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 back to the deep dive. We've got quite a bit of material here today, articles, notes, um, interviews, all ready to help us explore a really fascinating and maybe surprising slice of early American history.

That's right. Today, we're looking into Joseph Smith's First Presidency.

Yeah.

Specifically, the men who served as his counselors. And you know, one of the first things that jumps out from the sources is pretty striking.

Oh, which is. . . 

Well that out of all the men appointed as his first and second counselors during his lifetime, time only his brother, Hyrum Smith, actually stayed in what the records call full fellowship basically remained a member in good standing until Joseph died.

Wow. So everyone else either left or was excommunicated.

Essentially. Yes. That's what the records indicate for those specific roles.

Okay. That's definitely a compelling starting point. And while someone like Sidney Rigdon often gets discussed, our focus in this deep dive is on three other counselors whose breaks were well pretty dramatic. Jesse Gause, John C. Bennett, and William Law.

Right. So our mission here is to really unpack these sources. We want to understand, you know, who were these men? How did they climb so high? What exactly led to them leaving or being pushed out? What did they do afterwards?

And crucially, what might their combined stories tell us about Joseph Smith's leadership style maybe and that whole intense Nauvoo period?

Exactly. Think of this as your shortcut maybe to grasping a really vital but sometimes overlooked part of that early leadership dynamic. We'll pull out the key insights, the surprising details, and give you the context to connect the dots.

Sounds good. Let's unpack it.

Let's do it.

All right, let's start with someone who seems almost like a footnote in some histories. Jesse Gause.

Yeah, Jesse Gause. The sources give us some basics. Born back in 1785, uh came from a Quaker background, apparently served in the War of 1812, worked as a teacher.

But what's interesting, and the material points this out, is that he was quite a recent convert when he was chosen. Reportedly, not many people in the wider Church even knew who he was.

That's right. And yet, March 8th, 1832, he's chosen and ordained as a counselor of the Ministry of the Presidency, right alongside Sidney Rigdon.

Although the sources do clarify something there, don't they?

They do. A revelation apparently clarified that Joseph Smith held the actual office of the presidency alone and these men were counselors assisting him in that ministry.

Okay. But his time in that role was well, incredibly short.

Vanishingly brief really. They show him serving from that March 8th date in 1832 until December 3rd of the same year. That's when Sidney Rigdon officially succeeded him in that specific spot.

So less than nine months.

Exactly. And this is where it gets hazy. The sources offer very little on why he left or even what happened to him afterwards.

It just sort of vanishes.

Pretty much. It's like he just walks off the stage of history after playing this brief but you know structurally significant role in setting up the First Presidency. What strikes you most about him reading these accounts?,

It's that silence, I think, the abruptness. He's there at this key moment of organization and then nothing. It really makes you think about all the stories from that early period that just didn't get recorded or passed down. He's almost like a historical question mark.

He really is a stark contrast to our next figure, John C. Bennett. His time in the Church was, well, meteoric is the word. Both his rise and his fall.

Meteoric is absolutely the right word. The sources detail just an astonishing ascent. He was baptized into the Church in September 1840.

Okay. September 1840.

By April 1841, so less than a year later, he was elected to the First Presidency. Wow. Serving as assistant president, apparently because Sidney Rigdon's health wasn't great.

So that effectively made him the second highest leader in the Church at that moment.

From new convert to second in command in under a year.

Right.

That's well the sources say it's unprecedented.

It really is. And it wasn't just that one position either.

The records show he held multiple high profile roles simultaneously there in Nauvoo.

Like what?

He was the city's first mayor, chief of the Nauvoo Legion, chief justice, quartermaster general. He was running the university and he was part of the First Presidency. He truly had his hand in almost every major aspect of Nauvoo life.

So, who was this guy before Mormonism? The sources mentioned some involvement with the Campbellites.

Yeah, the Campellite movement. And he'd been a Methodist preacher, too.

Okay.

And interestingly, the sources say he actually met Joseph Smith briefly way back in 1832.

Oh, really?

But Joseph didn't even remember him when they reconnected through letters in 1840.

Huh.

Yeah.

Now, the big question the sources help us answer is how did someone gain such crucial importance to Joseph Smith so quickly?

Yeah. How did that happen?

The account suggests it really started with their correspondence in 1840. Joseph was facing just immense pressure.

From what?

Well, the burdens of managing the growing city of Nauvoo. dealing with the city charter, trying to balance temporal and spiritual affairs. It was a lot.

Okay.

Plus, he needed reliable help because the Twelve Apostles were away on missions and his father, Joseph Smith, Senior, had recently died.

So, Joseph needed competent, energetic help, and Bennett just arrived.

Pretty much he arrived offering just that. Sources highlight his organizational skills, his military background, political know-how, and what one account calls his restless energy.

And William Law, who we'll get to, he said, Bennett was really close to Joseph.

Yeah. Law is quoted as saying Bennett was more in the secret confidence of Joseph than perhaps any other man in the city at that time.

Wow. That level of trust earned so quickly.

It really points to Joseph's practical need for specific skills in building Nauvoo and maybe his willingness, at least initially, to rely heavily on individuals who had those skills.

Which brings us to Bennett's fall from grace. Just as rapid, just as dramatic. What do the sources say was the main issue there?

The sources consistently point to sexual misconduct as the core issue.

Okay.

Various accounts use terms like Spiritual Wiferey, adultery, even prostitution in connection with Bennett's behavior.

And it wasn't like an immediate thing. They tried to work with him.

It seems not. Sources suggest he was labored with from time to time about his conduct before they took formal action.

But once action started, it was fast.

Incredibly swift. Yeah.

Yeah.

The records show Joseph drafted a letter to withdraw fellowship from Bennett on May 11th, 1842. The very next day, Joseph publicly argued for suppressing houses and acts of infamy in a city council meeting. And Bennett reportedly opposed that move.

Opposed suppressing infamy. Interesting.

Within three days of that, Bennett was encouraged by Joseph to withdraw from the Church and he was forced to resign as mayor.

Forced out.

And by mid June 1842, so just over a month after Joseph first drafted that letter, Bennett was publicly shamed and formally excommunicated.

And his reaction was well explosive,

immediate and profoundly damaging to the Church. Yeah. After leaving Nauvoo around June 21st, 1842, the sources say he immediately started arranging to publish anti-Mormon material.

Which led to his book, The History of the Saints. And it's important, as the sources point out, that this wasn't just his story. He included statements from other people, newspaper articles, trying to build a broader case.

Yeah, he was definitely trying to make a splash. The records even show that Mormons tried to shut down his public lectures - sometimes physically. It got heated.

Okay. So, let's get into his actual claims because this is where, as you said, the sources indicate things get really controversial.

Extremely. He accused Joseph Smith of polygamy, obviously, but also of coercion attempting to pressure women into relationships. And he named names.

He specifically recounted Joseph supposedly asking Sarah Pratt not to expose him, saying something like, "If I suffer, all must suffer." And threatening her reputation. That's a heavy accusation

It is. And then there's perhaps the most inflammatory claim, the accusations about abortion. Multiple sources contain accounts alleging Bennett performed abortions potentially for Joseph or others to hide pregnancies from these secret relationships.

That's explosive. What kind of sources mention this?

Well, there's Hyrum Smith's own affidavit from 1842 published right around the time Bennett was leaving which claimed Bennett seduced women and taught that abortion was okay if kept secret.

Okay, so that's coming from Joseph's brother,

Right? Then you have later testimony cited in the material from Sarah Pratt describing seeing Bennett's medical tools and him allegedly mentioning a little job for Joseph. There's gossip recorded by others like Goddard and Zeruiah.

And Governor Ford.

Yes, Governor Ford in a later compilation of interviews done by Wilhelm Wyl  is reported as saying Bennett practiced abortion for the profit. While a historian like Fawn Brody, for instance, concluded there was no doubt Bennett was an abortionist based on the evidence she reviewed. The question of whether he did it for Joseph specifically relies a lot on later testimonies, hearsay, and interpretation. William Law himself said he heard rumors about abortions back in Nauvoo, but didn't believe them at the time.

So, we're reporting what the sources contain, acknowledging the controversy and the disputed nature of the claims, especially the direct link to Joseph.

Precisely. We have to be careful there.

Bennett also wrote about things he called Spiritual Wifery, Cloistered Saints, Cheater Saints, Chambered Sisters,

Terms he used for he claimed were different groups involved in polygamy or other secret sexual practices.

That's what he alleged. Yes. And sources suggest that some kind of secret or plural relationships were indeed occurring in Nauvoo, though maybe not exactly as Bennett categorized them.

And even without proof, he went through the temple ordinances himself. His writings showed knowledge of them.

Apparently so. The sources examining his work say he revealed knowledge of associated rituals, which suggests again a significant level of insider access. He knew things few others did.

Which brings us to the Happiness Letter.

Ah, yes, the Happiness Letter. This document attributed to Joseph Smith in various sources supposedly taught that something wasn't a sin if Joseph commanded it and it was kept secret. It included lines like “sin is not sin in” that context. And “I will not accuse me. I will not accuse you.”

But is it definitively Joseph's writing?

That's debated in the sources. Did Joseph write it verbatim or did Bennett craft it? Maybe weaving in actual phrases or ideas. is he'd heard from Joseph. What sources do tend to agree on is that the ideas in it seem consistent with other teachings attributed to Joseph around that time, like the concept of if there's no sin, there's no accuser.

Okay. So, Bennett, when you look at everything, the rapid rise, the skills, the fall, the accusations, the book, the sources really wrestle with his legacy, don't they?

They do. Was he just a total opportunist, a scoundrel seeking revenge? Or was he an insider who, despite his own serious flaws, actually exposed some genuine secrets about what was happening in Nauvoo, even if he exaggerated or twisted things for impact.

The argument being he was too close, knew too much, to be dismissed as just making everything up out of whole cloth.

Exactly. The material suggests that dismissing him entirely might be too simplistic given his documented positions in access. So, thinking about his whole wild trajectory as laid out in these sources, what does it suggest to you about Nauvoo at that moment?

Chaos, intense pressure. It feels like a pressure cooker environment where secrets, power, ambition, and maybe genuine belief all collided. His story highlights the volatility and the high stakes involved for everyone around Joseph Smith.

Volatility is a good word for it. Now, let's shift from Bennett's noise and scandal to someone presented quite differently in the sources. William Law.

William Law. Yes, the contrast is stark. The material consistently describes him as prominent, wealthy, and crucially having a good reputation before, during, and long after his involvement with the Church.

Right. He went on to have a career as a respected physician, maintained a stable family life. His brother Wilson Law was also important in Nauvoo. So different kind of figure entirely.

And he served as second counselor in the First Presidency from 1841 to 1844, replacing Hyrum Smith.

And the sources indicate that for a good chunk of that time, Law was effectively the only counselor really functioning regularly alongside Joseph. Sidney Rigdon was often ill or estranged.

Initially, the material says he was remarkably loyal. But something changed. He became alienated by what sources call “the darker aspects of Joseph's leadership or personality”. And the sources point to some very specific, very personal catalysts for his break with Joseph. Things that hit him hard,

Like the assassination attempt on Governor Boggs.

Exactly. Law claimed in accounts recorded later that Joseph Smith personally told him he had sent Porter Rockwell to kill former Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. And now Not only that, but Joseph expressed disappointment that Rockwell had only wounded Boggs.

For Law, hearing that directly from Joseph was apparently deeply disturbing, a real crisis of conscious,

A profound one, it seems. Then, of course, there was polygamy. Law was reportedly one of the first outside the absolute inner circle to learn about the revelation on plural marriage.

And some sources quote Emma Smith telling Law apparently quite sorrowfully that she felt she had to submit to it or risk being destroyed.

But Law, the material emphasizes, felt he simply could not in good conscience. submit to that doctrine. It fundamentally conflicted with his beliefs.

And then came the incident that seems most personal, most jarring for him.

The sources state that Joseph Smith approached William Law's wife, Jane Law, proposing marriage to her, essentially asking her to become one of his plural wives,

Which William Law saw as,

as a direct hit on honor, according to the accounts, not just a doctrinal disagreement, but a deep personal betrayal and offense profoundly unsettling for both William and Jane.

On top of all that, he started fearing for his own safety.

The sources suggest he did. He grew suspicious that Joseph now viewed him as an enemy, a potential Judas, and he reportedly received warnings that Joseph had tasked members of the Danites, that sometimes-described secretive group loyal to Joseph, with assassinating him.

Whether those threats were real or just perceived, the fear was clearly there.

The fear seems to have been very real for him. So things escalate. He resigns from the First Presidency on January 8th, 1844. Then he's excommunicated on April 20th, and the sources say he didn't even know it was happening, that a trial was being held.

And after that, he and others start the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper,

Right? They only managed one issue, but it leveled accusations against Joseph Smith, focusing mainly on polygamy and the concentration of power.

And Joseph Smith's reaction?

As mayor, he along with the city council declared the paper a public nuisance and ordered the marshall to destroy the printing press.

An action which the sources universally agree was the immediate spark that lit the fuse leading to Carthage and Joseph Smith's death.

Directly linked and Law paid a heavy price for his opposition. The sources estimate he lost a fortune maybe around $30,000 in property which became essentially worthless.

Because opponents like him were frozen out. Prevented from selling.

That's the mechanism described in some accounts allies of Joseph making it impossible for dissenters to liquidate assets and leave. Law apparently chose to stand his ground on principle, do his duty as he saw it, rather than try to cut his losses quietly. He later reflected that the whole association with Joseph had left a black spot on his life

And he stayed silent about it for decades,

For 40 years, according to the sources, apparently out of embarrassment, maybe trauma. He only agreed to that interview with Wilhelm Wyl  in 1887 because his son urged him to finally tell his side of the story.

And when he did speak, his assessment of Joseph Smith was well, it was harsh,

Incredibly blunt. In his diary written the day Joseph died and repeated in that later interview he called Joseph unscrupulous, naturally base, brutish and corrupt and cruel, a false prophet, a servant of the devil. He stated Joseph deserved his fate fully, although he personally wished it had been a court trial, not a mob killing.

So when sources evaluate Law's testimony, what gives it weight?

Often it's his consistent reputation for integrity throughout his life, both before and long after Nauvoo. Plus that very long silence, the argument being Why speak up after 40 years with such damaging claims unless he genuinely believed them? It lends a certain credibility, particularly to his specific claims about the Bogg's confession and the proposal to Jane. What resonates with you about Law's story?

It feels like a tragedy of conscience. Unlike Bennett, who seems driven by maybe ambition and revenge, Law comes across in these accounts as someone genuinely grappling with deep moral conflicts. He seems forced to choose between loyalty to a leader he once admired and principles he felt were being violated. and he chose principle whatever the cost.

That sense of wrestling with conscience really comes through. Yeah. It highlights the incredibly difficult position people found themselves in when confronted with doctrines or actions from leadership that they just couldn't square with their own sense of right and wrong.

So we've traced three really different paths here.

Very different.

Jesse Gause who briefly appears in the sources then just vanishes.

The mystery man.

John C. Bennett whose rise and fall were just explosive leading to immediate and scandalous anti-Mormon publications.

The meteor. 

And William Law, whose break was slower, seemed rooted in fundamental objections and ended up culminating in an act that directly precipitated the final tragic events in Nauvoo.

The reluctant objector, whose actions had huge ripple effects,

Three very different counselors, three very different breaks from Joseph Smith. What does this specific group tell us according to the source material?

Well, first, just the sheer diversity of the experience is telling. You have the near invisible departure. the flamboyant scandal and the respected insider turned conscientious objector. It shows there wasn't just one way people fell out with Joseph's leadership.

And what about what it suggests about Joseph Smith himself, his leadership, his character?

The sources raise questions. The choice and rapid promotion of someone like Bennett, described as having serious character flaws, lead some historians cited here to question Joseph's discernment, or perhaps suggest a willingness to use talented but flawed individuals.

His leadership style too. The use of power comes up repeatedly.

Yes, the sources point to his reliance on Bennett's skills, but also his use of civic and military authority like destroying the Expositor press. Then there are the alleged threats against Law, the reported attempts to control information or freeze out opponents economically. And if you credit Law's account, the willingness to privately admit to ordering violence like the Boggs attempt. These are presented as well the darker aspects or evidence of him operating outside conventional legal or ethical boundaries at times.

And polygamy runs through both Bennett's and Law’s stories as a major flash point.

Absolutely central for both of them. Joseph's practice of plural marriage and related actions, the alleged coercion Bennett described. The proposal to Jane Law were key factors in their disillusionment and eventual opposition. And those disturbing abortion accusations Bennett made are presented in the sources as directly linked to the need for secrecy around these developing plural relationships. So when the sources ask hero or villain, particularly regarding Bennett and Law,

It's complex. Bennett is often painted as the villain, the scoundrel. But some sources argue, hold on. Despite his flaws, did he reveal some uncomfortable truths? Law is generally portrayed more sympathetically because of his reputation and his stated reasons. But he still took actions like starting the Expositor. They had major consequences. And his final judgment on Joseph was incredibly harsh. It's not a simple good guy/bad guy narrative in the sources.

What's your take away from that complexity looking at the material?

For me, it underscores that even deeply flawed individuals like Bennett might have possessed genuine insider knowledge due to their proximity to power and respected figures like Law can offer a credible though obviously subjective perspective from within that reveals profound moral struggles. It just reminds us there are likely many stories we don't know

And there are still those lingering questions, aren't there?

Definitely the absolute truth of Bennett's most extreme claims - particularly the abortion link to Joseph remains debated in the sources often relying on conflicting or much later testimony. The full extent of Joseph's awareness or involvement in everything Bennett was doing or in the alleged efforts to silence people like Law is still interpreted differently depending on which accounts you prioritize.

So for someone learning about this today, what are the big takeaways from studying these three counselors?

First, I'd say embrace the complexity. Early Nauvoo wasn't simple. These were real people with complex motivations. Avoid easy labels when the sources themselves show contradictions and nuance.

Second, think critically. The sources themselves often debate reliability. Bennett's motives, Wyl's later interviews, Hyrum's affidavit, Emma's denials. We need to approach all historical accounts with that same questioning mindset. Ask who wrote this, why? What was their perspective?

Third, you can see historical roots here of ongoing issues. The challenges of managing dissent within a group, the temptation to control information, the dynamics of power in religious movements. These aren't unique to Nauvoo.

And finally, perhaps most powerfully with Law, that constant tension, loyalty to leadership versus personal conscience. When do you follow and when do you say I can't do this? It's a timeless dilemma,

Right? Understanding these figures, even the controversial Bennett or the almost forgotten Gause, is really vital for getting a fuller, more honest picture of early Mormonism and the immense pressures surrounding Joseph Smith's presidency.

Absolutely. This has been quite the journey through some intense human drama. Gause’s fade out, Bennett's fireworks, Law's difficult stand.

There different paths away from Joseph Smith really open a window into the internal conflicts, the diverging views and the immense pressures within that early leadership circle, all drawn from the sources we have.

So, here's a final thought to leave you with based on this material. If three key counselors, men Joseph himself chose for his inner circle, ultimately broke with him over issues the sources identify as violence, polygamy, and perceived moral failings. What does that collective break tell us about the challenges inherent in leading such a dynamic, fast-growing and often controversial religious movement?

And how does their range of reactions disappearing, exposing, or conscientiously objecting influence how you think about the complex relationship between dissent, loyalty, and devotion both then and now?

Something to definitely mull over. Thank you for joining us for this deep dive.

We'll be back with another one soon.

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.