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. 

Okay, let's unpack this. Today, we're diving into a well, a really pivotal and frankly chaotic moment in the history of the Latter-day Saint movement. We're talking about the succession crisis and the, uh, the schism that happened right after Joseph Smith's martyrdom in 1844.

Right. And you've given us quite a stack of sources here, articles, interviews, even historical transcripts. They really dig into this specific era. You know, the key people involved, their claims, and just how many different branches eventually grew out of this, this fracturing.

Yeah. Our mission for this deep dive using only this material you've got in front of you is to sort of pull out the most important bits. We want to understand why this crisis happened. Who claims a right to lead? What were the key events that unfolded and we’ll explore the different directions the movement took.

And it's really interesting looking at these sources. It wasn't just, like, a simple election for a new leader. It was this fundamental disagreement about what authority even meant in the Church, how revelation worked, or if it worked. after Smith and really the very identity of the Church he'd built.

Exactly. Yeah. So, get ready because you're going to see how one movement just splintered into dozens of well, living expressions today.

It's fascinating. And to really get why this crisis hit so hard, we need to look at the foundations Smith built and maybe some of the, um, fault lines that were already there. The Church itself, originally the Church of Christ, was formerly set up April 6th, 1830. And it started, you know, pretty simply, kind of egalitarian,

Right? The sources mention early titles like First Elder seems quite humble ,but wow did it evolve fast. It became much more structured hierarchical. You see these specific priesthood offices popping up High Councils and the First Presidency itself was actually created pretty early March 1832: Smith Sidney Rigdon, Jesse Gause.

And it's funny the sources point out that even core terms we associate with the movement now like, uh, Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods - they weren't really fully defined or integrated into that structure until later maybe around 1835. It shows just how dynamic, how much flux there was.

And geographically, by the time they get to Nauvoo, Illinois, it wasn't just a local thing anymore. Nauvoo was definitely the hub, the center of energy, but they had branches all over the US, Midwest, the Northeast. And crucially, the sources say a really large chunk of the baptized members were actually in England. So scattered, but tied to Smith.

And all that rapid change, that evolution - it created inherent tensions. The sources really highlight this key dynamic, this pull between continuing revelation, the idea that the prophet is constantly getting new insights from God, bringing new stuff, sometimes radically new, and the idea of a restoration like they were going back to some ancient perfect fixed order from the Bible.

Ah, okay. So, for some members, this constant stream of new revelations might have felt less like divine updates and more like revisions or even contradictions leading them to think maybe this isn't restoration, maybe it's well, maybe it's apostasy.

Exactly. And there was another layer of tension too between personal Revelation, everyone was taught they could receive guidance for themselves and common consent. The idea that the Church body had to agree on things versus the growing very centralized authority of Joseph Smith himself. How do you balance God speaking to one leader with the feelings and the consent of the entire Church? It's tricky.

And Nauvoo just intensified everything. The sources talk about this inner circle developing leaders being initiated into, well, initially secret practices, later identified as the temple endowment, sealing practices, and importantly polygamy.

Yeah. And that immediately created a kind of division, didn't it? Based on who was in the know, who was part of this inner circle, privy to these new covenants versus the general members or even other leaders outside that circle. It added another layer of hierarchy of perceived authority,

Which brings us right up to 1844. Joseph Smith decides to run for president of the United States. A huge move. And the sources show this had a massive, probably unintended consequence for what happened next.

Oh, absolutely. Because to campaign he sent out many of his top leaders, most of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, even his VP candidate, Sidney Rigdon. They were scattered all over the country, far from Nauvoo when the unthinkable happened.

And that unthinkable event was the assassination: Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum Smith killed in Carthage, Illinois, June 27, 1844.

So suddenly the founder is gone. And Hyrum, who many saw as the designated successor, he was patriarch, assistant president, he's gone, too. And like we said, many other key leaders are nowhere near Nauvoo. It created this instant, undeniable power vacuum.

A power vacuum, yes, but also a spiritual one. Right. Who's in charge now? Who speaks for God? The sources show multiple potential claimants stepping into that void almost immediately.

Yep. Right at the top, you had Sidney Rigdon. He was the only surviving member of the First Presidency and he clearly felt his position gave him the right to lead or at least be a guardian for the Church temporarily.

Then you had the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Their claim according to the sources was different. They argued Joseph Smith had privately given them as a group the necessary priesthood keys, collective authority.

You also can't forget the High Council in Nauvoo. It was a powerful local body. Its President William Marx is mentioned and significantly the sources note he knew about and disapproved of things like polygamy. So he might have appealed to those who were uneasy with the later novel changes.

And then there's the family connection. Joseph Smith III, Joseph Junior's son,

even though he was just a boy, the sources mentioned this expectation among many members that leadership should pass down the Smith line eventually,

Right? And other Smith family members were looked to as well. Emma Smith, Joseph's widow, who is definitely against polygamy, and William Smith, Joseph's last surviving adult brother, though the sources kind of describe his leadership attempts later as uh unsteady.

And finally, you had others with maybe less obvious claims initially, but important ones. David Whitmer, one of the original Book of Mormon witnesses, and James Strang, a newer convert, but he came forward with some very specific, very bold claims.

It all comes to a head in this really dramatic period in Nauvoo, August 1844. The sources call it the Nauvoo Standoff. Sidney Rigdon gets back first. August 3rd,

And he doesn't wait around. The very next day, August 4th, big public meeting. Rigdon stands up and the sources say declares he'd had a revelation he was to be the guardian of the Church. His argument rested on being first counselor and that Joseph Smith had ordained him a prophet, seer, and revelator back in 41. He argued he should lead until a proper successor was chosen and basically called foul on what Brigham Young would later propose, saying it wasn't the right procedure.

Responding to this, William Marks, head of the High Council, calls for another meeting, a special conference for August 8th, specifically to decide this leadership question.

But then the dynamic shifts completely. August 6th, Brigham Young and the rest of the Twelve arrive back in town.

And the next day, August 7th, they meet with Rigdon. He repeats his claim to be guardian. But Young counters, he pushes back hard, asserting that Joseph Smith had given the keys, the right of succession to the Quorum of the Twelve as a body. They were the rightful leaders. Now,

so the tension must have been incredible leading up to that August 8th meeting Marks had called. Young calls the Saints together that afternoon, and he proposes something different from Rigdon. Not a single guardian or president right away, but for the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to step up and lead collectively and acting presidency essentially.

And this meeting August 8th is where the sources describe this pivotal almost legendary event, Brigham Young's transfiguration. Account after account from people who were there describe him suddenly sounding like Joseph Smith, even looking like him as he spoke.

Yeah, I remember reading that quote from Howard Egan in the source material. If a man had been  blinded, he would hardly have known if it were not Joseph.

Chilling stuff.

Absolutely. And whatever the historical reality or explanation for the people in that crowd, this was incredibly powerful. It functioned as profound spiritual evidence for many that yes, the mantle of Joseph had fallen upon him, upon Brigham Young and the Twelve. It really solidified their claim in the moment and became a key story justifying their leadership later on.

And the outcome of that meeting?

The sources are clear. The vast majority of the Latter-day Saints gathered in Nauvoo that day voted to accept the leadership of the Twelve with Brigham Young at their head. They sustained them.

Okay. So, a decisive moment in Nauvoo.

Yeah. But that wasn't the end of the story, was it? Yeah. Not everyone just fell in line behind the Twelve.

No, not at all. That vote was crucial for the largest group, but it didn't settle things for everyone. Other groups started to form, coalescing around those alternative claims we talked about or just disagreeing fundamentally with where Young and the Twelve seemed to be heading. This is really where you see the different paths start to diverge sharply,

Right. Like Sidney Rigdon, he obviously didn't accept the August 8th vote. What happened to him and his followers?

He didn't. He and his group ended up relocating to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His Church continued for a while, but then later in 1862, it was reorganized by a follower named William Bickerton, becoming the Church of Jesus Christ. And the sources point to a key reason for this reorganization. Both Brigham Young and James Strang had started openly practicing polygamy by then. Remember, Young had denied it earlier in Nauvoo. For Rigdon and others like Emma Smith and William Marks, who disapproved of it back then, this open embrace was a major breaking point. So Bickerton's group became a sort of standard bearer for rejecting polygamy specifically.

Exactly. They represented a branch holding on to what they saw as the earlier purer Church before Nauvoo innovations like polygamy. The sources say this Church continues today seeing itself as the one and only true Church and they're known for things like spirit-led services and keeping Kirtland era practices like feet washing. A clear rejection of later developments.

Okay, so Rigdon represents one path. What about James J. Strang? He was another major early challenger, right? With some pretty unique claims.

Oh, definitely. Strang's story is remarkable. He was a relatively new convert, but he came forward with two bombshells. First, a supposed letter of appointment from Joseph Smith himself, naming Strang as successor. Second, he claimed angels had ordained him at the very moment Joseph Smith died.

Wow. So, while Brigham Young was initially saying the Twelve will lead no single prophet right now, Strang directly answered that need for continuing revelation. He basically said, "No, wait. There is a new living prophet and it's me."

Precisely. And he followed the Joseph Smith pattern. He claimed to translate ancient records, metal plates with witnesses, producing new scripture. He gathered followers, established his Church first in Voree, Wisconsin, then later moved them to Beaver Island in Lake Michigan where he set up a sort of kingdom. He was eventually assassinated himself in 1856.

And his followers, what happened after Strang died without presumably appointing his successor?

Well, the source suggests most of them eventually drifted towards the reorganized Church. Partly because Strang didn't name a successor, creating another leadership void, but also because many still held on to that earlier idea, that belief that Joseph Smith's own son, Joseph III, was destined to lead someday.

Interesting. So, even among those who followed a new prophet, the idea of Smith lineage still held sway. It shows how layered these claims and expectations were. Were there other notable figures who tried to lead smaller groups? Yes, besides those big three: Rigdon, Young, Strang - the fragmentation continued. Several other individuals stepped up, often with claims tied to specific roles or perceived mandates from Joseph Smith.

Okay, like who?

Well, there was William Smith, Joseph's brother. We mentioned him being a bit unsteady. He did try to gather a following. He even briefly served as patriarch under James Strang for a time, but his own Church effort kind of fizzled out and most of his followers also ended up joining the reorganization later.

And Alpheus Cutler, he had ties to the Council of Fifty, right?

Yeah. Cutler was in the Twelve and also this more secretive Council of Fifty which seemed focused on establishing a political kingdom. He didn't go west with Brigham Young. He stayed in Iowa and claimed his authority came from being the last surviving member of a special council of seven within that Council of Fifty. He founded the Cutlerites there. But again, the sources say most of his group, including many descendants, eventually joined the reorganization.

It really does sound like the reorganized Church became a major gathering point for many of these dissenting or scattered factions.

It absolutely did. Another example is Lyman Wight, also in the Twelve, also in the Council of Fifty. He believed he had a specific mandate from that Council to establish a colony, a kingdom outpost down in Texas, which he did. But the sources suggest he always kind of felt ultimate leadership should wait for Joseph Smith III. He was apparently looking into Joseph III's claims right when he died. And you guessed it, many of his followers, even those who practice polygamy in Texas, also later joined the reorganization. Okay, so these individuals mostly represented claims based on specific councils or lineage expectations. What about the Hedricites? They seem a bit different.

They emerged a bit later around 1863. Granville Hedrick was the key figure. They essentially pulled together scattered branches mostly in the Midwest that had been left kind of leaderless after the initial splits. Their big focus was returning to Zion, meaning Independence Missouri, the place Joseph Smith had designated, and sticking to what they saw as very early Church principles. They became known as the Church of Christ, Temple Lot.

Did they manage to stay unified?

Not entirely. The sources mentioned later splits within the Hedricite movement, particularly over revelations received by a man named Otto Fetting, which caused arguments about things like rebaptism, but they remain significant today, especially as they own a key piece of property in Independence, the Temple Lot itself.

All right, this really paints a picture of widespread fragmentation. But let's circle back to the group that seemed to absorb so many others. The Reorganized Church, the Josephites,

Yes, a hugely important branch. Their origins lie partly with Emma Smith and her sons. They initially stayed clear of all the factions after Joseph's death. A major reason, as we've touched on, was their strong opposition to polygamy, which Emma, Rigdon, and William Marx knew Joseph had started, but deeply disapproved of.

And this is where that expectation about Joseph Smith III really came to fruition.

Exactly. The sources talk about a key figure, Jason Briggs, reportedly receiving a revelation telling followers to essentially wait for Joseph Smith III to grow up and take his father's place. This led to a series of conferences starting around 1852, building momentum until 1860 when Joseph Smith III formally accepted leadership.

And their vision for the Church was quite distinct from Brigham Young's, wasn't it?

Very distinct. Their stated goal was deliberately trying to recover an earlier version of Latter-day Saintism. They looked back to the Kirtland period before Nauvoo. They explicitly rejected the Nauvoo innovations, especially polygamy, which they viewed as a serious deviation, an apostasy from Joseph Smith's original teachings.

And their success in attracting members from the Strangites, Cutlerites, Wightites, and others really cemented them as the main alternative to the Utah based Church.

It really did. Joseph Smith III himself became a respected figure even back in Nauvoo. He worked as a lawyer, a justice of the peace. The sources mentioned he even reconciled with some of the local figures who had opposed his father. Their headquarters eventually moved to Independence, Missouri, fulfilling that Zion focus for them.

And they actively opposed the Brighamite Church, particularly on polygamy.

Oh, very actively. They were vocal critics and even worked with the US federal government in its efforts to stamp out polygamy in Utah. Though the sources do note an interesting challenge for them, their public stance that Joseph Smith Jr. himself never practiced polygamy. While crucial to their identity, it wasn't historically accurate according to the evidence and the experience of many Utah Saints which sometimes hurt their credibility in that debate.

And this group, the Reorganized Church, continues today as the Community of Christ, described in the sources as a more uh liberal Mormon Church.

That's right. They've continued to evolve, emphasizing things like peace, individual spiritual gifts. They ordained women. They've openly discussed LGBTQ+issues like gay marriage. They represent a path that sought restoration to an earlier time, but has also adapted significantly to modern social contexts.

Okay, so we've traced the paths of Rigdon, Strang, the smaller groups, and the major alternative in the reorganized Church. Now, let's go back to the largest group, the one that followed the Twelve out of Nauvoo, the Brigamites,

Right? That majority group, the ones who sustained the Twelve on August 8th, 1844. Their time in Nauvoo after that was short-lived. Persecution ramped up again and by 1846, they were forced out, beginning that incredibly difficult westward migration. 

Through places like Winter Quarters in Nebraska and ultimately finding refuge in the Great Basin will become Utah.

And it was during that trek and the early settlement period that Brigham Young really solidified his leadership role. The sources point out that by 1847 they formally reorganized the First Presidency, moving from the Twelve leading collectively to Brigham Young being ordained and sustained as the president of the Church.

And a crucial difference we need to highlight compared to the reorganization is how this group handled those controversial Nauvoo practices.

Absolutely fundamental difference. The sources emphasize this. Brigham Young didn't reject the Nauvoo innovations like the reorganized Church did. Instead, he took those practices that had been limited to an inner circle like, the endowment, temple sealing, and especially polygamy and made them central public pillars of the Church in the West. He brought them to the general membership, embedding them deeply into Utah Mormonism.

And what about Young's own theological contributions? Did he claim the same kind of continuous revelation as Joseph Smith. The sources mentioned things like the Adam-God teaching.

It seems his focus was a bit different. While he did teach things like the Adam-God doctrine, which the sources suggest might have been his way of trying to understand and articulate Joseph Smith's very complex ideas about eternal progression, like God once being human, he wasn't generally seen as producing a constant stream of new revelations and scripture in the same way Joseph Smith or James Strang did. His leadership, as described, seems more focused on administering the Church, organizing the Saints in their new territory and consolidating, implementing and building upon the theological framework Joseph Smith had already established, especially those later Nauvoo doctrines.

And this group of course developed into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the LDS Church, which is by far the largest denomination tracing its roots back to Joseph Smith today.

That's correct. The Brigamite path led to the modern LDS Church.

So stepping back and looking at everything we've discussed based on these sources, 1844 wasn't just one fork in the road. It was more like the road shattering.

That's a good way to put it. It wasn't a simple split. It was a complex fracturing. Multiple groups emerged, each clinging to a different interpretation of Joseph Smith's legacy. They had different answers to who holds the keys? Which teachings are essential? What should the Church look like now that the founding prophet is gone?

Yet, each major claimant seemed to offer a distinct vision. You had Rigdon trying to hold on to his position, Strang claiming new prophecy, the reorganization looking back to Kirtland. Young consolidating Nauvoo, all drawing on different parts of Smith's complex ministry.

And you see the potential for this kind of division continuing even later. The sources briefly mentioned the Mormon fundamentalist groups like the AUB, the FLDS. They mostly broke away from the main Utah Church much later, often over the issue of polygamy after the 1890 manifesto when the LDS Church officially ended the practice. They're distinct from the 1844 schisms, but they show how disagreements over doctrine and authority kept leading to new branches forming, even within the largest group.

And even looking at contemporary movements, the sources mentioned things like the remnant fellowship linked to Denver Snuffer described as kind of an anti-corporate movement reacting against the centralization of the modern LDS Church appealing to people seeking more local spiritual experiences, individual gifts. It echoes some of those very early tensions, doesn't it? Personal revelation versus hierarchy.

It really does. It underscores how Joseph Smith: very dynamic, constantly evolving, revelation-driven leadership while incredibly generative, also created a situation where after his death, there wasn't one single universally accepted plan. It left fertile ground for multiple often conflicting claims to authority.

Okay. Wow. We have covered a lot of ground here digging into this incredibly complex, often confusing, but undeniably crucial moment, the 1844 Latter-day Saints crisis.

We really have. We've unpacked how Joseph Smith's Church grew so rapidly, the tensions baked into its structure and theology from early on, the different leaders who stepped forward after his death, their various claims and those key events like that August 8th meeting in Nauvoo and the transfiguration story which carried so much weight in determining the path for the largest group.

It's just fascinating to see how different people, different groups could look at the same person, Joseph Smith, and the same history and come away with such radically different conclusions about what the true continuation looked like. Some trying to freeze frame an earlier moment, some demanding ongoing prophecy, others building on the very last most controversial teachings.

And it really drives home that this wasn't just a political fight for control. It was a deep identity crisis for a young religion. They were grappling with this fundamental question. How does divine authority, how does prophetic leadership actually continue when the founder, the one everyone looked to, is suddenly gone. It highlights that core challenge for any movement built on direct personal revelation. How do you know who's really hearing God when you have multiple sincere people claiming they are and pointing in different directions.

So, building on all that from the sources, here's something provocative for you to think about. If a religious movement's vitality comes from constant dynamic change guided by ongoing revelation from a living prophet, does the sudden end or the intense dispute over that prophetic voice almost guarantee fragmentation? Does it inevitably lead to different factions clinging to different eras or interpretations as the only true or the final correct version of the faith?

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.