despite this appointment, Young was diminishing the prominence of the office. Departing from the sustaining order established in D&C 124, Uncle John was sustained after the first presidency (though, still before the apostles). In the ordination, John Smith was to “…receive all the keys and authority pertaining to this calling that thou mayest be a Presiding Officer over this Priesthood” (Typescript of ordination of Patriarch [Uncle] John Smith, January 1, 1849, LDS Church Archives).
John Smith was content to follow Young and the apostles. For the remainder of his tenure, there were no major developments or controversies concerning the proper authority of the office. He died in 1854. After his tenure, Hyrum Smith’s oldest son, also named John Smith, was appointed to the office. He was the fifth Presiding Patriarch in the church. Notably, Brigham further demoted the Patriarch’s sustaining order when John Smith was called. The office was now sustained after the Twelve—still in defiance of the indicated order given in D&C 124.
Throughout his tenure as the fifth Presiding Patriarch, John Smith faced challenges that sometimes placed him at odds with other LDS leaders. He struggled to strictly adhere to the Word of Wisdom, which had become more rigidly enforced around the turn of the century. Additionally, he maintained warm familial ties with members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS), including their principal prophet, Joseph Smith III.
He also drew criticism because he was slower to promote polygamy than many church leaders would have liked. All of these factors made Patriarch John Smith somewhat unpopular among LDS leaders. Despite this, Patriarch John Smith still presided over a quorum of patriarchs, directing them, appointing them, and instructing them in their duties as was proper for his office.
Apostle John W. Taylor said of John Smith in a conference talk:
“We have a man who stands at the head of the patriarchal order in our Church. That man is Brother John Smith. He always sits here with the First Presidency of the Church. Why is it that he occupies this exalted position when sitting before the people in their general conferences? It is because the Lord acknowledges a Patriarch as a man who is endowed with a very high office in the Church and kingdom of God, and who has a special endowment given unto him for a special purpose” (Conference Reports (October 6, 1900), p. 30.)
John Smith was the half-brother of Joseph F. Smith, who would become the sixth president of the LDS Church in 1901. When Joseph F. Smith was first ordained, he requested that his brother John Smith be the one to appoint him. President Joseph F. Smith commented, “And we did it strictly in accordance with the pattern the Lord has established in this Church.” (Reed C. Durham and Steven H. Heath, Succession in the Church, Bookcraft (1970), p. 119)
Joseph F. Smith was the only prophet who felt that the patriarch had proper authority to appoint and ordain the president of the church. He also argued that, in accordance with D&C 124, the patriarch should be sustained before anyone else in general conference—even before the president himself.
Because of these things, Patriarch John Smith was granted more authority than his predecessor had enjoyed. He spoke in general conference, he was sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and he traveled to fulfill his particular duties. It was a small renaissance of the Presiding Patriarch’s office.
Joseph F. Smith was enthusiastic about the role of the office, but the apostles disagreed. They weren’t thrilled with how Joseph F. Smith had elevated the office of the patriarch. After Joseph F. Smith’s death in 1918, the First Presidency clarified moving forward that the
“presiding Patriarch of the Church ranks in the order of office between the Council of the Twelve and the First Council of the Seventy” (James E. Talmage, Journal, January 2, 1919).
John Smith died in 1911 and his grandson Hyrum Smith took up the office. After Hyrum’s appointment,
“The Presiding Patriarch…holds the keys of the Patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all the people…. It is his duty, also, to preside over all the evangelical ministers, or patriarchs, of the whole church” (Improvement Era 15 (December 1912): p. 97).
Heber J Grant, President Joseph F. Smith’s presidential successor, strongly believed that the Presiding Patriarch should not belong to lineal family descent. He fought to remove many of the administrative tasks given to the office and even physically moved the Presiding Patriarch further away from the First Presidency in Conference. No longer would the Presiding Patriarch sit near the First Presidency, now he would sit between the Twelve and the Seventy.
After Hyrum Smith’s death in 1932, President Grant was strongly opposed to Hyrum’s son Eldred being appointed as the seventh Presiding Patriarch, but the apostles disagreed. They still believed that the Presiding Patriarch should remain a descendant of the Smith family. For 10 years, the President and the Twelve disagreed on how exactly to move forth with this office. Thus, for those 10 years, there was no Presiding Patriarch to the Church.
A compromise was eventually made that greatly reduced all administrative responsibilities, and made it so that the patriarch could be called from any descendant of the Smith family, not only from the eldest son of the prior patriarch. Thus, the Presiding Patriarch would no longer organize the local patriarchs of the church.
After 10 years of this standoff, Joseph F. Smith II was appointed—though he was not the son of the former patriarch. Joseph F. Smith II presided as the Church Patriarch for only 4 years, but was quietly released from all duties after that time for unstated reasons. It was during Joseph F. Smith II’s appointment that the office ceased to be called the “Presiding Patriarch” and was instead changed to “Patriarch to the Church.”
After Joseph F. Smith II was released, Eldred G. Smith—the son of Hyrum G. Smith—was appointed to the office in 1947. It was Eldred Smith who was called into President Spencer Kimball’s office in October 1979, and it was Eldred Smith who served as the final Presiding Patriarch to the LDS Church.
Is the LDS Church in Apostasy?
The discontinuation of the Presiding Patriarch raises some important questions. If Joseph Smith restored all that had been lost in Christianity, then why has the office of the Presiding Patriarch, declared essential in the early days of the Restoration, been eliminated? Conversely, if the office was unnecessary, why was it restored in the first place?
By the LDS Church’s own standards, the elimination of this office suggests a form of apostasy. Latter-day Saint claims argue that Christianity lost authority and keys after the age of Christ’s Apostles. Doesn’t the dissolution of the Presiding Patriarch’s office suggest a similar phenomenon? If the Presiding Patriarch held the keys of the “patriarchal priesthood,” what has become of those keys?
Additionally, the contrast between Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant’s view of the Church Patriarch is striking. It raises the question, are these leaders really receiving revelation from God about such things? As an outsider, it seems more likely that these are simply men trying to organize in accordance with the wisdom that they have. For a church that claims divine guidance through prophets and apostles, such inconsistency is puzzling.
Local “Evangelists”
Some Latter-day Saints argue that the elimination of the Presiding Patriarch was permissible because the local stake patriarchs carry on the essence of the work. “The Presiding Patriarch was needed in the early days of the Restoration,” one might argue, “but since we have local patriarchs, his office is redundant and unnecessary.”
This logic mirrors the way evangelical Christians view the office of apostles. Ephesians 2 says, “the household of God [is] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (v. 19-20). A foundation is laid once, and afterwards the building is constructed upon it. The apostles were needed in the early Church for the establishment of Christianity. However, once the Christian church reached a certain degree of maturity, the proper office of apostle was no longer needed. In its place were local church leaders who carried on the essence of the apostolic ministry.
If the LDS Church can say that local patriarchs are sufficient to fulfill the office of evangelist, then Christians are free to say that local pastors are sufficient to fulfill the office of apostle.
—
For those interested in diving deeper into the history and issues surrounding the office of the Presiding Patriarch, the book Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch by Irene M. Bates and E. Gary Smith is an excellent resource. It provides a comprehensive overview of this office, its history, and the controversies that led to its elimination. Many of the details in this article come from the book, which was co-written by 8th Patriarch Eldred’s Smith son, E. Gary Smith.