Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're plunging into, well, a really fascinating and maybe for many of you a somewhat surprising part of early Mormon history, the Council of Fifty.

That's right. We've got a collection of historical studies, even some firsthand accounts you shared, and we're going to try and unpack what this unique organization was all about.

Yeah, exactly. And whether you're, you know, already deep into this period or maybe just curious about how religion and politics can mix, our aim is to give you a clear picture. ful hopefully, but without getting bogged down in uh too much jargon,

we want to make it understandable.

So, our mission today really is to explore the who, what, where, when, why, and how of this Council of Fifty.

We want to get into its origins, its main goals, what it did before, and crucially after Joseph Smith's death.

And also how people outside the Mormon community saw it. Right. That's important, too.

Absolutely. Their reactions, its role in that huge move west, setting up Deseret, and you know, at the end of the day, Why does this chapter still matter in Mormon history?

It's this incredible intersection of religious belief, political ambition, and just raw frontier life.

And we should mention the insights we're drawing on come from various places, religious study centers, historical journals, even people who are actually there. Different angles on the same story.

Gives us a richer picture hopefully.

Okay, let's get started then. The Council of Fifty, it pops up in the spring of 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois. So, so who actually kicked this off and what was the main idea behind it?

Right. So Joseph Smith firmly gets it going in March 1844 and the um, the big driver was establishing what they called the kingdom of God.

Okay. Kingdom of God sounds purely religious, but it wasn't just that.

No, not at all. They really saw it as a tangible political organization right here on the North American continent. This was partly a reaction to well things getting pretty tense politically in Illinois.

Right. The situation was deteriorating.

Exactly. And they felt this pressing need for a safe place, a refuge. Plus, there was this strong undercurrent of belief that, you know, the end times weren't far off.

So, it's this mix of needing security and fulfilling a kind of prophetic destiny, setting up a theocracy, basically

pretty much a place governed, as they saw it, by God's will, where they could live in peace. The vision was to raise a a standard to the people, an Ensign to the nations.

An Ensign to the nations. What did that mean practically?

They genuinely believe people from all over would be drawn to it. And early on, they even set up a committee to draft a perfect constitution, something they thought would actually improve on the US Constitution.

Wow. Ambitious. Did that go anywhere?

Uh, no. Actually, that effort was later dropped. They believed revelation guided them to set it aside. The focus shifted more to the practical stuff.

Like what, what were the first concrete steps?

Well, the big questions were where do we go? How do we get away from all this hostility? So, they started looking at options. Texas, Oregon, California, They were all on the map.

Really? Texas? That seems different.

Yeah. They sent Lucien Woodworth down there to talk settlement possibilities with President Sam Houston. And at the same time, Orson Hyde went to Washington DC. His mission was to petition for Joseph Smith to get a commission in the US Army, maybe patrol the Western Territories.

So trying diplomatic routes, military protection,

exploring all angles. They even gave the green light for some Mormons up in Wisconsin to think about moving to the Republic of Texas. Just trying to find that safe, autonomous spot.

Okay. Clearly a lot of active planning. Now, who was actually in this Council? You mentioned Joseph Smith, obviously. Was it just the top Church leaders?

Well, yes, high Church leaders like the Twelve Apostles were definitely key. But it wasn't only them. It also included prominent civic leaders from Nauvoo.

Okay.

And what's really interesting, maybe surprising, is that Joseph Smith initially brought in a few non- Mormons, too.

Non- Mormons in this Council setting up the kingdom of God. Yeah, he specifically said religion wasn't a prerequisite. He talked about equal rights, religious freedom within this kingdom they were organizing. His view was that a person's faith shouldn't matter for participation in this political body.

That's quite forward thinking for the time, especially given the context. So how did this diverse group actually function? Did they have like, rules of order?

They did. They operated under what they called the rules of the kingdom kind of parliamentary, right?

A really crucial rule was that decisions required a unanimous affirmative. vote

unanimous not just majority.

Unanimous and they voted by seniority starting with the chairman members were actually covenant bound to speak up if they disagreed voice dissent freely.

Okay but what if they couldn't be persuaded?

Then they had to either go along with a group consensus or well withdraw from the Council.

Interesting pressure there.

And another mechanism a majority could effectively stop meetings just by not showing up kind of a collective veto power.

So it wasn't just a rubber stamp for Smith what was his precise role? Was he just another member with a vote?

Uh, not exactly. He definitely valued the Council's collective intelligence. He saw it as a place to bring different minds together to find the best path.

Yeah.

But

yeah,

he also saw himself in a unique position. He believed that ultimately God had to approve and sanction their decisions and he felt he was the one to receive that divine guidance. He famously called himself a committee of myself in that sense.

The final word came through him.

That was the understanding. But he also pushed the members to learn geography, governments, languages. He wanted them equipped for this big mission of setting up a global kingdom essentially,

right? Practical skills for a practical, if divinely inspired project.

Okay, then the huge turning point. Joseph Smith is killed in June 1844. What happens to the Council then? How does it adapt?

Well, there's a period of adjustment obviously, but by February 1845, Brigham Young steps up formally as the chairman.

Okay.

And significantly, The Council unanimously sustains him not just as chairman but using the same language they'd used for Joseph Smith, prophet, priest, and king.

So, a direct continuation of that role in their eyes,

it seems. So, but there were changes. Those few non- Mormon members, they were dropped, replaced by Latter-day Saints they knew they could trust.

So, it becomes more inwardly focused. You could say that. Brigham Young encouraged discussion, sure, but he also strongly emphasized that the main job was to carry out Joseph's measures - what Smith had started

and Young claimed his own ability to receive revelation.

Yes, he asserted that as well. So while discussion happened, Young definitely held, you know, significant sway. The final decisions often rested heavily on his direction.

Makes sense. That shift probably solidified the direction towards well towards the west, didn't it? Was the destination always clear?

Not immediately. Oregon, California, Texas.

Those ideas were still floating around for a bit even after Smith's death. Right.

But the Council of Fifty was absolutely central in zeroing in on the Great Salt Lake Valley.

How did they land on that specific spot?

They were studying reports, particularly from explorers like John C. Fremont. His accounts of the Great Basin were apparently quite influential. Based on that kind of intel, Brigham Young made the formal announcement in September 1845. This was their intended destination.

So again, not just a random choice. It was based on research and deliberation within the Council.

Exactly. Strategic thinking.

And once they decided on the Salt Lake Valley. What was the Council's role in actually getting everyone there? That huge exodus.

They basically became the uh the central command, the organizing committee for the whole thing.

Seriously, planning the logistics for thousands.

Absolutely. They moved from theory to practice, planning the outfitting, what they called the Western Mission, thinking about the timing. They even debated kind of surprisingly whether leaving in winter might be better.

Winter? Why?

The thought was the frozen ground might actually make travel easier for the wagon. Whether it did or not, I don't know, but they discussed it. They were really the engine driving the preparation for the move.

That's quite a logistical feat. Now, something else mentioned in the sources is their relationship or planned relationship with Native Americans. They called them Lamanites, right? What was the thinking there?

Right. The Lamanites. Yeah.

This was deeply tied to their core beliefs from the Book of Mormon.

They believed Native Americans were descendants of ancient Israelites. Part of modern Israel in their view. So the Council had this strong belief, this expectation really of not just forming alliances with tribes out west, but actually seeing largescale conversions to Mormonism.

They thought Native Americans would join them.

Yes. Significantly, they saw Joseph Smith's death as signaling the end of the day of the Gentiles, as they put it, and expected a major turning among Native Americans towards their message. It turned out to be well overly optimistic,

I can imagine.

And they also drew on prophecies from the Book of Mormon. Prophecies that talked about Native Americans reclaiming their lands and acting quote as a lion against oppressors.

That sounds potentially alarming to outsiders.

Exactly. And it definitely caused fear and suspicion among non- Mormon settlers out on the frontier. They heard that kind of language and worried about uprisings.

Understandable. This vision of Zion in the West, then it included this significant almost transformative role for Native Americans and connected to This vision was the idea of raising a standard. What was that about?

Yeah, the standard of liberty. It was meant as a banner, both symbolic and literal, for this kingdom of God they were building.

A rallying point.

Exactly. The hope was it would draw people from everywhere, all nations, to gather in Zion, preparing for Christ's return. Joseph Smith actually gave orders for a specific banner 16 ft tall to be made.

Did they make it? Did they raise it?

Well, that specific banner's fate is a bit unclear. here. But the idea culminated in 1849 when they raised the flag of Deseret.

Ah, the state of Deseret,

right? And its flag was this interesting mix. It had symbols that were clearly Mormon, but also symbols that were recognizably American. They saw it as fulfilling prophecy, planting their flag for this earthly kingdom.

This brings us back to the political side, the kingdom of God. Joseph Smith being called king, his idea of theodemocracy. Can you unpack that a bit more?

Right. Theodemocracy, that was the term Smith preferred. His explanation was that it wasn't that the voice of the people is the voice of God

like in a regular democracy

sort of instead it was the people assenting to the voice of God giving their consent to divine guidance.

Subtle but important distinction.

Yes. And while the Council accepted him as prophet, priest, and king, Smith himself tended to downplay the king part. He didn't seem to emphasize monarchical rule in the traditional sense.

So less about a crown, more about divine authority and government.

That seems to be the idea. He always made this distinction. The Church was spiritual. The kingdom was political with real authority in this world. It was about bringing divine principles into actual governance with the people's buy-in.

Okay. And how does his run for president of the United States in 1844 fit into all this? Was that connected to the Council of Fifty’s goals?

Oh, absolutely. Intertwined. The Council saw the presidential campaign as a serious strategy,

not just symbolic.

No, they hoped it could be a way to actually get federal protection, maybe get some redress. for the wrongs they felt they'd suffered in Missouri and Illinois and at the same time it advanced the broader goal of establishing the kingdom.

So using the existing system to further their own aims

pretty much the Council got heavily involved in campaigning. They sent out dozens of electioneer missionaries across the country to drum up support for Smith.

Election missionaries, huh? What was Smith actually proposing in his platform? What were his political views?

Well, reflecting their experiences, he argued for stronger federal government,

one that could step in and protect minority rights, fix injustices,

which hadn't happened for them in their view,

right? His platform also included things like ending slavery, but through government compensation to slaveholders. He wanted a national bank with branches everywhere, and he was big on westward expansion.

How big?

He talked about potentially annexing Oregon, Texas, Mexico, even Canada if they were willing. The core message was about unity and restoring what he saw as the original sound principles of the Constitution.

Quite a platform. Given all this, the secret Council, the kingdom talk, the presidential run, the views on Native Americans. How did people outside the Mormon community react? It sounds like a recipe for suspicion.

And it absolutely was. There was a lot of fear and mistrust among non- Mormon settlers, especially on the frontier.

What specifically worried them?

Those doctrines about Native Americans reclaiming land. That sounded like a threat of violence to many. The whole idea of a separate kingdom combined with the secrecy of the Council of Fifty.

Yeah, the secrecy couldn't have helped.

No. Outsiders saw this blend of religion and politics and worried they were trying to set up a theocracy that would just ignore American democracy. They accused them of undermining the government. Even federal Indian agents were wary, concerned about this potential Mormon Native American alliance.

So, deep suspicion. How did that play out when the Mormons actually did move west and set up Deseret?

Well, the reactions were mixed, but often negative confusion and hostility. Some people saw the whole Deseret experiment with its own flag and all the Kingdom of God rhetoric as proof that the Mormons were basically traitors.

Upstart traitors was a phrase used, I think.

Yes, exactly. There's even an account of a strong wind blowing down their liberty pole shortly after they raised it, which some Gentiles took as like a bad omen, a sign against them. The whole mix of patriotism, religion, theocracy, it was just baffling and alarming to many outsiders.

Okay, so lots of external friction. But internally for the Mormon community, the Council clearly had a huge impact. What's its lasting legacy? Why is it significant for Latter-day Saints today?

Well, its most direct legacy was setting up the provisional state of Deseret.

Right. Before Utah territory was official.

Exactly. The Council basically governed things in the Great Basin. Initially, it was a deliberate move to present the federal government with a functioning government already in place. And those theodemocratic ideas did shape early Utah.

Oh, definitely. You saw that influence in the early political structure of Utah where top Church leaders often held the key government jobs. That idea of the people consenting to God's voice channeled through Church leadership was very present in their approach to governance.

But that relationship between Church and state and the very idea of a political kingdom of God,

that seems to have changed over time within Mormonism, hasn't it?

It really has, especially as Utah moved towards statehood and migrated more fully into the US, the focus shifted.

How so?

The emphasis on the kingdom of God became much more spiritual, more ecclesiastical, rather than envisioning a separate political nation. Even that revelation from April 1844, ye are my constitution,

the one that initially seemed to apply to the Council.

Right? Over time, it came to be interpreted more as applying to the Church's internal structure and priesthood governance, not a separate political kingdom. Scholars point out that especially after 1890 when polygamy was officially discontinued. Those overt theocratic political ideals were largely replaced by a focus on Church governance through inspired leadership with member consent in religious matters.

So understanding the Council of Fifty gives us crucial context for that earlier, more politically focused phase of the Church's history.

Exactly. It's vital for understanding the early days. It shows you this really complex dance between their religious beliefs, their very real need for safety and autonomy, how they interacted with America, with the government. It wasn't simple. No, definitely not.

And it highlights how their understanding of the kingdom of God itself evolved over time in response to changing circumstances. It helps you see the journey from Nauvoo and the Council of Fifty to the global Church you see today. It's about faith, community, politics, survival, all wrapped up together.

Okay, let's try to wrap up this deep dive. It's pretty clear the Council of Fifty was, well, a really unique and powerful force in its time. It captured those early Mormon ambitions for self-determination, both spiritually and politically, in a really challenging world.

Absolutely. Their story gives us this incredible window into how deeply held faith meets the gritty realities of frontier life and the complicated business of wielding political power or trying to.

So something for you the listener to think about. How did these intense early experiences exemplified by the Council of Fifty ripple outwards? How did they shape the Church's later path and its ongoing relationship with the United States? And what tensions between theocratic ideals and democratic norms do you still see echoes of maybe in that history?

And one final thought to leave you with, just imagine for a moment, what if the Council of Fifty had managed to carve out a fully independent kingdom of God somewhere in the West? How might the map look different? How might the story of Mormonism itself and maybe even the American West be radically different today? Thinking about what was helps us understand what is and maybe prompts some adjuring questions about faith, power, and how we all try to build a better world.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.