1. Home >
  2. The Papers >

Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845

10 March 1844 • Sunday Page 1 11 March 1844 • Monday Page 25 13 March 1844 • Wednesday Page 29 14 March 1844 • Thursday Page 30 19 March 1844 • Tuesday Page 32 21 March 1844 • Thursday Page 40 26 March 1844 • Tuesday Page 51 4 April 1844 • Thursday Page 74 5 April 1844 • Friday Page 83 11 April 1844 • Thursday Page 94 18 April 1844 • Thursday Page 142 25 April 1844 • Thursday Page 207 Letters from Orson Hyde • 25 and 26 April 1844 Page 261 3 May 1844 • Friday Page 217 6 May 1844 • Monday Page 229 13 May 1844 • Monday Page 243 25 May 1844 • Saturday Page 253 31 May 1844 • Friday Page 257 List of Council Members • 31 May 1844 Page 286 Events of June 1844 Page 289 4 February 1845 • Tuesday Page 303 27 February 1845 • Thursday Page 363 1 March 1845 • Saturday Page 372
  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation *Discourse, 11 April 1844–A *Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845 *Revelation, 25 April 1844 *Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845 *Minutes and Discourse, 4 April 1844 *Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845 *Letter to Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt, 13 May 1844 *Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845 *Discourse, 11 April 1844–B *Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845 *Letter from Orson Hyde, 26 April 1844 *Letter from Orson Hyde, 25 April 1844 *Letter from Lyman Wight and Others, 15 February 1844–B *Letter from Lyman Wight and Others, 15 February 1844–A *Memorial to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, 26 March 1844
Page [363]
image
Although wrote the foreg[o]ing communication, it appears over the signature of inasmuch as the correspondence passed between him & .
27 February 1845 • Thursday
Editorial Note
On 27 February 1845 the council met at ’s office at 10:00 a.m., though the meeting was delayed until the “arival of the 12” following their participation in the dedication of a site for a on the . The council deliberated until about 2:00 p.m. Prompted by the return to of Moses Smith, a member of ’s company, convened the gathering to discuss how best to bring back those who had been “led astray” by former council member Emmett and had traveled with him into . The council viewed Emmett’s expedition as an unauthorized and premature move out of the city.
On 21 February 1844 had been chosen by JS and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to join a planned expedition to the West to search for possible settlement locations. Before this expedition could be organized, however, Emmett received an assignment from the Council of Fifty on 21 March 1844 to undertake “a mission to the Lamanites to instruct them to unite together and cease their enmity towards each other.” Though the minutes of that meeting do not identify the group of American Indians he was charged with visiting, Emmett sought out Indians in , in particular the Menominee. When he reached the Menominee lands, he did not find the large gathering of Indians he had anticipated, though he met with one elderly chief, probably Oshkosh, who seemed attentive but ultimately unconvinced that Emmett would be able to effect a pan-Indian unity. Rebuffed, Emmett returned to to receive “further council.” When Emmett reported to the council on 31 May 1844, JS was sympathetic to the difficulties of the mission but “considered brother Emmett bound to make another attempt and fulfil the mission according to the orders of the council.”
According to the records of these 27 February 1845 deliberations, shortly after the 31 May 1844 meeting attempted to lead a company of about fifty Latter-day Saint men out of . When JS and other church leaders heard of Emmett’s departure, they “went in pursuit— Emmett was called to acc[oun]t. & was rebuked by Pres. Smith.” Emmett had apparently received explicit instructions “not to take a man from this city.” Also contrary to his reported instructions, Emmett had enlisted several Indians living near Augusta, Illinois, to join his venture. Emmett may have believed he was justified in taking such unauthorized actions because of the exploratory commission he had received in February or the ambassadorial commission to the Indians he had received in March. Another possibility is that he was simply trying to lead a company of church members away from the increasingly hostile environment surrounding Nauvoo on his own initiative. In any case, this attempt to lead a company away from the main body of the church was quashed by JS in June 1844.
Following JS’s murder, made plans to leave again. recorded in his journal that he learned in mid-August 1844 “that Br Emmet was ra[i]sing a company to goe away in to the wilderness or some whare elce [else].” Although attempted to convince Emmett in early September to abandon his plans, Emmett persisted, leading Smith to conclude Emmett “was stuborn.” On 3 September the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles disfellowshipped Emmett “for not following Counsel.” When the Council of Fifty discussed Emmett’s actions on 27 February 1845, reported that Emmett said that he would “not bear the frowns of the Gentiles any longer, & our lives will be sacrificed for this people— either as worn out, or martyrs,” suggesting that he had been motivated by a desire to flee from the increasing hostility. Emmett later explained that he left Nauvoo not to leave the church but to leave the : “I have been acq[uainte]d. with the manner they have treated this p[eo]ple since — after they had driven them murd[er]ed. Josh.— the appeals that had been made & no notice taken— I concluded to go in the wilderness— I did not go bec[ause] I had not the same faith as the Church— but I went to get rid of the surrounding Gentile world.”
Members of ’s company gradually coalesced in during August and September 1844 before moving as a company north along the Iowa River. The company was over 130 miles northwest of by December 1844. At least some participants believed that the company had apostolic sanction and was the vanguard of a larger exodus that would soon occur from Nauvoo. Rebecca and James Nelson, for instance, explained that after JS’s murder, the presiding elder of their branch at , Illinois, claimed to have counseled in Nauvoo with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and that the branch had been ordered to “break up and remove immediately to the West, without passing throug Nau[voo].” The Nelsons, who gathered with others in Iowa, explained that they had “expected one of the twelve as a guide. the excuse was that the twelve had not been able to wind up and arrange their business, so they sent Emet as a substitute.”
Difficulties and privations abounded in the company, resulting from a lack of food and draft animals. In late February 1845 one disgruntled member of the company, Moses Smith, returned to , bringing reports of ’s isolated and struggling company in . By that time the Council of Fifty had dropped Emmett from that body “for disobeying Council.” Several members of the council considered Smith’s report in a 27 February 1845 meeting. recorded that “the Twelve & others, mostly of the Council repaird to my office with Moses smith.”
The minutes featured below are not a contemporary record of the meeting. was ill and did not attend. In his place, , a church clerk who was not a member of the council, recorded detailed minutes, though these were never copied into the record book kept by Clayton. Bullock’s minutes are transcribed in an appendix of this volume and provide a deeper context for what follows here. In the record book entry featured below, Clayton alluded to the discussions and then very briefly summarized the actions taken by the council before copying two letters written as a result of the deliberations.
’s minutes indicate that opened this meeting by explaining that “ has a Co[mpany] of 35 fam[ilies] in , to go into the Wilderness— Moses Smith knows all ab[ou]t. them— we can control them yet— Emmett is out of our control— he has flung himself out of the Priesthood.” Smith argued that the people in Emmett’s company could be persuaded to abandon the venture, and the goal of the meeting was to reclaim them. Like the Nelsons, Smith explained that he “supposed that Br Emmett had an appointment & by the 12.” He felt most of the company had been “kept in the dark” by Emmett, who refused to let them return to even to bring along other members of their families. Given Emmett’s deception, Smith reasoned that the majority of his company “would be councilled by the 12. if the Council is to stop, they will, or go on just as ordered.” categorically rejected Emmett’s claim that his mission was sanctioned, as did other members of the council. The council assigned and to write a “good fatherly letter of Instruction” to Emmett’s company “in behalf of the council.” This letter is the first one featured below. The second letter, for which served as scribe, represented the views of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The council appointed and to deliver the letters. With Smith as their guide, Lyman and Spencer departed the following day on what ultimately proved to be a successful mission to reclaim Emmett’s company, which eventually returned to gather with the main body of church members in Iowa.
February 27th. 1845 A few members of the council met together to take into consideration the propriety of taking measures to bring back those of the faithful brethren who have been led astray by & gone away with him contrary to council. It was decided that brother should bear a letter from this council to those brethren & that he should be accompanied by late Mayor of the City of The following letters were written & sent [p. [363]]
Although wrote the foregoing communication, it appears over the signature of inasmuch as the correspondence passed between him & .
27 February 1845 • Thursday
Editorial Note
On 27 February 1845 the council met at ’s office at 10:00 a.m., though the meeting was delayed until the “arival of the 12” following their participation in the dedication of a site for a on the . The council deliberated until about 2:00 p.m. Prompted by the return to of Moses Smith, a member of ’s company, convened the gathering to discuss how best to bring back those who had been “led astray” by former council member Emmett and had traveled with him into . The council viewed Emmett’s expedition as an unauthorized and premature move out of the city.
On 21 February 1844 had been chosen by JS and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to join a planned expedition to the West to search for possible settlement locations. Before this expedition could be organized, however, Emmett received an assignment from the Council of Fifty on 21 March 1844 to undertake “a mission to the Lamanites to instruct them to unite together and cease their enmity towards each other.” Though the minutes of that meeting do not identify the group of American Indians he was charged with visiting, Emmett sought out Indians in , in particular the Menominee. When he reached the Menominee lands, he did not find the large gathering of Indians he had anticipated, though he met with one elderly chief, probably Oshkosh, who seemed attentive but ultimately unconvinced that Emmett would be able to effect a pan-Indian unity. Rebuffed, Emmett returned to to receive “further council.” When Emmett reported to the council on 31 May 1844, JS was sympathetic to the difficulties of the mission but “considered brother Emmett bound to make another attempt and fulfil the mission according to the orders of the council.”
According to the records of these 27 February 1845 deliberations, shortly after the 31 May 1844 meeting attempted to lead a company of about fifty Latter-day Saint men out of . When JS and other church leaders heard of Emmett’s departure, they “went in pursuit— Emmett was called to acc[oun]t. & was rebuked by Pres. Smith.” Emmett had apparently received explicit instructions “not to take a man from this city.” Also contrary to his reported instructions, Emmett had enlisted several Indians living near Augusta, Illinois, to join his venture. Emmett may have believed he was justified in taking such unauthorized actions because of the exploratory commission he had received in February or the ambassadorial commission to the Indians he had received in March. Another possibility is that he was simply trying to lead a company of church members away from the increasingly hostile environment surrounding Nauvoo on his own initiative. In any case, this attempt to lead a company away from the main body of the church was quashed by JS in June 1844.
Following JS’s murder, made plans to leave again. recorded in his journal that he learned in mid-August 1844 “that Br Emmet was ra[i]sing a company to goe away in to the wilderness or some whare elce [else].” Although attempted to convince Emmett in early September to abandon his plans, Emmett persisted, leading Smith to conclude Emmett “was stuborn.” On 3 September the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles disfellowshipped Emmett “for not following Counsel.” When the Council of Fifty discussed Emmett’s actions on 27 February 1845, reported that Emmett said that he would “not bear the frowns of the Gentiles any longer, & our lives will be sacrificed for this people— either as worn out, or martyrs,” suggesting that he had been motivated by a desire to flee from the increasing hostility. Emmett later explained that he left Nauvoo not to leave the church but to leave the : “I have been acq[uainte]d. with the manner they have treated this p[eo]ple since — after they had driven them murd[er]ed. Josh.— the appeals that had been made & no notice taken— I concluded to go in the wilderness— I did not go bec[ause] I had not the same faith as the Church— but I went to get rid of the surrounding Gentile world.”
Members of ’s company gradually coalesced in during August and September 1844 before moving as a company north along the Iowa River. The company was over 130 miles northwest of by December 1844. At least some participants believed that the company had apostolic sanction and was the vanguard of a larger exodus that would soon occur from Nauvoo. Rebecca and James Nelson, for instance, explained that after JS’s murder, the presiding elder of their branch at , Illinois, claimed to have counseled in Nauvoo with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and that the branch had been ordered to “break up and remove immediately to the West, without passing throug Nau[voo].” The Nelsons, who gathered with others in Iowa, explained that they had “expected one of the twelve as a guide. the excuse was that the twelve had not been able to wind up and arrange their business, so they sent Emet as a substitute.”
Difficulties and privations abounded in the company, resulting from a lack of food and draft animals. In late February 1845 one disgruntled member of the company, Moses Smith, returned to , bringing reports of ’s isolated and struggling company in . By that time the Council of Fifty had dropped Emmett from that body “for disobeying Council.” Several members of the council considered Smith’s report in a 27 February 1845 meeting. recorded that “the Twelve & others, mostly of the Council repaird to my office with Moses smith.”
The minutes featured below are not a contemporary record of the meeting. was ill and did not attend. In his place, , a church clerk who was not a member of the council, recorded detailed minutes, though these were never copied into the record book kept by Clayton. Bullock’s minutes are transcribed in an appendix of this volume and provide a deeper context for what follows here. In the record book entry featured below, Clayton alluded to the discussions and then very briefly summarized the actions taken by the council before copying two letters written as a result of the deliberations.
’s minutes indicate that opened this meeting by explaining that “ has a Co[mpany] of 35 fam[ilies] in , to go into the Wilderness— Moses Smith knows all ab[ou]t. them— we can control them yet— Emmett is out of our control— he has flung himself out of the Priesthood.” Smith argued that the people in Emmett’s company could be persuaded to abandon the venture, and the goal of the meeting was to reclaim them. Like the Nelsons, Smith explained that he “supposed that Br Emmett had an appointment & by the 12.” He felt most of the company had been “kept in the dark” by Emmett, who refused to let them return to even to bring along other members of their families. Given Emmett’s deception, Smith reasoned that the majority of his company “would be councilled by the 12. if the Council is to stop, they will, or go on just as ordered.” categorically rejected Emmett’s claim that his mission was sanctioned, as did other members of the council. The council assigned and to write a “good fatherly letter of Instruction” to Emmett’s company “in behalf of the council.” This letter is the first one featured below. The second letter, for which served as scribe, represented the views of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The council appointed and to deliver the letters. With Smith as their guide, Lyman and Spencer departed the following day on what ultimately proved to be a successful mission to reclaim Emmett’s company, which eventually returned to gather with the main body of church members in Iowa.
February 27th. 1845 A few members of the council met together to take into consideration the propriety of taking measures to bring back those of the faithful brethren who have been led astray by & gone away with him contrary to council. It was decided that brother should bear a letter from this council to those brethren & that he should be accompanied by late Mayor of the City of The following letters were written & sent [p. [363]]
View entire transcript |
Cite this page
Cite this page
Page [363]
  • Document Information
  • Footnotes
363
Contact Us FAQ Follow Us on Facebook

Request for Documents

Do you know of any Joseph Smith documents that we might not have heard about? Tell us

The Church Historian’s Press is an imprint of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, and a trademark of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

© 2023 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Updated 2021-04-13 | Privacy Notice Updated 2021-04-06 |