JS, History, 1838–1856, vol. C-1, created 24 Feb. 1845–3 July 1845; handwriting of , , Jonathan Grimshaw, and ; 512 pages, plus 24 pages of addenda; CHL. This is the third volume of a six-volume manuscript history of the church. This third volume covers the period from 2 Nov. 1838 to 31 July 1842; the remaining five volumes, labeled A-1, B-1, D-1, E-1 and F-1, continue through 8 Aug. 1844.
Historical Introduction
This document, “History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842],” is the third of six volumes of the “Manuscript History of the Church” (in The Joseph Smith Papers the “Manuscript History” bears the editorial title “History, 1838–1856”). The completed six-volume collection covers the period from 23 December 1805 to 8 August 1844. The narrative in this volume commences on 2 November 1838 with JS and other church leaders being held prisoner by the “’s forces” at , Missouri, and concludes with the death of Bishop at , Illinois, on 31 July 1842. For a more complete discussion of the entire six-volume work, see the general introduction to this history.
Volume C-1 was created beginning on or just after 24 February 1845 and its narrative was completed by 3 May 1845, although some additional work continued on the volume through 3 July of that year (Richards, Journal, 24 and 28 Feb. 1845; Historian’s Office, Journal, 3 May 1845; 3 and 4 July 1845). It is in the handwriting of and contains 512 pages of primary text, plus 24 pages of addenda. Additional addenda for this volume were created at a later date as a supplementary document and appear in this collection as “History, 1838-1856, volume C-1 Addenda.” Compilers and Thomas Bullock drew heavily from JS’s letters, discourses, and diary entries; meeting minutes; church and other periodicals and journals; and reminiscences, recollections, and letters of church members and other contacts. At JS’s behest, Richards maintained the first-person, chronological-narrative format established in previous volumes, as if JS were the author. , , , and others reviewed and modified the manuscript prior to its eventual publication in the Salt Lake City newspaper Deseret News.
The historical narrative recorded in volume C-1 continued the account of JS’s life as prophet and president of the church. Critical events occurring within the forty-five-month period covered by this text include the Mormon War; subsequent legal trials of church leaders; expulsion of the Saints from Missouri; missionary efforts in by the and others; attempts by JS to obtain federal redress for the Missouri depredations; publication of the LDS Millennial Star in England; the migration of English converts to ; missionary efforts in other nations; the death of church patriarch ; the establishment of the city charter; the commencement of construction of the Nauvoo ; the expedition that facilitated temple construction; the introduction of the doctrine of proxy baptism for deceased persons; the dedicatory prayer by on the Mount of Olives in Palestine; publication of the “Book of Abraham” in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons; publication of the JS history often referred to as the “Wentworth letter;” the organization of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo; and the inception of Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremonies.
<January 1> favored people. And the Lord said unto her, (Rebecca, Genesis xxv, 23) the elder shall serve the younger. And why? Because that Isaac, the father of Esau and Jacob, the husband of Rebecca, and the son of promise to Abraham, was the heir; and as Esau was the elder son of his father Isaac, he had a legal claim to the heirship; but through unbelief, hard[HC 4:261]ness of heart and hunger, he sold his birthright to his younger brother, Jacob (Genesis xxv, 33) and God knowing before hand that he would do this of his own free will and choice, or acting upon that agency which God has delegated to all men, said to his mother, the elder shall serve the younger; for as the elder son, Esau, has sold his birthright and by that means lost all claim to the blessings promised to Abraham; those blessings and promises must have failed, if they had not descended with the purchased birthright unto the younger son, Jacob, for there was no other heir in Israel’s family; and if those blessings had failed, the purposes of God according to election must have failed, in relation to the posterity of Israel, and the oath of Jehovah would have been broken, which could not be, though heaven and earth were to pass away. Romans ix, 13— As it is written Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Where is it written? Malachi i, 1, 2, verses. When was it written? About 397 years before Christ, and Esau and Jacob were born about 1773 years before Christ, (according to the common computation of time in scripture margin,) so that Esau and Jacob lived about 1376 years before the Lord spoke by Malachi, saying, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated, as quoted by Paul. This text is often brought forward to prove that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, before they were born; or, before they had done good or evil; but if God did love one and hate the other, before they had done good or evil, he has not seen fit to tell us of it, either in the Old or New Testament, or any other revelation; but this only we learn that 1376 years after Esau and Jacob were born, God said, by Malachi, Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated; and surely that was time sufficient to prove their works, and ascertain whether they were worthy to be loved or hated. And why did he love the one and hate the other? For the same reason that he accepted the offering of Abel, and rejected Cain’s offering; because Jacob’s works had been righteous, and Esau’s wicked; and where <is> there a righteous father, who would not do the same thing? Who would not love an affectionate and obedient son, more than one who was disobedient, and sought to injure him and overthrow the order of his house? (objection) “But God seeth not as men seeth, and he is no respector of persons” (Acts x. 34) True, but what saith the next verse, “He that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him; but it does not say that he that worketh wickedness is accepted, and this is a proof that God has respect to the actions of persons; and if he did not, why should he commend obedience to his law? for if he had no respect to the actions of men, he would be just as well pleased with a wicked man for breaking his law, as a righteous man for keeping it; and if Cain had done well he would have been accepted as well as Abel, (Genesis iv. 7.) and Esau as well as Jacob, which [HC 4:262] proves that God does [p. 1138]