[Hemidakota]

Part -1

The Council of Fifty and Its Members,
1844 to 1945
by D. Michael Quinn 1

Since the mid-1950s, several articles, graduate theses, and books have examined the existence and supposed role of the "Council of Fifty" in Mormon history, so that by now the Council of fifty is within the general awareness of a large proportion of Latter-day saints as well as interested non-Mormons. Unfortunately, these writers did not have access to documents presently available; and, in some cases, they did not consult important sources then available. Because casual examination can make anything appear monstrous under the academic microscope, scholarly studies of the Council of Fifty thus far have tended to distort insufficient evidence and sometimes to sensationalize their interpretations. 2 Current research into the documents and historical environment of the Council of Fifty requires a rewriting of these scholarly and highly popular interpretations rather than a rewriting of Mormon history in light of these previous interpretations of the Council of Fifty.

The primary role of the Council of Fifty was to symbolize the otherworldly world order that would be established during the millennial reign of Christ on earth. Aside from its symbolic value, the singular importance of the Council of Fifty is that it reveals Joseph Smith, Jr., as Mormonism's greatest Constitutionalist. The 1844 minutes of the Council contain hundreds of pages of the Prophet's teachings about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and the application of that document to the Latter-day saints in the world and during the Millennium.

The secondary role of the Council of Fifty involved its literal, practical functions. The Council of Fifty was only infrequently active throughout it history, and LDS Church leadership dominated and directed it when it was active. The Council was not a challenge to the existing system of law and government but functioned in roles familiar to American political science; special interest lobby, caucus, local political machine, and private organization governed by parliamentary procedures. Because LDS leaders did not regard the Council of Fifty as subversive of American institutions, its existence was common knowledge among the Latter-day Saints as long as it functioned, and its deliberations were no more secret than were those of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. As a non-revolutionary political instrument, the Council of Fifty held it final meeting in 1884, but the organization continued to survive technically until the last of its members died in 1945.

Establishment
Among several historical questions about the Council of Fifty is the matter of dating its establishment. A different date for its organization is provided by each of four reputable original sources--7 April 1842; 10, 11, and 13 March 1844--primarily because each source considered a different event as marking the Council's origin. Each of these dates has significance in the establishment of the Council of Fifty.

The minutes of the Council for 10 April 1880 state that "it was organized by the Lord. April 7th 1842." They further indicate that this was the date of the revelation to Joseph Smith which provided the name and mission of the organization. 3 Dating the organization of the Council of Fifty in terms of the revelation and not when Joseph Smith acted upon the revelation thus fulfills the prophecy of Daniel that the Kingdom of God was a rock cut out of the mountain without hands (Dan. 2:44-45). LDS leaders often cited the Daniel passage when they spoke of the organization of the latter-day Kingdom of God. 4 At present, no document has surfaced that explains why Joseph Smith waited two years to give temporal fulfillment to that which "was organized by the Lord. April 7th 1842," but the 1842 date stands as the divine establishment.

When it comes to the temporal establishment, Wilford Woodruff and Franklin D. Richards state that Joseph Smith organized the Council of Fifty on 10 March 1844. 5 On that date, Joseph Smith read two letters from Lyman Wight, George Miller, and their associates, who were on a mission in Wisconsin to obtain lumber to build the Nauvoo House and the Nauvoo Temple in Illinois. Lyman Wight complained that the U.S. Indian agent was using his legal powers to prevent the Latter-day Saints from dealing with the Indians who allowed the Mormons to obtain lumber from Indian lands. Elder Wight asked the First Presidency to let his group go with the Indians to the Republic of Texas where they would be free from U.S. laws and could establish a gathering place. 6

Joseph Smith's handwritten journal for 10 March 1844 indicates how a 4:30 P.M. meeting of a few associates at the Nauvoo Mansion to discuss these letters was the starting point for the organization of the Council of Fifty:

Joseph asked., can this council keep what I say. not make it
Public--all held up their [sic] hands. [one blank line]
Copy the constitution of the U.S.
hands of a select committee [one blank line]
No law can be enacted but what every man can be protected from.
The meeting adjourned and reconvened at 7 P.M. in the assembly room above Joseph Smith's store where he had introduced the endowment ceremonies in May 1842, and where he now met "in council" with these men and "enjoined perfect secrecy of them." 7

Joseph Smith may not have planned to organize a special council on this occasion, but in the process of this day's meetings the Prophet made a provisional organization, as indicated by the facts that one of those in attendance, John Phelps, was not among those formally admitted to the Council of Fifty after 10 March 1844 and that Willard Richards remained provisional chairman only three days. 8

The Manuscript History of the Church, the published History of the Church, and the journals of William Clayton and Joseph Fielding all state that the Council of Fifty was organized on 11 March 1844. 9 Because this is the date when Joseph Smith first formally admitted men to membership in the organization that became the Council of Fifty, scholars have most often used 11 March 1844 as the organization date. This practice is appropriate as long as it is recognized why members of the Council of Fifty sometimes also identified the establishment of the Council with the other dates under discussion here.

Brigham Young's handwritten journal and manuscript history state that the organization occurred on 13 March 1844. 10 On this occasion Joseph Smith was chosen the "standing chairman" of the Council of Fifty, replacing the provisional chairman Willard Richards. 11 From this date onward, the President of the Church was always the standing chairman of the Council of Fifty. In view of Brigham Young's emphasis on the primacy of the LDS President, it is natural that he would stress 13 March 1844 as the date of establishment.

Names
Original documents not only assign various dates of establishment but also designate this special organization by a variety of names. The specific names must be known in order to identify the Council of Fifty and to avoid assuming that every oblique reference to "council" applies to the Council of Fifty. In a revelation presented by John Taylor to the Council of Fifty on 27 June 1882, as well as in the minutes of the 10 April 1880 meeting of the Council of Fifty and in the journals of William Clayton, Franklin D. Richards, and Joseph F. Smith, the official, revealed name of the Council of Fifty is "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and[Power[s] thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." 12

This name was too complex to be easily remembered or written, and so this organization had a wide assortment of shorter designations. Sticking closely to the revealed name, Heber C. Kimball and John Henry Smith called it "The Kingdom of God." 13 In a briefer reference to the full name, Joseph Smith, Willard Richards, and Heber C. Kimball mentioned it as "The Kingdom," 14 and Heber C. Kimball sometimes called it simply "The K." 15 After referring to it three times as "Special Council," the Manuscript History of the Church and the published History of the Church henceforth called it "the General Council." 16 George Miller and Franklin D. Richards designated it "Council of the Kingdom," whereas William Clayton expanded that to "the council of the Kingdom of God." 17 Joseph Fielding in 1844 called it the "Grand Council," whereas Lyman Wight in 1848 described it as the "Grand Council of the Kingdom of God," "Grand Council of God," and "Grand Council of Heaven." 18 John D. Lee exuberantly called it "councils of the Gods," whereas Daniel Spencer and Robert T. Burton obliquely listed it as "Council of --." 19 In 1849 men like Joseph Fielding, Horace S. Eldredge, and John D. Lee called it "Legislative Council" but dropped that name in 1850 when Congress created Utah Territory with a civil legislature in which the upper house was called the Legislative Council. 20 John D. Lee also described it as "Municipal department of the Kingdom of God," which Brigham Young, Jr., echoed later as "Church municipal board." 21

The identity of the Council of Fifty with the church was emphasized when Wilford Woodruff, Hosea Stout, and the Manuscript History of the Church called it "Council of Elders" and when Robert T. Burton called it "Council of the Presiding Authorities of the Church." 22 Orson Hyde more clearly stated this Church identity when he addressed a letter to the Council of Fifty on 25 April 1844 as "the Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." 23 Also, the Council of Fifty sometimes carried the name of the Church President: "Joseph Smith's Council," "President Young's Council," or "President Taylor's Council." 24

Because Joseph Smith admitted more than fifty men to his special council in the spring of 1844, most members called it Council of Fifty. Even this name had several variations: Brigham Young referred to it as "the fifty," Shadrach Roundy called it "council of fifties," Charles C. Rich wrote it as "council of ft," Franklin D. Richards sometimes wrote it as "Council of 50--Kingdom," Willard Richards and John D. Lee spelled fifty backwards and rendered it "Council of YTFIF," Joseph F. Smith used the Roman numeral for fifty and wrote "Council of L," George Miller called it "council of fifty princes of the kingdom," whereas Willard Richards, Phinehas Richards, and David Fullmer designated it "The Quorum of 50." 25

One additional name for the Council of Fifty deserves separate consideration. Its members also called the Council of Fifty the "Living Constitution" or "Council of the Living Constitution." 26 Some writers have confused this with the name of the fifteen trustees of the Mercantile and Mechanical association of Nauvoo who were presented in a public meeting on 31 January 1845 as the "Living Constitution" of that association. 27 The two "Living Constitutions" were as distinct as their separate organization dates. Although eight members of this business "Living Constitution," were already members of the Council of Fifty's "Living Constitution," two others were never members of the Council of Fifty, and five other members of this 1845 business "Living Constitution" did not join the Council of Fifty until from one month to (in one case) twenty-two years later. 28

Council members Peter Haws, Erastus Snow, and George Q. Cannon explained why the Council of Fifty had the title "Living Constitution." Joseph Smith asked the Council to write a constitution for the Kingdom of God. After a week of unsuccessful effort, Joseph Smith delivered a revelation to the Council of Fifty that stated: "Ye are my constitution." 29 In this view, the latter-day Kingdom of God transcended the confines of a single, written document, and the Kingdom conducted itself according to the words and acts of inspired men. A revelation to the Council of Fifty on 27 June 1882 reaffirmed that "Ye are my Constitution, and I am your God." 30 The designation of the Council as "Living Constitution" has special significance in a later discussion of the subordination of the Council of Fifty to the Church's First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 31

Purposes
Authors often cite the History of the Church to describe the purposes of the Council Fifty. 32 But the revelation of 27 June 1882 gives a more comprehensive statement of the Council's purpose:

Thus saith the Lord God who rules in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, I have introduced my Kingdom and my Government, even the Kingdom of God, that my servants have heretofore prophesied of and that I taught my disciples to pray for, saying "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," for the protection of my Church, and for the maintenance, promulgation and protection of civil and religious liberty in this nation and throughout the world; and all men of every nation, color and creed shall yet be protected and shielded thereby; and every nation and kndred, and people, and tongue shall yet bow the knee to me, and acknowledge me to be Ahman Christ, to the glory of God the Father. 33

This expansive mission of the Council of Fifty was referred to by members Benjamin F. Johnson and John D. Lee, in often-quoted statements. 34
After a virtual silence in traditional LDS histories about the role of the Council of Fifty in Nauvoo and Utah history, the writers of the 1950s and 1960s concluded with increasing enthusiasm that the Council of Fifty was actually the dynamic agent of Mormon history from 1844 to the 1880s. In 1958 James R. Clark stated that "the Council of Fifty or General Council was the policy-making body for the civil government of Utah from 1848 to 1870, if not later." 35 Then Jan Shipps observed in 1965 that "the Council of Fifty was as important, if not more so, in building the temporal Kingdom than the Council of the Twelve Apostels." 36 And in 1967 Klaus J. Hansen concluded that "without the existence and activities of the Council of Fifty, which contributed significantly to the building of the Rocky Mountain kingdom, Mormonism might well have failed to enjoy its present stature and prestige within the framework of accepted American religious values and persuasions." 37 Those conclusions can no longer be supported now that current research demonstrates that the Council of Fifty was most often not functioning and was only a symbolic formality when it was functioning.