5 The Kirtland Experience: Diverse Perceptions of the Sacral Kingdom, 1836–1837

Following the April dedication of the Kirtland Temple, Joseph Smith began an important shift in emphasis and priority that came to have far-reaching effects. Some accepted the changes and their implications as proper, indeed as a necessary part of building a kingdom of God on earth under prophetic direction. Others, feeling that the Prophet’s actions were beyond the proper scope of religious leadership, rejected the developments. Had all gone well and uniform prosperity resulted, perhaps Smith would have had few critics. But when his intervention appeared to multiply the difficulties, some already uncomfortable with the directions rebelled and a period of unparalleled dissension and division resulted.

For several years the needs of the Missouri Zion and the requirements of building and preparing for the Kirtland Temple had received top priority from Joseph Smith. Both demanded large commitments of energy and means. By the spring of 1836, with the dedication of the temple and the decision not to move to Missouri for the present, resources could be shifted to other concerns. It was time to build up the kingdom of God in Kirtland. Perhaps not coincidentally, Smith’s important Kirtland diary ended with the ^[224] temple emphasis, and without the diary the details of Smith’s decision are not known. The emphasis, however, is clear. In the words of his history, he spent most of his time for some months “particularly in devising ways and means to build up Kirtland.”¹

The change was in emphasis, not in conception. As early as 1833 Brigham Young had been exposed to the ideal of a theocratic kingdom of God on earth distinct from the kingdoms of this world, and the Mormon roots of the idea can be found even earlier.² A primary purpose of the Mormon gathering was to place like-minded Saints in communities where they could, under priesthood direction, live a life apart and build God’s Zion on earth. What was new in 1836 was that circumstance permitted Smith for the first time to begin implementing this “temporal” program on an enlarged scale, combining his accepted ecclesiastical role with the practical, physical building of a community of Saints.³

Smith’s proposed kingdom was rooted in history and theology. Reacting against the post-Revolutionary disorder, in the eyes of one scholar, Smith intended to change society from “a confused, secularized, anarchic chaos where freedom had deteriorated to mere license, into a Christian kingdom . . . ruled by God’s restored priesthood.” He intended to sacralize American life with towns, organizations, governments all organized along Christian lines.⁴ Another historian has argued that the Mormon kingdom was indeed a quest for refuge from a tumultuous world, and therefore many, like Young, found it attractive.⁵ In addition, theology was clearly basic. Smith taught that a gathered community of Saints under priesthood direction was the divinely approved way to improve man, ^[225] overcome the world, and prepare a people for the return of Christ. Furthermore, religion could fulfill its proper role only if it included all aspects of human thought and action under its purview.⁶ The Mormon kingdom was to be “an earthly kingdom unto God,” modeled less after the Puritan City on a Hill than after the biblical pattern of ancient Israel. Only God and man together, guided by revelation through a prophet whose counsel touched on all aspects of life, could build a society of righteous. It was to be a sacral kingdom with every labor given sacred meaning by its priesthood direction and its ultimate connection with God’s kingdom. If the social changes help explain the attractiveness the ideal held initially, only the theology can explain all of its driving force. In spite of opposition and difficulties, even if the endeavor failed, the creation of a Zion on earth was required and had to be attempted.

With the Children of Israel as a model, it was easy for Young, and many others, to see it as appropriate that a prophet labor to improve the temporal context and existence of man—even that the merging of the temporal and the spiritual under the authority of the priesthood was the essential pattern for building the kingdom of God on earth. Not all of Smith’s religious followers agreed. Imbued with what Young would call sectarian notions about the proscribed role of religion in American life, some thought a prophet had no business in temporal matters. For them, Smith’s efforts to begin implementation of things that before had been only implicit raised questions—about Smith’s temporal skills, about the propriety of such involvement in the first place, about ^[226] the loss of individual freedom an expanded prophetic hand implied.

The extent of ecclesiastical involvement in Kirtland economic decisions and institutions increased considerably in 1836–1837, beginning a pattern that was eventually further developed by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and implemented on a larger scale by Young and the Twelve in the Great Basin. Overall, however, the Kirtland effort was abortive. Instead of harmony in a new society of Saints, the battle lines were drawn over issues fundamental to Smith’s conception of Mormonism.⁷ At issue were concepts central to the sacral perspective. What is the role of a prophet? Can the temporal be sacred? Does God care about economic matters in the same way he does about religious? Answers to such questions—as well as the diverse reactions to Kirtland developments—reflected deep-seated differences in how men viewed the world. For Brigham Young and the Twelve, not all of whom accepted the kingdom ideal, this battleground was of great importance, helping to shape the nature of future Mormon leadership.

In the fall of 1836 Brigham Young and Heber Kimball returned to a Kirtland markedly different than the one they had left. In place of poverty and want, they found a vigorous village full of animation and activity where “the noise and bustle of teams with lumber, brick, stone, lime or merchandise, were heard from the early dawn of morning till the gray twilight of evening.” With work for the laborer, a ready market for the farmer, and merchandise easily available, “every countenance was lit up with a smile.” Everywhere they found “a firm confidence that our days ^[227] of pinching adversity had passed by, that the set time of the Lord to favor Zion had come.”⁸

Kirtland was part of an economic boom that affected other towns in the region, a boom fired by increasing population and attendant optimism.⁹ Nearby Painesville, Ohio, for example, experienced similar growth and vigorous economic activity at this time.¹⁰ It seems likely, also, that for Kirtland the completion of the temple in April, coincident with favorable economic circumstances that permitted the application of scarce resources to other projects, helped fuel new economic activity.¹¹

A recent careful analysis of the Kirtland economy indicates that most of the upswing can be explained by the pressures of increasing population. New arrivals increased the demand for limited lands, forcing prices up, and a growing population also spurred mercantile activity and construction.¹² If not too rapid, prosperity based on such growth should have been healthy and well-founded, and no doubt Joseph Smith and his associates initially welcomed it.

Nonetheless, the unexpected suddenness of the prosperity created immediate problems. After years of poverty, many were ill-equipped to handle sudden wealth in harmony with their religious concerns. Some soon placed undue emphasis on the material things, neglecting religious duties and upsetting priorities. Once the boom was in motion a spirit of speculation helped further fuel it and brought some to seek gain even at the expense of their neighbors. Men suddenly divorced from the discipline of poverty and estranged from their religious moorings were later, in less happy times, easy prey for disillusionment. ^[228]

This, at any rate, is how Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, and others came to understand the relationship of the Kirtland economic boom to the serious problems that followed. Most likely some of these conclusions only matured later, after pondering the lessons of defeat. But the sparse contemporary record supports the idea that early, soon after their return from the East, they came to see the dangers in the new prosperity. The suddenness of the change, for one thing, must have caused them to reflect. The prosperity that had been promised Zion was to be the result of a long process as men learned to work in unity—not an instant gratification of material desires. Likely, craftsmen like Kimball and Young, bred with a puritan emphasis on producing wealth, had misgivings about a prosperity that seemed unearned. Common sense cautioned them and perhaps suggested to them that the prosperity could not be sustained. The attitudes they encountered in some of their newly prosperous co-religionists could only have reinforced initial concerns.

All of the reminiscent accounts—and with some contemporary support—emphasize the extent and the danger of the spirit of speculation that accompanied the economic boom. According to Heber C. Kimball, dictating less than three years later,

On our arrival we were much grieved to see the spirit of speculation that was prevailing in the church to an extensive degree—trade and traffic seemed to engross the time and attention of those saints. . . . some men who when I left could hardly get meat to cut and were considered poor I found on my arrival to be supposed men of wealth. In fact everything in the place seemed to be moving in great prosperity and all seemed engaged to become rich.^{13 [229]}

With benefit of hindsight, Elder Kimball stressed that “supposed . . . wealth” and the “appearance of prosperity” had convinced many that “the time had arrived for the Lord to enrich [the Saints] with the treasures of the earth,” a belief, thought Kimball, that “stimulated them to great exertions.” Similarly, nineteenth-century official Mormon history characterized this as a time when “the spirit of speculation in lands and in property of all kinds, which was so prevalent throughout the whole nation, was taking deep root.” A contemporary critic wrote of those in Kirtland “guilty of wild speculation and visionary dreams of wealth and grandeur, as if gold and silver were their gods, and houses, farms and merchandize their only bliss or their passport ot it.”¹⁴

As already noted, recent investigation suggests that population growth accounts for most of the average rise in Kirtland land prices, and that speculation played but a small role. Cold economic analysis of average prices, however, cannot weigh the impact of a spirit (or psychology) of speculation on individual lives or how it may have affected individual transactions. Early in 1836 the nearby Painesville Telegraph in an article entitled “Real Estate Speculation” mentioned that a particular piece of local property sold for $10,000 five weeks before and for $20,000 a month later while the “present proprietor has refused $25,000” for it.¹⁵ While the article noted increasing population and generally flourishing business and economic development, “speculation” may be a better explanation of this example than those basic causes. Similarly, when Heber Kimball talked about men who were poor suddenly becoming “supposed men of wealth,” when he noted that ^[230] Kirtland lots worth “to our astonishment” from $500 to $1500 on his return, he no doubt had specific examples in mind where the “spirit of speculation” seemed a more satisfactory explanation than generally rising population.¹⁶

Economic changes, and perhaps even more importantly, attendant changes in the expectations and activities of some of the Saints, apparently led some of the previously impoverished Kirtland Mormons into a round of “dealings”; acquisition, often on credit, had risen to become a concern rivaling those of serving or sharing—all certainly elements of a speculative fervor.¹⁷ As Warren Cowdery noted a few months later, changing economic prospects affected the way many thought and acted. “With the consciousness of having suddenly and without much effort enhanced the amount of his worldly fortune,” one affected by prosperity went into debt to get even more after concluding that he “must clothe himself and family according to his [new] circumstances & present prospects.” This psychology of speculation apparently led some Mormons, “too elated with our growing numbers and future prospect of complete ascendance in this town,” to abandon cautious dignity in their relations with non-Mormons in Kirtland and assume an air of haughty superiority.¹⁸

“Prosperity” also contributed to other difficulties. The Mormon gathering attracted men of varied class, background, and habit. The Savior’s parable of casting a net into the sea and drawing every kind into the kingdom was “never more fully verified than in the gathering of the Church in Kirtland,” thought Warren Cowdery.¹⁹ Editor Cowdery described three classes of people that ^[231] he observed in Kirtland, including not only those “filled with love and good will to their brethren” but also some who expected “to live on the labor or alms of . . . their brethren” and even complained if they were not supported as well as the “honest, confiding, unsuspecting souls” who often yielded to the schemes and entreaties of the avaricious. Too often in Kirtland, he lamented, the widow and fatherless have been deceived, the “innocent and unsuspecting . . . made the dupes of the wily and the artful.”²⁰ Cowdery warned newcomers to hold on to their means and beware of those who came with schemes and promises, for not all were Saints in very deed.

In spite of misgivings he might have felt when he witnessed the changes in Kirtland that fall, Brigham Young must have been pleased to have his skills in demand at good wages. With the temple completed, this winter he could build up the kingdom by plying his trade among brethren in support of his family. In January, Oliver Cowdery wrote about “streets continually thronged with teams loaded with wood, materials for building.” Many new buildings had been completed with more under contract. New houses went up every day, noted Willard Richards to his sister, and “Carpenters and joiners . . . command any price.”²¹ No doubt Willard Richards, rooming with his cousin Brigham, observed firsthand the demand for the skilled carpenter and joiner Brigham Young. Oliver Cowdery had promised the Twelve in 1835 that if they put their ministry first, they would prosper. Young had done so and now came a season of prosperity. Years later he delighted in telling how he had come to Kirtland with almost nothing and yet, ^[232] through the blessings of the Lord, left behind property worth $5,000 when he fled.²²

The Kirtland economy was viable and, given stable conditions, had a reasonable prospect for successful development. In itself, the Kirtland prosperity was not a speculative bubble ready to burst,²³ nor was the economy hopelessly mismanaged by Smith and his associates. Nonetheless, there were several serious problems with the Mormon economy in Kirtland, among them a problem of cash flow or liquid capital. Much of the wealth of Mormon Kirtland was tied up in real estate—in the temple and individual land holdings and improvements. Without access to some of those assets, there simply was not enough capital to sustain economic growth. Partly for this reason Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon led the movement in the fall of 1836 to establish a bank. The Mormons had the need for a bank, and, it would seem, population and resources enough to sustain one if favorable circumstances continued.²⁴ Optimistic, Smith and the Presidency prepared articles of agreement in November and in January 1837, the Kirtland Safety Society, under a revised constitution, issued its first notes. In addition to presiding over the Church as “prophets, seers, and revelators,” the Presidency now presided also over the bank.²⁵

By the winter of 1836–1837, many in Kirtland felt deep concern about the Saints’ involvement in temporal affairs. No doubt some saw the difficulties as a demonstration of the basic futility of trying to mix religion and business, a proof of Smith’s error. Although he had promoted development, the Prophet ^[233] was also displeased by the turn of events. While he would not divorce the temporal and the spiritual, as his critics preferred, he would not have agreed that material goals could be pursued at the expense of the spiritual or religious. He wanted religious goals and principles to control the temporal, not the other way around. Men of both views issued warnings: repent or Kirtland will be scourged.

How early these concerns were voiced, or how often, cannot be determined. There are almost no extensive reports of sermons during this period and few diaries.²⁶ Wilford Woodruff recorded one important occasion in the fall of 1836, soon after he arrived in Kirtland, when “the God of Israel sharply reproved this stake of Zion (Kirtland) through the Prophets & Apostles for all our sins & backslidings.” During this Sabbath meeting in the temple, the “Prophets & Apostles”—no doubt Presidents Smith and Rigdon and several of the Twelve—gave the Kirtland Saints “a timely warning that we may escape the Judgments of God that otherwise will fall upon us.” To emphasize the seriousness of the warning, they likened the situation of Kirtland to that of Zion’s Camp when it failed to heed Joseph and eventually felt the chastening hand of the Almighty.²⁷ A month later Woodruff noted “a lecture from President David Whitmer” to the Seventies. Whitmer

warned us to humble ourselves before God lest his hand rest upon us in anger for our pride & many sins that we were running into in our days of prosperity as the ancient Nephites did & it does now appear evident that a scourge awates this stake of Zion even Kirtland if there is not great repentance immediately. ^[234]

Whitmer was clearly not alone in his fears for “almost every countenance indicates the above expectation esspecially the heads of the Church.” Less than a week later Elder Pratt also warned the Saints to humble themselves, to leave their sins, and to care for the poor among them lest judgment overtook them.²⁸

During the winter intense opposition against Joseph Smith developed among influential Kirtland elders. This began the period Young later characterized as “a crisis when earth and hell seemed in league to overthrow the Prophet and Church of God. The knees of some of the strongest men in the Church faltered.” Kimball spoke of spending many hours of personal sorrow, heartsick at the turn of affairs and of actual danger in rising to Joseph’s defense.²⁹ Contemporary evidence of the increasing rebellion includes a February effort to depose Joseph Smith, and Wilford Woodruff’s lament in April that Joseph’s “life was so beset & sought for by wicked and ungodly men” that he had to flee for a few days and could not perform Woodruff’s marriage. In May, according to a minute book, there was thought to be “a company of men to put down President Joseph Smith Jr.”³⁰

In the past, this dissension has generally been seen as a function of economic downturn and financial collapse. One recent study argues that such supposed causes alone cannot explain the difficulties, and that something more was clearly going on. Now that more of the important events in the Kirtland apostasy can be dated, this becomes even more certain: much of the rebellion preceded economic adversity.³¹ The causes for dissent were many and complex, but clearly, with such widespread and intense feelings ^[235] not triggered by any particular shared difficulty, some basic issues had to be involved. Perhaps some were disillusioned by the early difficulties of the bank soon after notes were issued in January. It seems likely that others murmured against Joseph because instead of condoning their temporal involvements he called them sharply to repentance, a course he understood was “not calculated to gain the good will of all, but rather the ill will of many.”³² At least two of the Twelve were deeply involved in personal business ventures to the injury of their calling. If Smith, who was also engaged in merchandising, had chastised those men—men already sensitive about their public station—their reaction would not have been meek. Whatever the specific concern, Brigham Young came to believe that there was at least one more basic cause: prosperity and the unbridled pursuit of material things had so dulled the spiritual sensitivities of the Saints that many, including some of the leaders, no longer knew by the spirit that Joseph was a prophet of God. Repeated admonitions, though they failed, had been designed to bring the wayward back to God before that occurred.³³

For whatever reasons men lost confidence in Joseph as a prophetic leader, confidence in Smith was clearly a central issue. Men were concerned about his leadership and the directions he was taking the Church. Increasingly, it appears, some of the Prophet’s actions failed to meet with the expectations or desires of an important segment of Mormon Kirtland. One of the reasons, related to the concept of continuous revelation, was that Kirtland was a place of continuous change. ^[236]

Smith’s theology provided for change. He taught that new truth would be unfolded “line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.”³⁴ Some, initially comfortable with Mormon doctrine and practice and with the Prophet’s actions, found innovations unacceptable. This was certainly true of the April change in emphasis to build Kirtland temporally. Smith, and the new revelations he presented, challenged the Saints continually to move aside tradition and old understandings to make way for new. This process involved tensions and difficulties, as Joseph well understood. He told the Kirtland Saints in April 1837 that they were not yet ready for more revelation, for “what God commanded, one half of the Church would condemn.”³⁵ On another occasion he told Young privately that if he revealed more of what the Lord had revealed to him, “there is not a man or a woman that would stay with me.”³⁶ Nonetheless, Smith thought it his responsibility to move in new directions even if many Mormons were not prepared to accept the changes. No doubt some of the Kirtland tensions and some of the lack of confidence in Joseph in Kirtland stemmed from his pushing the Saints step by step toward, as he saw it, additional truth.³⁷

While little talked about, plural marriage was clearly one of the innovations that contributed to Kirtland difficulties. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had apparently learned the doctrinal justification for the practice in 1831, probably in connection with translating portions of Genesis describing plural marriage among the ancient patriarchs. Soon afterwards a trusted few learned of the concept obliquely, although it apparently was never ^[237] officially taught in Kirtland, even privately. At some point during the Kirtland years Joseph Smith took a plural wife and it is probable that Oliver Cowdery did also. Although all of this was kept private, known at most to only a few, rumors and charges surfaced, adding to the underlying tensions that fed the 1837 problems.³⁸ Brigham Young and Heber Kimball both, it appears, were aware of the charges but knew nothing of the practice or the doctrine itself at that time. Presumably they reacted to the rumors and murmuring as Ebenezer Robinson said he did. Of those in the spring of 1837 who objected “to the course being pursued by brother Joseph Smith,” Robinson

asked no particulars with regard to the matter, thinking that all would be reconciled in a short time. . . . One thing we felt sure of; the gospel was true, and that truth and righteousness would ultimately prevail. . . . therefore [we] looked upon all who opposed or who did not agree with Joseph Smith and the church, as weak in the faith, or dissenters from the faith.³⁹

Among Kirtland dissidents at least Oliver Cowdery and Lyman Johnson knew directly about plural marriage.

Innovation, then, was one of the ingredients of the 1837 difficulties. The Kirtland years were years of growth with elaboration of doctrine and of ecclesiastical structures. The temple provided a new dimension with opportunities for new experience and understanding. Many welcomed it, but presumably some who had been baptized, as they thought, into a society of restored biblical Christianity, did not welcome the increasing doctrinal and organizational complexity and would have returned to the simpler days of 1830 or 1831 when the Church was a small society ^[238] of family and friends. Others, while not unalterably opposed to development, resisted the particular directions of change.

Concerns about innovation were related to the sacral perspective central to Young’s interpretation of the world. For him, the gospel included all truth, only a small part of which man yet comprehended. As God revealed additional truths, man should seek understanding, and he should adjust to new truth. Another central thread that bound together many of those in opposition to Smith was also directly related to the sacral perspective: concern with or opposition to the prophet’s temporal involvements. There was, as we have noted, a widespread belief that a prophet should not be involved in the affairs of the world. Many also shared an assessment that whether or not it was appropriate, Joseph Smith was not able enough in those affairs to counsel them.

Brigham Young later commented on both of these. When temporal matters were talked of, many were ready to decide at once, he said, that they knew more then Joseph about such things, “and they did so decide.” Some of the leading elders of the Church, he insisted, shared this feeling. These were experienced and talented men who said they honestly believed “that Joseph Smith did not understand anything about temporal matters” although they believed that “he understood spiritual things—that he understood the Spirit of the Lord, and how to build up a spiritual kingdom among men.”⁴⁰

Perhaps more basic was the concern that skilled or not, successful or not, Joseph Smith and the priesthood should not be ^[239] so involved. Joseph C. Brewster, in some ways a dissenter of another stripe, reflected on this issue the prevailing opinion of Smith’s critics when he said that the Lord did not intend his kingdom to be a temporal one, that “the temporal work Joseph tried” was not of God.⁴¹ In February 1837 Universalist editor S. A. Davis visited Kirtland. While no doubt partly reacting to the excessive enthusiasm for temporal things which both sides of the Kirtland debate denounced, he also noted the Mormon idea of a tangible, physical kingdom to be established on earth:

they seem to have too much worldly wisdom connected with their religion—too great a desire for the perishable riches of this world—holding out the idea that the kingdom of Christ is to be composed of “real estate, herds, flocks, silver, gold,” &c. as well as of human things.

Brigham Young would have agreed with the proposition that the kingdom was more than a spiritual or otherworldly mystery; Warren A. Cowdery, in editorial comments on Davis’s report, disassociated himself not only from the “undue attachment in some of the saints to amass wealth and heap up perishable treasures,” but from the whole concept of a temporal kingdom.⁴² Cowdery was among those who, as Young later explained, thought that Joseph Smith’s duty embraced spiritual things alone, “and that the people should be left to attend to their temporal affairs, without any interference whatever from Prophets or Apostles.”⁴³

At first some “in authority” debated the Prophet about this in private councils, but eventually this basic issue became a public question, “so public that it was in the mouth of almost everyone.” Finally Young felt moved to publicly challenge those who held such a narrow view of the role of God and his servants. ^[240]

I said, “Ye Elders of Israel, Father Smith is present, the Prophet is present, and here are his counsellors, there are also High Priests and Elders of Israel, now, will some of you draw the line between the spiritual and the temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?” Not one of them could do it.

He thought it ludicrous for man to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, “and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things.” For Brigham and others in harmony with Smith’s efforts, “Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.”⁴⁴

At issue was more than the bank, of course, and more than the temporal prosperity of Kirtland. At issue was the shape of the Mormon kingdom, the role of Mormon leaders, and the extent to which the Saints would submit to prophetic direction or control in their lives. Many dissenters opposed the increasingly theocratic and all-encompassing nature of the kingdom, preferring instead the more traditional and circumscribed role of religion in daily life that they had known in American Protestantism. Those comfortable with Kirtland developments welcomed “a more closed society based on higher law, where the Saints were of one mind and one heart, ready to do battle against the ungodly.”⁴⁵

In addition to the rather late temporal involvements of church leaders in Kirtland, the Kirtland years also saw basic leadership changes that reinforced the concerns of those at odds over the temporal issues. Kirtland Saints saw the first First Presidency formed in 1832, the first high council in 1834, the first Quorum of the Twelve and the first Seventy in 1835. Increasing concentration of authority accompanied this elaboration of ^[241] priesthood structure, raising for some new issues of agency and authority. By 1837 the major dissenters seem united in lamenting “the degree of aggrandisement implicit in the developing kingdom, the concentration of power, the seeming lack of restraint upon a man they believed claimed infallibility and would heed no criticism.”⁴⁶

How much trust should be placed in leaders, however much inspired, who are also human? This was, perhaps, the central question. Though not referring explicitly to Joseph Smith, it is no doubt this issue that Warren A. Cowdery called to the attention of the Saints in his July 1837 editorial: “If we give all our privileges to one man, we virtually give him our money and our liberties, and make him a monarch, absolute and despotic, and ourselves abject slaves.” Those who thus barter away their liberties are unworthy of them, Cowdery continued. He was certain that

whenever a people have unlimited confidence in a civil or ecclesiastical ruler or rulers, who are but men like themselves, and begin to think they can do no wrong, they increase their tyrany, and oppression, and establish a principle that man, poor frail lump of mortality like themselves, is infallible. Who does not see a principle of popery and religious tyrany in such an order of things?

No freeman worthy of the name, Editor Cowdery concluded, would tamely surrender his independent rights as a citizen. Intelligent people must ever be alert against encroachments upon their liberties, “whether those encroachments are from the civil or ecclesiastical power.”⁴⁷

Clearly one’s conception of the proper role of a prophet, and of the nature of the Church and society of Saints, profoundly ^[242] influenced his reactions to the Kirtland developments.⁴⁸ If some rebelled almost instinctively at the growing power or temporal involvements of religious leaders, others welcomed both. Those committed to a gathered community of Saints, those comfortable with the idea of a theocratic society and an identity not only with biblical Christianity but also with ancient Israel, reacted differently to the Prophet’s involvements and to the adversity and reversals associated with them than those who were not.

Wilford Woodruff was one who perceived the developing pattern, understood somewhat its implications, and saw in it all the return of an ancient system. The same month Warren Cowdery wrote against “popery,” Woodruff found it interesting to contemplate “the day that is now at hand & hath already begun in fulfillment of ancient prophecy,” the day that would see the Church of Christ brought out of the wilderness and Israel once again established on chosen lands “by a Theocratical government in fulfillment of the covenants God made with Abram Isaac & Jacob.”⁴⁹ In harmony with these goals, he did not see Joseph Smith as a religious autocrat dabbling with temporal affairs, but “as a father . . . to all Israel.” Woodruff rightly perceived that non-Mormons and others not of the same mind could neither understand or appreciate the Prophet’s “principle, his spirit, his wisdom, virtue phylanthropy, nor his calling.” Woodruff, Kimball, and Young, however, had caught a vision of Smith’s mission that did not limit him only to so-called religious themes. Wrote Woodruff,

The Prophets and Apostles & all inspired men of God in every age of theocratical government have looked, spake, & written respecting this generation with feelings of the deepest ^[243] interest. In 1830 the stone began to roll. . . . It will continue to be propeled by the arm of JEHOVAH untill the Kingdom fills the whole earth & Israel gatherd. Babylone falls & Christ reigns.⁵⁰

This was not to be simply another age of theocratic government, they thought, but the age in which would be re-established the full ancient pattern—a gathered people, a literal kingdom—culminating in the personal reign of Christ.

As with others in Kirtland in 1837, events forced Brigham Young to face these basic issues of prophetic leadership and find personal answers to the questions raised. From his perspective, the premise that the temporal and the spiritual could be separated only in an artificial way seemed self-evident. From this time forward he taught that temporal acts have spiritual implications, that spiritual successes are not independent of a temporal framework.

He later explained his personal answer to the other questions raised by the Kirtland storm. Like others, Young found himself concerned about Joseph’s leadership, “not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook.” Much as others had complained of Joseph’s temporal skills, a feeling briefly came over him that “Joseph was not right in his financial management.” His defense was to dismiss this lack of confidence quickly:

It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow . . . until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty.^{51 [244]}

In his mind he distinguished between Joseph as a man and the Prophet as the mouthpiece for the Almighty, but he intended to maintain full confidence in both.

Brigham Young further explained his feelings. He knew that Joseph could err, that his every temporal act was not inspired. But he had a firm conviction that Smith’s foibles were between him and God.

Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. . . . It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. . . . He was called of God; . . . and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine.⁵²

For Young the question was not whether Joseph Smith erred in this or that act, but was he a prophet of God and were his doctrines true?⁵³ Of that he had no doubt. Though imperfect, he insisted that Joseph was superior to all his critics and held the keys of salvation over them. “Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever had embraced what is called ‘Mormonism.’”⁵⁴ Because of his conviction that God did oversee His people and His kingdom and that Joseph was His mouthpiece, Brigham Young accepted reversals and difficulties with the belief that in all there was ultimately meaning and purpose.

Brigham Young was patient with Smith’s problems for other reasons, as well. Even if his management of Kirtland was flawed, Brigham Young felt that many of the difficulties could be laid at the feet of the Saints. Young charged many of the complainers with hypocritically multiplying for Joseph the very problems they ^[245] then piously denounced. On several occasions Young explained in detail the pressures on Smith to “sell” the Saints on credit the merchandise he had arranged for on short term, to be paid for when sold, and then their unwillingness and outright refusal to pay him.

When he had let many of the brethren and sisters have goods on trust, he could not meet his liabilities, and then they would turn round and say, “What is the matter brother Joseph, why don’t you pay your debts?” “It is quite a curiosity that you don’t pay your debts; you must be a bad financier; you don’t know how to handle the things of the world.”⁵⁵

Those very critics would pay a non-Mormon merchant, said Young, but from the Prophet they thought it should all be free. “Joseph was a first-rate fellow with them all the time, provided he never would ask them to pay him.”⁵⁶

It was Brigham Young’s faith that Kirtland would have prospered had the Saints obeyed. The unwillingness of the Saints to trust their means to the Church under his direction, concluded Young, is what “brought proverty and distress upon the whole people.” Young believed that if the people had confidently supported Joseph, “wealth would have been poured into the laps of this people, to overflowing.” How? If the Saints had “gone forth with their whole heart, mind and strength,” as the Prophet directed, God would have blessed them, “they having done the best they could. I believe that, as much as I know that the sun shines.”⁵⁷

These, then, were the main issues that divided men and defined the battle lines in Kirtland in 1837: Joseph’s fallibility, the nature and scope of prophetic power and leadership, the ^[246] propriety of ecclesiastical involvements in temporal affairs, innovations in doctrine, and the nature of the gathered community of Saints. With these came a giant storm of innuendo, misunderstanding, mistrust, charges, and counter charges until many who later became firmly committed to the Prophet’s approach to these basic questions were temporarily swept along. A brief passage in the History of the Church represents what the storm looked like from Smith’s perspective:

evil surmisings, fault finding, disunion, dissension, and apostasy followed in quick succession, and it seemed as though all the powers of earth and hell were combining their influence in an especial manner to overthrow the Church at once, and make a final end.⁵⁸

For Young the explanation for dissent was simple: those who murmured had lost faith. Similarly, he saw the central issue as simply a question of whether or not the Church would submit to be governed by its head. Consequently, his exhortation to the Kirtland Saints was simple and direct: he warned the people not to murmur “against Moses (or) Joseph or the heads of the Church.”⁵⁹ This was in early January 1837. Within a month some influential elders would be in open rebellion. Like the Children of Israel anciently, thought Young, the modern Saints also were slow to hearken and quick to grumble. Perhaps it was about this time that Smith gave an even more explicit warning. As his mother later remembered, he urged the brethren to beware,

for I tell you in the name of the Lord, that there is an evil in this congregation, which, if not repented of, will result in setting many of you . . . against me, that you will have a desire to take my life: and you even would do it, if God should permit the deed.^{60 [247]}

When in February Brigham Young learned of both a plot against the Prophet’s life and a scheme to depose him, he stepped boldly forward and took the lead in actively defending Joseph against his enemies. A brief review of January developments with the Kirtland bank provides the context.

After great effort and at great expense, Oliver Cowdery had procured in the fall of 1836 the plates for printing bank notes for the Kirtland Safety Society, the new Mormon bank. At the same time Orson Hyde failed to obtain from the Ohio State Legislature the required charter. Although the Mormons were certain the denial was but another example of religious prejudice, in reality they had applied at a time when hard money Democrats controlled the legislature and approved only one charter in all of 1835 and 1836.⁶¹ Although the liabilities were great, there were other unchartered or unauthorized banks during this period and some reason to think it could succeed. With a pressing need and many resources already invested in the venture, Smith determined, probably with the aid of faulty non-Mormon legal advice, to plunge ahead.⁶² On 6 January 1837 officers of the bank gathered to witness the first issue of money and to hear the Prophet’s assurances that he had received the Word of the Lord about the bank. Significantly, in the words of Woodruff, he did not tell them at that time what the Lord said, “but remarked that if we would give heed to the commandments the Lord had given this morning all would be well.” Caught up in the spirit of the occasion, Woodruff ended his diary notation with a prayer: ^[248]

May the Lord bless Brother Joseph with all the Saints & support the above named institution & Protect it so that every weapen formed against it may be broaken & come to nought while the Kirtland Safety Society shall become the greatest of all institutions on EARTH.⁶³

For the Kirtland Safety Society to succeed without a charter, church members had to be willing to accept the notes while keeping many from circulating in outside hands. Perhaps most importantly, they had to personally risk large fines for possession or passing unauthorized bank notes if an 1816 law were strictly interpreted and applied. Within two weeks of the first issue of notes nearby newspapers reminded Mormons and others of the probable penalty, no doubt weakening the resolve of many to deal in the paper.⁶⁴ Not many days later the bank suspended specie redemption of its notes after so many were presented that they threatened to drain the bank of its reserves.⁶⁵

Had the Saints’ failure to sustain the paper already lost them the promise Wilford Woodruff had so optimistically recorded only three weeks before? The Kirtland Safety Society did not die in January. It remained technically alive for most of the year and Joseph Smith would yet expend energy and resources for many weeks in his personal effort to save it. But from this time forward, keeping the bank’s doors open and its notes circulating even at large discount was a constant struggle, which was compounded in the spring with the general banking public, and in the summer by the alleged dishonesty of some of its officers.

Apparently the decision of the Kirtland Safety Society on 21 January to suspend specie redemption rekindled anti-Mormon passions that for months had been dormant. Woodruff reported on ^[249] 24 January the threats of a mob “to visit us that night & demolish our Bank & take our property.” Though the mob did not appear, Woodruff saw meaning in the threat: “the wrath of our enemies appears to be kindled against us this in part is the scourge that hath awated us.” The following Sunday, Smith told the Saints that it was not yet too late to redeem the Lord’s promises: he “blessed us in the name of the Lord & said if we would be faithful we should rise above our imbarresments & be delivered from the hands of our enemies.”⁶⁶

Presidents Smith and Rigdon called an important meeting for the following Tuesday where they discussed with those present “the temporal business” of the Church. Apparently they still had some hope of a state charter and had renewed their petition. In the meantime the Presidency announced that they had purchased a chartered bank in Monroe, Michigan, with the hope that if “all lent a hand in esstablishing it that it might be beneficial to us in forwarding the building of the temporal Kingdom.”⁶⁷ Soon after the meeting Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery left Kirtland to conduct business in Monroe.

During the absence of the Presidency, a number of the remaining elders attempted to depose Joseph Smith and appoint David Whitmer in his stead.⁶⁸ To determine how best to proceed, dissenters called a council for the upper room of the temple. Most of those present were dissatisfied with Joseph, but Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, the two senior members of the Twelve residing in Kirtland, and John Smith, were also there. Perhaps they had heard of the plan and attended only to oppose it. ^[250] No doubt Young went “pretty well charged with plenty of powder and ball” until he felt “like a thousand lions,” as he described his emotions on another occasion.⁶⁹ After listening to the murmurings of rebellion against the Prophet, Young rose up, and in a

plain and forcible manner, told them that Joseph was a Prophet, and I knew it, and that they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased; they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God, they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell.⁷⁰

Young’s firm opposition to their measures enraged several, among them the self-styled pugilist Jacob Bump, with whom Young had earlier labored in finishing the temple interior. Physically restrained from attacking Brigham, Bump twisted and shouted, “How can I keep my hands off that man?” Young, no less angered, retorted that Bump could lay them on if it gave him any relief. The meeting broke up with the dissenters unable to unite in their opposition to Smith.⁷¹

Immediately after this incident, Joseph Smith returned to Kirtland. That he returned safely may have been due to Young’s quick action in the face of an alleged plot to ambush him. Unable to depose the Prophet, had the dissenters determined on violence? Was the threat from anti-Mormons? In his brief account, Young said only that the threat was real and that, as a precaution, he and William Smith borrowed a horse and buggy and met Joseph’s stage. William took Joseph’s place in the stage and Joseph finished his trip in the buggy, probably by another route.⁷²

On the morning of 19 February, Woodruff, Young, and others gathered in the temple and heard the Prophet address the Saints ^[251] “in the power of God.” Though he had been gone less than half as long as Moses on the mount, noted Woodruff in his diary,

many were stired up in their hearts & some were against him as the Israelites were against Moses but when he arose in the power of God in their midst, as Moses did anciently, they were put to silence for the complainers saw that they stood in the power of a Prophet, O how weak is man.

Joseph told the assembly, according to Woodruff’s later account,

I am still the President, Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Leader of the church of Jesus Christ. God, and no man, has appointed and placed me in this position, and no man or set of men have power to remove me or appoint another in my stead.⁷³

In Woodruff’s view, Joseph had at first been depressed as he addressed the Saints, but then the Spirit rested upon him—the same Spirit that bore testimony to his listeners that what he said was true—and his spirits recovered.

Although the dissenters may have been temporarily silenced, Smith’s personal burdens still weighed heavy. Especially was he concerned about temporal arrangements: debts, the bank, business dealings that he had initiated to help promote Kirtland. In all of this Brigham Young, it appears, was involved. Looking back years later he affirmed that he had been conversant “with every circumstance that transpired, pertaining to temporal matters, from the first day of my acquaintance with Joseph Smith,” and he certainly had opportunity to be so informed here. When Smith was in the East on business the August previous, Young had spent several days with him and throughout the fall and winter Young had assisted where he could.

No doubt to seek additional resources in the East and also to follow up on business arrangements initiated the summer before, ^[252] Joseph Smith sent Brigham Young and Willard Richards in March on a special business mission. Richards, who had been ill, received a special blessing for health along with a setting apart for his mission before the 14 March 1837 departure. Before Young returned to Kirtland in late May, he and Richards traveled hundreds of fatiguing miles, mostly by stage, often traveling both day and night. Brigham Young later said that they “transacted much business,” but the details of their mission are unknown. At the conclusion of the mission Willard Richards noted simply, “I was deeply involved in the Temporal affairs of the Church in Co[mpany] with Bro. Brigham.”⁷⁴

Young’s selection as Joseph Smith’s business agent suggests the Prophet’s increasing recognition of Young’s abilities, and his awareness of Young’s steadfast loyalty. Here, in the difficult Kirtland of 1837, Young came increasingly to the fore as Joseph’s defender and his assistant. Except for his relationship to Joseph, he was not otherwise necessarily viewed as a prominent or influential Kirtland citizen. While he and Willard were in the East, Smith received by revelation a new plan for the City of Kirtland. No doubt Young saw the plan upon his return and quickly noted the streets named after important Kirtland residents, including some of his prominent colleagues of the Twelve, names like Luke, Lyman, Boynton, Hyde, Whitmer, Kimball, and Parrish. He would have looked in vain for a Brigham or a Young street.⁷⁵ If the naming suggests relative prominence, then Young was far from the top. But he was quietly assisting Joseph and gaining the confidence of his prophet. ^[253]

A letter from the East to his wife Mary Ann that Brigham wrote during his mission demonstrates aspects of his personality and provides an opportunity to sense the impact of his background and lack of education. The letter acknowledged his comfort in knowing that, this time, his family were not suffering for “food and rament.” In spite of the problems, it had been a prosperous season in Kirtland. He had nothing “in potickular” to say about his “tempriel business”—although some of it involved the family; he purchased some property that he kept for many years. He asked Mary Ann to “tell the girls”—his two older daughters (the other daughter and two sons were still toddlers)—“to be good and pray for me and as for my Wife I [k]now that she pray[s] for me all ways. Mary I remember You allways in my prayrs.” After love to his wife he closed with a P.S. “Plese read this and keep it to Yourself [and] not expose my Poore righting and speling.”⁷⁶

In Kirtland all was not business and finance that winter and spring. No doubt Brigham Young had witnessed as did Wilford Woodruff touching meetings of deep emotion, moving discourse, matter-of-fact speaking in tongues.⁷⁷ But the greatest religious experience of the year occurred in late March and early April while Brigham and Willard were in the East. The twenty-third of March was a day of fasting and prayer in the temple, the time occupied

in singing, exortation, & prayer, some had a tongue, others an interpretation, & all was in order. The power of GOD rested upon the people the gifts were poured out upon us some had the administering of angels & the image of GOD sat upon the countenances of the Sants.^{78 [254]}

The third and sixth of April were great days of solemn assembly with instructions, gifts, ordinances similar to what Brigham Young and others had experienced the year previously. Those of the Twelve in Kirtland, including Heber Kimball, assisted in ordinance work. Most impressive to Wilford Woodruff—an unanswerable rebuke, he thought, to dissenters who claimed Joseph fallen—was Joseph’s presence and power.

President Joseph Smith jr arose and addressed the congregation for the term of three hours clothed with the power, spirit & image of GOD he unbosomd his mind & feelings in the house of his friends He presented many things of vast importance.

Woodruff thought the Prophet’s power should drive unbelief from the doubters, for “such language sentiment, principle & spirit cannot flow from darkness.” For those with Woodruff’s perspective, Joseph was indeed “a prophet of God rised up for the deliverance of Israel.”⁷⁹

While such outpourings prepared some for the storms ahead, they provided no easy answer to the difficulties of the season. For the Prophet, the answer was obedience: if the Saints obeyed, the difficulties could be overcome. On the seventh anniversary of the organization of the Church, he pleaded with the Saints to heed his words “this once . . . that Zion & her stakes” might prosper. He urged them to support the Safety Society. He presented his plan for the city and described in enthusiastic detail what Kirtland could become if they would obey “this once.”⁸⁰

The following Sunday President Rigdon talked about the temporal situation of the Church. The bank was a key to the temporal salvation of the Saints, he insisted, and the Presidency ^[255] had done all in their power to sustain it. Many of the Church had refused the bank’s paper, playing into the hands of Mormon enemies, and those who had “must suffer by it.” During Smith’s remarks that same Sunday he, too, promised severe judgment to those who professed to be his friends and friends to the bank but had “turned tritors & opposed the currency & its friends.” Woodruff thought Smith saddened because of the unbelief and negligence of many supposed brethren.⁸¹

From its beginnings, the Safety Society was closely identified with Joseph Smith, and many took his association to mean divine approbation.⁸² Boasts were made—unauthorized boasts, insisted Joseph⁸³—that it was the most sound financial institution in the United States, that it could not fail, etc. Smith put his full backing behind it and urged all the Saints to do the same. When difficulties multiplied in the spring he went to extraordinary efforts to uphold the Society, efforts that argue strongly for his commitment and good faith in the venture, and perhaps also his realization of the impact the institution’s success or failure might have on his people.⁸⁴

By May the national banking panic hit the region, causing other financial institutions to suspend redemption in specie, as the Safety Society had done in late January. While that may have made the Kirtland bank seem less fragile, or at least more like its sister institutions, the panic also brought a tightening of credit. As Smith’s notes for land and merchandise came due in the spring and summer, it became impossible for him to meet them all; the whole fabric of his financial dealings was threatened at once. ^[256]

When all his efforts to sustain the bank with additional resources or by convincing the Saints to risk more to sustain it failed, President Smith eventually turned the institution over to Warren Parrish, Frederick G. Williams, and others, and disassociated himself from it. Soon after, reported Kimball, there were rumors of counterfeit notes and more substantial information that “some who were entrusted with the Bank, robbed it to a considerable extent,” though, he added, “those of integrity in the Church replaced the robbed money to the expense of all they had.”⁸⁵ Knowing that the Safety Society bills had now become virtually worthless, in August Joseph Smith published a warning against accepting the notes. In October an Ohio court judged the Safety Society an illegal bank and within thirty days it closed.

If mismanagement compounded the problems, if dishonesty increased the economic losses late in the story, the real cause of the failure of the Safety Society, as some contemporaries understood, was the failure to obtain a charter.⁸⁶ Many of the Saints were simply unwilling to take the risks associated with an unchartered bank. As Warren Cowdery perceived, the lack of a charter “operated as one cause to limit the circulation of the bills, destroy public confidence in them,” and motivated their return to the bank for specie. Given the “unpopularity of our religion,” he continued, plus the lack of a charter, the circulation of the notes was necessarily limited. “Our enemies foresaw, and every man might foresee without the gift of prophecy, the down fall of the institution.”^{87 [257]}

Most accounts of the Kirtland apostasy feature the failure of the Kirtland bank, and perhaps they should. Disaffection, even rebellion, preceded the bank’s failure, and it was not alone the cause for loss of confidence in Joseph or the basic cause of the economic ruin that many experienced later in the year. But it became the symbol for these things. For some it represented failed expectations—dashed hopes and a fallible prophet. For others it represented the folly of temporal involvements by a religious leader. For these, the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society provided the most concrete and visible evidence that Joseph Smith could fail. No matter that his counsel in relationship to the bank had been repeatedly ignored. No matter that his warnings bespoke his conviction that God had given no unconditional promise. The fact was that it had failed: “and many became disaffected towards me as though I were the sole cause of those very evils I was most strenuously striving against, and which were actually brought upon us by the brethren not giving heed to my counsel.”⁸⁸

Naming the bank as a reason for disaffection was, no doubt, for some people an excuse rather than a cause. Clearly some parted with Smith and the Presidency because they took offense at his reproofs, because they refused to risk what he urged, because they would not share—or because they did not want a prophet’s counsel in temporal affairs. If the bank was a symbol to the disaffected of Smith’s fallibility, for men like Young who interpreted these experiences from a different perspective, the bank was a symbol of a people who refused to be governed by the Lord through his Prophet. ^[258]

If Young had hoped to return to a changed Kirtland, with renewed unity and support for the prophet, he was sadly disappointed. He returned in late May to a city in full rebellion. The rebels, according to one man who left in April, included at least five of Young’s associates in the Quorum of the Twelve.⁸⁹ Since their calling the Twelve had often been less than united and in less than full harmony with Smith—often because of only petty concerns. No doubt that history of disharmony had something to do with the fact that so many of the Twelve now opposed Smith more directly. But the difficulties were not confined to the Twelve. Although many of the members remained behind the Prophet, the leadership was in disarray.

In later noting the spirit of apostasy “imbibed by many of the Twelve,” Brigham Young added that the same spirit was among all the quorums of the Church and was so pervasive “that it was difficult for any to see clearly the path to pursue.” He spoke from experience when he later warned a repentant brother not to boast that this time he would remain true: Young knew too much about human weakness to make any such boast. Instead, he prayed that God would preserve him from falling away.⁹⁰ Brigham also had a stubborn streak of independence that anchored him from being swept along simply because others thought they saw problems with Joseph. In his own experience, as Young wrote once to a non-Mormon New York friend:

I can truly say, that I invariably found him to be all that any people could require a true prophet to be, & that a better man could not be, though he had his weaknesses; and what man has ever lived upon this earth who had none?^{91 [259]}

Brigham Young was determined to remain faithful, determined not to lose confidence in Joseph, determined to do his duty in defense of the life and reputation and calling of his prophet. It was this determination that he later emphasized when summarizing this period.

During this seige of darkness I stood close by Joseph, and with all the wisdom and power God bestowed upon me, put forth my utmost energies to sustain the servant of God, and unite the quorums of the Church.

But before there was any unity, the disaffection would grow—even among the Twelve. And Young would spend many days of worry and many sleepless nights trying to do his duty.^{92 [260]}