Regarding your number 35, my view to your question “Did the trusteeship only relate to the church’s property in Joseph’s era?” would be that this was how JS understood the position. His own references to the title invariably refer to temporal matters of the church–specifically his need to be involved in, and aware of, the financial actions of the various Church committees. A quote from the 28 November 1842 entry in his journal: “He likewise showed the brethren that he was responsible to the State for a faithful performance of his office as Sole Trustee in Trust &c”. Responsible to the state seems a far cry from responsible to the church members. Finally, and this is my opinion only, I would be wary of determining heirarchy of governing church bodies in the Nauvoo years based on filling of vacancies, pronouncements of directions, etc. Right on topic with our Trustee conversation, Joseph himself was given direction as the Trustee-in-Trust by a conference of the church in Nauvoo on 20 January 1842 on how to proceed with his responsibilities in that capacity. I am confident we would still agree that he was in the highest religious leadership position, while still subject to being “instructed” in his actions as Trustee.

Therefore every post-Feb 1841 development in the relationship between the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the Seventy, the high coucils iin the stakes of Zion and the high council of the stake in Zion (cf. D&C 107) have to be considered.

It seems clear from early on that the structure of governing councils was intended to do exactly what it did in 1844: govern the Church. The Church in solemn assembly considered individual and group claims to revelation and tested them. They, the governing councils of the Church and then the Church body as a whole, rejected Sidney Rigdon’s claims (which weren’t even that he was the First Presidency or even President of the high priesthood) and accepted the leadership of the Council of the Twelve.

It seems that neither Rigdon nor any other body could define the First Presidency for the Church without the common consent of the Church. Even if every single member of the Church on 8 Aug 1844 thought the 1841 document was the only binding declaration of succession, the question still would have been how to define that quorum and who had the right to do it.

not a great legal argument on their part, but fits well with their broader views.

Ben (#14) I’m not arguing that Sidney was the spiritual successor of Joseph.

Don’t worry, John, I did not mean to say that you were. I was just trying to see how the Saints viewed it when this document is figured in. I agree that “spiritual decisions” are individual things and cannot be proven.

The History of the Church corrects the capitalization to “First Presidency”, indicating that Joseph’s editors thought this phrase refered to the FP. Also contemporarily James J. Strang clearly agreed (Voree Herald 1:9, Sept. 1846 [p. 38]) — although his argument is self-serving. (He says, “James J. Strang is the successor in the Presidency and no body else holds that office or pretends to hold it”.)

The Illinois law in question allowed anywhere between 1 and 10 trustees to be named per church corporation. We would have to look to see if contemporary churches always kept on record the individuals named to be their trustees, or if they were able to cite a general church council or officer (e.g. a presbytery or the church’s deacon).

Sam (#26) and Brad (#28): As part of their bid to assume the leadership of the church, the Twelve forwarded the argument that the FP dissolved with Joseph’s death. You can certainly argue that (and that does happen in the Utah church today). You can also make the counter argument that the FP didn’t dissolve (as it doesn’t in the Community of Christ today).

However, I think the idea that the Twelve could fill vacancies in the FP was unprecedented. The nearest precedent was the experience in Missouri, when Joseph and the FP were imprisoned. On that occasion, the general High Council at church HQ took over as the ruling authority. The High Council went so far as to fill vacancies in the Twelve, illustrating not only the High Council’s authority to lead the church in the absense of the FP, but also to reconstitute quorums, including establishing the precedent that the Twelve was a subordinate quorum, not even competent to fill its own vacancies. See the Far West Record December 19, 1838 (pp. 223-24 in Cannon and Cook’s edition). In the 1840s, there were additional precedents that elevated the Twelve’s status vis-a-vis the general High Council, but I don’t see how those imply that the Twelve had the authority to fill vacancies in the FP.

Ben (#14) I’m not arguing that Sidney was the spiritual successor of Joseph. That’s a question for the spirit to answer for each individual believer. I was arguing that as sole remaining member of the First Presidency he was the legal successor to the church corporation. Personal conflicts he had with Joseph in 1843 don’t bear on that question, since Joseph indicates that he was not able to get the members to vote Sidney out of the FP.