[John Taylor], “Keys,” Times and Seasons 5, no. 23 (December 15, 1844): 748-9.

I think your use of the term “keys” is a bit anachronistic, though. Still, the Twelve did have the ability to ordain Patriarchs, which came into play.

As to the legal recourse of appeal, I’m not so certain how indicative that is, especially considering the equal authority language.

Did all the members of the anointed quorum embrace polygamy, or as you say, those that received the Fullness of the Priesthood? I don’t believe that Marks did, at least.

As to the keys of the apostolate, that is also a bit sketchy. You have Brigham later teaching that as the Seventy were apostles, they could ordain new members to the twelve in the case that the entire twelve met an untimely end. Then you have the idea of the “Fullness of the Priesthood.” What is the fullness unless it is a fullness?

But all in all, while I think it is a bit more complicate, I think that we are in general agreement.

Ehat’s use of the label “general authorities” is not anachronistic: “The latter [the traveling high council composed of the Twelve Apostles] can only be called in question by the general authorities of the church in case of transgression” (D&C 102:32). But even if it were, it could be taken merely as a label that modern-day readers of his thesis could readily understand. The fact remains that whatever appelations one uses and whatever groups one thinks should be added to the Venn diagram, there was only one governing body of the Church in which a quorum of its members had received all of the keys restored through Joseph Smith: the Quorum of the Twelve. No other body at the moment of Joseph’s death–not the First Presidency, nor the Nauvoo Stake Presidency, nor the Nauvoo High Council, nor even the Kingdom of God (Council of Fifty)–had a quorum of members who held all priesthood keys, and only 9 of the Twelve had them all.

The polygamy angle is practically a moot point when critiquing the Venn diagram as Joseph did not give the fulness of the priesthood (the inner-most circle in the Venn diagram) to anyone who was opposed to polygamy in theory or practice. In other words, only those who were either practicing polygamists or who at that time (1843-1844) ascented to the doctrine were given the fulness of the priesthood by ordinance. Ehat’s thesis covers pretty thoroughly the topic of plural marriage as it relates to who was given what ordinances.

As far as the hierarchical relationship of the Quorum of the Twelve to the Nauvoo High Council, the revelations make clear that the Quorum of the Twelve is higher:

“There is a distinction between the high council of travelling high priests abroad, and the travelling high council composed of the twelve apostles, in their decisions: From the decision of the former there can be an appeal, but from the decision of the latter [Quorum of the Twelve] there cannot” (recorded 17 Feb 1834, D&C 5:13, 1835 edition; cf. D&C 102:30-31 in current edition)

“The … twelve apostles … form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents, previously mentioned [First Presidency]. The seventy … form a quorum equal in authority to that of the twelve especial witnesses or apostles, just named. …The standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion [which in 1844 would have included the Nauvoo Stake High Council], form a quorum equal in authority, in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the quorum of the presidency, or to the travelling high council” (recorded 28 March 1843, from D&C 3:11 and 14, 1835 edition; cf. D&C 107:23-26 and 36, current edition)

“The twelve are a travelling, presiding high council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the presidency of the church, agreeably to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same, in all nations: first unto the Gentiles, and secondly unto the Jews” (from D&C 3:12, 1835 edition; cf. D&C 107:33, current edition)

“It is the duty of the twelve, also, to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church…” (from D&C 3:30, 1835 edition; cf. D&C 107:58, current edition)

There is plenty of evidence to show that the Twelve were intended–at least by the Lord, and I think a very compelling case can be made that Joseph also intended–to be the governing body of the Church in case the First Presidency could not function. That Joseph Smith’s counselors did not hold all the keys at the moment of his death should answer the question as to the possiblity of succession by a surviving First Presidency counselor. The President of the Church, by decree of heaven, must be one who holds all keys: “it must needs be that one be appointed, of the high priesthood, to preside over the priesthood; and he shall be called president of the high priesthood of the church, or, in other words, the presiding high priest over the high priesthood of the church. From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands” (D&C 3:31, 1835 edition; cf. D&C 107:65-67, current edition). The only possible individual successor who met that requirement was William Marks, be he was not an Apostle and did not have authority (keys of the Apostleship) to “regulate all the affairs of the [Church]” and “ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church.”

Even though the succession question appeared unclear to some, Brigham knew it almost immediately: “The first thing which I thought of was, whether Joseph had taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth; brother Orson Pratt sat on my left; we were both leaning back on our chairs. Bringing my hand down on my knee, I said the keys of the kingdom are right here with the Church” (Manuscript History of Brigham Young: 1801–1844, 170-71). He knew and immediately claimed upon his return to Nauvoo that he and the Twelve were the possessors and custodians of the keys and no other person or body was.

I still love Ehat’s work (though it is only available from the BYU, USU and UU special collections).

It’s been widely distributed as a PDF though. You’re right that it has a few big flaws though.

No legitimate succession can occur without the sustaining vote of this body. Hence the advent of solemn assemblies.

Sidney Rigdon or William Marks (or practically anyone else for that matter) could easily have succeeded Joseph Smith. All they would need was the sustaining vote of the body of Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

Indeed, “chosen” implies some minimal degree of deliberation. If a sustaining vote were refused for any other serious candidate (i.e. one with a prayer of being sustained), that would be a violation of D&C 107:22.

1. The First Presidency
2. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
3. The Seventy
4. The joint quorum of the members of all standing high councils

If there is any dispute between these quorums, the matter is to be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums. There is no ranking of the quorums themselves.