Skip to main content

Minutes, 13 April 1838

  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 

Minutes, 13 April 1838

Source Note

Zion church presidency and high council, Minutes, , Caldwell Co., MO, 13 Apr. 1838. Featured version copied [between 1 Oct. 1842 and 14 Sept. 1843] in Minute Book 2, pp. 126–133; handwriting of ; CHL. For more complete source information, see the source note for Minute Book 2.

Historical Introduction

On 13 April 1838, JS participated in a meeting that the and held to consider the charges against and . Johnson had begun challenging JS’s leadership by May 1837, when he and fellow filed charges with , accusing JS of “lying & misrepresentation— also for extortion— and for— speaking disrespectfully against his brethren behind their backs.” The next month, Johnson and his fellow apostle and business partner, , sought to dissuade apostle from accepting a missionary appointment to . In a 3 September 1837 conference, Johnson, his brother , and Boynton were rejected as apostles because of their opposition to the . The three men reconciled with the church a week later at another conference and were reinstated as apostles. Shortly afterward Johnson traveled with to . While there, Johnson attended the November church conference, during which he was again sustained as an apostle. However, by December, Johnson was meeting with Cowdery, David and , and other dissenters in to discuss their opposition to other church leaders. Johnson seems to have associated especially with Cowdery, and the two apparently planned to start a legal practice together. In January 1838, Johnson attended a meeting with Cowdery, the Whitmer brothers, and other dissenters, during which they made plans to leave Far West because of their opposition to the high council there. Johnson also continued to correspond with and other , Ohio, dissenters. On 7 April 1838, apostle reported at a church conference that he could not sustain Johnson and four other members of the . Two days later, church leaders wrote to Johnson, Cowdery, and David Whitmer, reporting that charges had been made against them and that hearings would be held on 12 April for Cowdery and on 13 April for Johnson and Whitmer.
Neither nor attended the 13 April hearing, during which the high council and the presidency investigated the charges against the two men. Instead, like the day before, Johnson and Whitmer sent letters expressing their opposition to the charges and the council proceedings and indicating they were withdrawing from the church. The council deliberated over Johnson’s case during two sessions, with JS testifying against Johnson during the first session. As a result of the testimony JS and others offered, the council excommunicated Johnson.
The council then turned to the case of . After he, , and had been removed from the presidency in February 1838, the three men had decried the decision. In a 10 March letter, the men argued that the procedures for removing them were “contrary to the principles of the revelations of Jesus Christ, and his gospel.” Later in the day, the high council read the letter and excommunicated Phelps and John Whitmer. No action was taken against David Whitmer until 9 April, when he was notified of his 13 April trial. During the trial, the council read the letter and determined that he should be excommunicated. As the final item of business during the meeting, the council revoked Cowdery’s November 1837 assignment to help identify locations for new Latter-day Saint settlements.
Minutes of the council meeting were taken by the high council clerk, . The minutes were copied into Minute Book 2 by in 1842 or 1843.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    Charges against JS Preferred to Bishop’s Council, 29 May 1837.

  2. [2]

    Kimball, “History,” 55.

    Kimball, Heber C. “History of Heber Chase Kimball by His Own Dictation,” ca. 1842–1856. Heber C. Kimball, Papers, 1837–1866. CHL. MS 627, box 2.

  3. [3]

    At least some of the difficulty between these men and the church revolved around the collapse of the economy in Kirtland, Ohio. During the meeting, Boynton attributed his opposition to “the failure of the bank.” Although Sidney Rigdon rejected Boynton’s explanation, Rigdon likewise thought the root of the conflict was related to economic concerns; he condemned Johnson and Boynton for operating a mercantile firm while neglecting their ecclesiastical responsibilities. (Minutes, 3 Sept. 1837.)

  4. [4]

    Minute Book 1, 10 Sept. 1837; Letter to Oliver Cowdery et al., ca. 17 June 1838.

  5. [5]

    Minutes, 7 Nov. 1837.

  6. [6]

    Oliver Cowdery, Far West, MO, to Warren Cowdery and Lyman Cowdery, Kirtland, OH, [10] Mar. 1838, in Cowdery, Letterbook, 92.

    Cowdery, Oliver. Letterbook, 1833–1838. Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.

  7. [7]

    Oliver Cowdery, Far West, MO, to Warren Cowdery and Lyman Cowdery, [Kirtland, OH], 4 Feb. 1838, in Cowdery, Letterbook, 85.

    Cowdery, Oliver. Letterbook, 1833–1838. Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.

  8. [8]

    See, for example, Oliver Cowdery, Far West, MO, to Warren Cowdery and Lyman Cowdery, Kirtland, OH, 24 Feb. 1838, in Cowdery, Letterbook, 87; and Stephen Burnett, Orange Township, OH, to Lyman Johnson, 15 Apr. 1838, in JS Letterbook 2, pp. 64–66.

    Cowdery, Oliver. Letterbook, 1833–1838. Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.

    JS Letterbook 2 / Smith, Joseph. “Copies of Letters, &c. &c.,” 1839–1843. Joseph Smith Collection, 1827–1846. CHL. MS 155, box 2, fd. 2.

  9. [9]

    Minutes, 7–8 Apr. 1838.

  10. [10]

    Minutes, 12 Apr. 1838.

  11. [11]

    Minute Book 2, 10 Mar. 1838.

  12. [12]

    See Travel Account and Questions, Nov. 1837.

Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation. *Minutes, 13 April 1838 Minute Book 2
him he thought there was none except it was some which poor brethren had a claim on, and that it he must not enter that, as it was contrary to the decision of the ; afterwards he did enter a forty upon which one of the brethren had made some improvement.
testifies that it was the understanding that acted as an Atterney for Mr. Bennor in commencing a suit against , & took a very active part in the case.
testifies, that had told him in conversation at different times, that while God sat upon his throne or his face the color it now was, he never would sanction the proceedings of the High Council in this place, because he said they were ittegal illegal and as for coming to this Council he would not, also he used tea and coffee while living at ’s and did not tend family prayers while living at his house, also had used his influence against certain brethren especially against the Smith family, also he had a correspondence with the dissenters at and vindicated their cause and spoke against the of the , also made light of the , also reported he had a thousand dollar note against Joseph Smith jr
Joseph Smith jr testifies that he, vindicated the cause of the dissenters, both in publick and private and spoke against the saints while in , also heard Say that while God sat upon his throne and his face was the color it now was he never would sanction the proceedings of the Church and Council, in this place also told him he had a thousand dollar note against him (J. Smith) which was not the case, but the note which he pretended to have was one given to Joseph Smith jr while acting as [p. 129]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Minutes, 13 April 1838
ID #
9613
Total Pages
8
Print Volume Location
JSP, D6:94–104
Handwriting on This Page
  • Hosea Stout

Footnotes

  1. [11]

    According to federal law, settlers could apply for and secure a preemptive land claim from the federal government’s land office, allowing the settlers to occupy and make improvements on government-owned land in areas where the land had not come up for sale. When a public sale was held, the person with the land claim had first rights to purchase the property. According to Carter’s testimony, Johnson apparently usurped a poor Saint’s preemption claim to a forty-acre piece of land. (Walker, “Mormon Land Rights,” 14–17; Rohrbough, Land Office Business, 200–220.)

    Walker, Jeffrey N. “Mormon Land Rights in Caldwell and Daviess Counties and the Mormon Conflict of 1838: New Findings and New Understandings.” BYU Studies 47, no. 1 (2008): 4–55.

    Rohrbough, Malcolm J. The Land Office Business: The Settlement and Administration of American Public Lands, 1789–1837. New York: Ocford University Press, 1968.

  2. [12]

    Morrison, a Latter-day Saint, was elected as a Caldwell County, Missouri, justice in August 1838, suggesting he had some association with the county court. (Arthur Morrison, Affidavit, Adams Co., IL, 1 Nov. 1839, Mormon Redress Petitions, 1839–1845, CHL; “Copy of the Record of Election of Justices,” in Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence, 283.)

    Mormon Redress Petitions, 1839–1845. CHL. MS 2703.

    Complainant’s Abstract of Pleading and Evidence. Lamoni, IA: Herald Publishing House and Bindery, 1893.

  3. [13]

    Possibly Elias or Henry Benner; both men were Latter-day Saint mill owners in Caldwell County. (Henry Benner, Affidavit, Adams Co., IL, 25 May 1839, Mormon Redress Petitions, 1839–1845, CHL; History of Caldwell and Livingston Counties, Missouri, 588.)

    Mormon Redress Petitions, 1839–1845. CHL. MS 2703.

    History of Caldwell and Livingston Counties, Missouri, Written and Compiled from the Most Authentic Official and Private Sources. . . . St. Louis: National Historical Co., 1886.

Go to page