Footnotes
JS, Journal, 29 and 31 Oct. 1835; Letter from William Smith, 18 Dec. 1835.
JS, Journal, 1 Jan. 1836; see also JS, Journal, 17–18 and 29 Dec. 1835; 1 Jan. 1836; and Letter to Editor, 22 June 1835.
There is nothing in contemporary accounts to indicate who or what prompted the face-to-face meeting. Given that the disciplinary council was scheduled for the following morning, William may have felt compelled to privately reconcile with JS before appearing at the public council.
JS, Journal, 1 Jan. 1836. The account recorded in JS’s history adds that “their hearts melted down in contrition and humility before the Lord.” (JS History, 1834–1836, 168.)
JS, Journal, 1 Jan. 1836.
JS, Journal, 2 Jan. 1836.
JS’s journal notes that “before entering on the trial, Br. William arose and humbly confessed.” Perhaps owing to this proactive confession, the high council may not have gone through with a formal trial—which according to established protocol should have included comments from members of the council assigned to “prevent insult or injustice” to the accused and from other high council members assigned to see that justice was done on behalf of the church. (JS, Journal, 2 Jan. 1836; Revised Minutes, 18–19 Feb. 1834 [D&C 102:15].)
According to JS’s journal entry for 3 January 1836, William confessed to a larger body of Saints at a worship service the following day and was subsequently “received into fellowship again.” William’s confession, as well as his return to full fellowship with the Saints, lifted an onerous burden from the shoulders of JS. At the conclusion to his journal entry, he added, “This day has been a day of rejoicing to me, the cloud that has been hanging over us has burst with blessings on our heads . . . , and I thank my heavenly father for, the union and harmony which now prevails in the Church.” (JS, Journal, 3 Jan. 1836.)