The Papers
Browse the PapersDocumentsJournalsAdministrative RecordsRevelations and TranslationsHistoriesLegal RecordsFinancial RecordsOther Contemporary Papers
Reference
PeoplePlacesEventsGlossaryLegal GlossaryFinancial GlossaryCalendar of DocumentsWorks CitedFeatured TopicsLesson PlansRelated Publications
Media
VideosPhotographsIllustrationsChartsMapsPodcasts
News
Current NewsArchiveNewsletterSubscribeJSP Conferences
About
About the ProjectJoseph Smith and His PapersFAQAwardsEndorsementsReviewsEditorial MethodNote on TranscriptionsNote on Images of People and PlacesReferencing the ProjectCiting This WebsiteProject TeamContact Us
Published Volumes
  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 

Minutes, 28 December 1835

Source Note

Kirtland high council, Minutes, , Geauga Co., OH, 28 Dec. 1835. Featured version copied [between ca. 4 Apr. and ca. 16 May 1836] in Minute Book 1, pp. 131–134; handwriting of ; CHL. For more complete source information, see the source note for Minute Book 1.

Historical Introduction

Following the physical confrontation between JS and on 16 December, , who was a member of the Quorum of the and an active participant in the debating school in , Ohio, became outspoken in his view that JS had gotten angry simply because he had been “overpowered in argument.” Upon hearing that Babbitt was publicly slandering him, JS referred the twenty-three-year-old to the Kirtland for a disciplinary hearing.
Despite having been reproved by church leaders several months earlier, was presumably in good standing with his quorum and the in December 1835. During the previous months, Babbitt had witnessed two major confrontations between JS and . He was present during the 29 October trial of and Mary Cahoon Elliott at which JS and William engaged in a heated verbal altercation. He also appears to have participated in the 16 December debate that provoked the brothers’ fistfight, and his ongoing comments about JS’s actions that evening prompted the 28 December council meeting featured here.
After the council deliberated the charges, it ruled that had “spoken things falsely to the injury” of JS and that he needed to acknowledge his error publicly. Though the minutes indicate that Babbitt confessed to the satisfaction of most of the council members in attendance, the charges were not fully resolved during the 28 December meeting. According to JS’s journal, the council elected to adjourn the meeting without a full confession from Babbitt after “parleying with him a long time, and granting him every indulgence.” During the next council meeting, held on 2 January 1836, Babbitt fully confessed to the charges and was subsequently “restored to fellowship in the Church.”

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    JS, Journal, 16 Dec. 1835; see also Historical Introduction to Letter from William Smith, 18 Dec. 1835.

  2. [2]

    In mid-August, Charles C. Rich preferred charges against Babbitt for failing to observe the church’s health code (the Word of Wisdom) and for making statements that de-emphasized the doctrines contained in the Book of Mormon. Babbitt confessed to and apologized for breaking the Word of Wisdom but told the council that he had “taught the Book of Mormon & commandments as he had thought to be wisdom.” The council reproved him and offered “good instruction.” (Minute Book 1, 19 Aug. 1835.)

  3. [3]

    Minutes, 29 Oct. 1835; JS, Journal, 16 Dec. 1835; Historical Introduction to Letter from William Smith, 18 Dec. 1835.

  4. [4]

    JS, Journal, 28 Dec. 1835.

  5. [5]

    Minutes, 2 Jan. 1836. In his journal, JS confirmed that Babbitt “confessed the charges which I prefered against him in a previous council, and was received into fellowship.” (JS, Journal, 2 Jan. 1836.)

Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation. *Minutes, 28 December 1835 Minute Book 1

Page 133

overpower by arguement, they would by knocking down, but said in a jesting way. said we would not have had any difficulty, if J. Smith had not have got mad. has a singular Spirit. gave him an idea that he had a difficulty with J. Smith. called said <​he​> thought J. Smith was riled and was mad. called. said that agreed with Bishop, respecting being swerved when debating questions, must be weak minded. said [Joseph] Smith would not have wanted the school broke up, if they had not got defeated did not hear any thing from Smith at school that was calculated to hurt feelings and character, he also thinks he cast reflections on the whole , as well as J. Smith Junr. and that what said was calculated to hurt J. Smith. said that Smith was against the school.
Elder knows wants the school to continue and said Smith had tended school till the disturbance & had it not been for this circumstance he (Smith) would have been willing for it to continue heard this statement from Eld. Bishop and not from respecting reading Tho. Paine without having his faith shaken.
thinks if means all he says he is a singular man & said if it had not been for J. Smith’s getting mad there would have been no difficulty Eld. Rich called stated that from what he heard from , he thought he had nothing against J. Smith Junr. stated that said the school would have continued if J. Smith Junr. had not got mad. He also thought that and Bishop had the spirit of the debating school.
Counsellors spoke to the case
addressed the council [p. 133]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page 133

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Minutes, 28 December 1835
ID #
6722
Total Pages
4
Print Volume Location
JSP, D5:124–127
Handwriting on This Page
  • Warren A. Cowdery

Footnotes

  1. [5]

    Likely Francis Gladden Bishop.

© 2024 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of UseUpdated 2021-04-13Privacy NoticeUpdated 2021-04-06