“We the People of the Kingdom of God”: Insights into the Minutes of the Council of Fifty, 1844-1846 University of Virginia, September 8, 2016 by Matthew J. Grow About four years ago, Reid Neilson, the managing director of the Church History Department, asked me to meet in his office. He had a transcript of a document that I, like other historians of Mormonism, knew about but never had access to: the minutes of the Council of Fifty in Nauvoo, Illinois. These minutes had gained a reputation as a sort of “holy grail” of early Mormon documents. My task, Reid explained, was to write an introduction to the minutes that would help inform the decision of Church leaders on whether or not they should be published. No pressure. After the First Presidency decided that the minutes should be published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, a team of historians—including myself, Ron Esplin, Mark Ashurst- McGee, Gerrit Dirkmaat, and Jeff Mahas—has worked on the minutes. We’re excited that anyone can now read the minutes for themselves. Rick has done a great job of giving context for the reasons the Council was established. In my presentation, I will give an overview of the minutes themselves and the priorities of the council during its existence in Nauvoo. William Clayton, an English convert, was the clerk of the Council of Fifty. He kept minutes on loose sheets of paper that he later copied into three small volumes. Council members emphasized confidentiality, including the need to safeguard the minutes. They believed that knowledge of their discussions regarding theocracy and the kingdom of God would increase the widespread belief that Latter-day Saints opposed key elements of American democracy. When discussing the council’s business, Willard Richards even encoded some of the references in Joseph Smith’s journal. When he recorded a reference in his personal journal, Richards referred to the “Council of YTFIF.” On the night of 22 June 1844, knowing that he would soon be arrested and believing that he might be murdered, Joseph Smith sent for Clayton and ordered him to either burn or bury the records. Clayton buried them in his garden and dug them up a week after Smith’s murder. 1 Following the exodus from Nauvoo in 1846, the record books were taken to Utah and the minutes continued to be closely guarded. For instance, George Q. Cannon referred to the Council of “Kanalima” when he wrote about it decades later in a letter to Joseph F. Smith. “Kanalima” is the Hawaiian word for Fifty; both Cannon and Smith had been missionaries in their youth to Hawaii. The minutes became part of the records of the church’s First Presidency, where they remained until they were transferred to the Church History Department in 2010.1 The minutes have never been previously available, I think, for two key reasons: first, because they were considered so confidential during the council’s meetings that later stewards of the records wished to honor that confidentiality; and second, because once they were in the possession of the First Presidency, they were seldom used or read by church leaders and there was no pressing reason to make them available. The Church’s commitment to publish all of Joseph Smith’s documents as part of The Joseph Smith Papers provided the appropriate moment for their release. The minutes of the council’s first official meeting on March 11 indicate, “All seemed agreed to look to some place where we can go and establish a Theocracy either in Texas or Oregon or somewhere in California.” [Note that all of these options were outside the borders of the U.S.] The members of the council saw its formation as the beginning of the literal kingdom of God on earth and anticipated that the council would “govern men in civil matters.”2 Members were drawn both to the possibility of relocating significant numbers of Saints outside of the United States, where they could create their own government, and to the possibility of creating a better form of government within the United States. In the first months of its existence, council members discussed at length the nature of the kingdom of God and theocracy. For most contemporary Americans, theocracy connoted the tyrannical rule of religious leaders, conjured images of the collusion of Catholicism with European governments, and seemed the antithesis of American democracy. However, Joseph Smith believed that theocracy could be fused with the best elements of democracy, a system that he described as “theodemocracy.” Council members believed that a theodemocracy would protect rights of minority groups, allow for dissent and free discussion, involve both Latter-day Saints and others, and increase righteousness in preparation for Jesus Christ’s second coming. Sidney Rigdon stated, “The design was to form a Theocracy according to the will of Heaven, planted without any intention to 2 interfere with any government of the world. You need not fear that we design to trample on the rights of any man or set of men, only to seek the enjoyment of our own rights.”3 Joseph Smith and other members of the Council of Fifty believed that the council would serve as the government of the kingdom of God both before and after the second coming of Jesus Christ. Council members emphasized that everyone would enjoy religious liberty in the kingdom of God. Joseph Smith invited three men who were not church members to join the council to demonstrate the importance of religious liberty.4 The council’s name, which was given in a revelation during a council meeting, suggests a mix of political purpose and religious symbolism: “The Kingdom of God and his Laws, with the keys and power thereof, and judgement in the hands of his servants.”5 Council members often used an abbreviated name, referring to it as the “Kingdom,” “Kingdom of God,” or “Council of the Kingdom.”6 After the council reached a membership of fifty men, Joseph Smith declared it “full.”7 Thereafter, it was called the Council of Fifty. In the midst of these discussions on the kingdom of God, the council unanimously voted to “receive from this time henceforth and forever, Joseph Smith, as our Prophet, Priest & King.”8 This demonstrates their views of theodemocracy, under which the ecclesiastical leader of the church (prophet and priest) would be chosen by them as a political leader (king). Council participants understood that this action would have no immediate political consequences, but it symbolized their desire to prepare for the millennial kingdom of God. Proclaiming Joseph Smith as a prophet, priest, and king also reflected Mormon temple ceremonies. In the view of Latter-day Saints, these ceremonies would allow men to one day become, in the words of John the Revelator, “unto our God kings and priests.”9 Joseph Smith publicly urged the Saints to finish building the Nauvoo temple so that they could there “rec[eive] [their] endow[men]t to make [them] K[ings] & P[ries]ts unto the Most H[igh] G[od].” He explained that this office had “nothin[g] to do with temporal things” but was instead related to the kingdom of God.10 Nevertheless, the belief that Joseph Smith had been crowned as king of an earthly theocracy quickly spread. So common were these rumors in the summer of 1844 that Illinois governor Thomas Ford placed the belief that Smith “had caused himself to be crowned and anointed King of the Mormons” first in a list of “causes of excitement” that led to his death.11 Some expected that there would be a description of a coronation in which Joseph was crowned 3 king of the world in the Council minutes. Not so. Rather, his associates received him with the religious language of “prophet, priest, and king.” Council members also debated the relationship between the council and the church. Though Church leaders were central participants in the Council of Fifty, it was not an ecclesiastical body. It did not appoint church officers, teach doctrine, or perform ordinances. Joseph Smith explained, “There is a distinction between the Church of God and kingdom of God. The laws of the kingdom are not designed to effect our salvation hereafter. It is an entire, distinct and separate government. The church is a spiritual matter and a spiritual kingdom; but the kingdom which Daniel saw was not a spiritual kingdom, but was designed to be got up for the safety and salvation of the saints by protecting them in their religious rights and worship.”12 Under Brigham Young’s leadership in 1845 and 1846, the council focused less on the wide-ranging discussions about millennial prophecies and the kingdom of God that had occupied it during the council’s initial months. Rather, council members focused on more pragmatic concerns, especially how to respond to the repeal of the Nauvoo charter (which deprived them of local government, law enforcement, and militia protection), complete the Nauvoo temple, and explore settlement sites. As they wrestled with the question of how to maintain order in a city of over ten thousand inhabitants without a government, council members discussed and at times implemented ideas to establish an extralegal police force, to restore city government, and to urge state leaders to reinstate the charter.13 In addition, the council increasingly looked to the West, which had been a concern of the council since its first meeting. Under Joseph Smith’s leadership, the council had sent a delegate to meet with Sam Houston in the Republic of Texas and also explored the possibilities of settlement in Oregon and California.