This is a strange comment considering some modern studies of the New Testament. According to these studies, Jesus was setting up an Old Testament pattern similar to Moses. His “prophetood” was, using the Sermon on the Mount as an example, as a new lawgiver. His calling of the Twelve was a reflection of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, with the Seventy as a sort of assistant to the Twelve similar to the same organization Moses set up. In other words, the Latter-day Saints were to the NT as Jesus was to the OT pattern identification.

By the way, Hyde’s explanation might explain why there was arguably never a First Presidency in the NT. Jesus was the head of the Church in a way that Joseph Smith never was. It begs the question, if there never was a Great Apostacy then would there ever have been a prophet position? Joseph’s position in the Latter Days vs. Jesus’ in the Meridian might explain why monumental revelation hasn’t been part of the current office. Just as Jesus was the Great Master and Finisher of our faith, Joseph Smith was the great Restorer and Seer that prepared the way for Jesus’ evenatual return. They represent a Nexis that those who follow simply support. Perhaps there was somthing to Rigdon’s argument that there would be a “gaurdian” rather than a prophetic mantle for the leadership after Joseph Smith’s death. On the other hand, I think G-d might have allowed for several directions the leadership organization could have gone to keep the Falling Away from happeninf again.

Just some thoughts and conjectures.

You make an important point about Bergera’s work. More analysis would have improved his work (although I think a book full of quotations from primary sources is better than some of the other material out there). Unfortunately, his is one of the few works dealing with this issue (the discussion among the quorum of the twelve in December 1847), so I will have to continue to direct people to his work.

There’s still a lot of work to do on the succession crisis (IMO).

The big problem is that there are a lot of theological issues at play and those tend to get neglected a tad too much. (IMO) I’m not saying all historians neglect theological assertions. However the way a historian approaches such matter and the way a philosopher, lawyer or theologian does often is quite different. (And I think Bergera’s book, which tends to provide lots of quote but with little theological analysis is an example of this)

Strang quickly discouraged the calling of the “Brighamites” the “twelveites”. The name “twelveites”, after all, would fit the Strangites, which also had twelve apostles. In fact, Strang probably duplicated Joseph Smith’s organization better than any other Mormon group before Brigham Young became the president–not that there were that many before late 1847.