Zion high council, Minutes, [, Caldwell Co., MO], 14 Apr. 1838. Featured version copied [between 1 Oct. 1842 and 14 Sept. 1843] in Minute Book 2, pp. 133–135; handwriting of ; CHL. For more complete source information, see the source note for Minute Book 2.
Historical Introduction
On 14 April 1838, JS presided at a meeting to investigate a complaint against for his position regarding enforcement of the “,” the church’s revealed dietary code. The church’s position regarding this code had recently become more rigid and had provoked some members to resist the church’s involvement in temporal matters. West’s case had been tried earlier in a council of , who apparently ruled in his favor. However, , the original complainant, appealed his case against West to the high council on 27 March 1838. The high council members convened to hear the case on 14 April, immediately following two days of disciplinary councils in which they had excommunicated dissident church leaders. In the trial against held the day before, one of the charges was that Whitmer did not observe the Word of Wisdom. Wait brought several witnesses to testify regarding statements West had allegedly made about the Word of Wisdom and church authority. An hour-long adjournment noted in the meeting minutes suggests the trial lasted several hours. In the end, JS ruled that West had merely “erred in spirit” and should only be admonished. Meeting minutes, which included a transcript of the complaint, were taken by high council clerk . The minutes were later copied into Minute Book 2 by .
I, in appealing the case between me and , to the High Council, prefer the first charge contained in the original charges, namely; A spirit of dissension, in that he declared publickly that he did not believe in the vote of the General Assembly, last Nov 7th, “not to support stores and shops selling spiritous liquors, tea, coffee, and tobacco.” And also I shall bring any testimony I can find to the same effect and connect it with the foregoing charge.
And also, the first item of the second charge contained in the original, namely; Teaching incorrect doctrine in that he said the did not concern our Spiritual Salvation.
, Complainant”
The case was not considered difficult, therefore, two Councellors were to speak on the case, viz: , on the part of the , and , on the part of the part of the defendant.
Some remarks were made by the , in which he acknowledged a part of the first charge.
, testifies that he heard say that he would not believe the decision of the High Council if it did not coincide with the Book of Covenants.
Also, he heard say that he did not covenant to not uphold stores and shops, which sold liquor, tea, coffee and tobacco, because he had already made as many covenants as he kept &c but if any persons had made any such covenants, he would say to them ‘for God’s sake to keep them.’
William Hulet, testifies that he heard say that if he had his mind made up on any <a> certain item of Revelation and the High Council should decide contrary to his mind upon that item, he would not believe the decision except they would bring proof to substantiate it. Also that he never did hear say any thing against [p. 134]
Hulet may have objected to West’s lack of respect for high council decisions, perhaps based on an understanding that high council decisions were inspired by God. (See Darowski, “Seeking After the Ancient Order,” 102–104.)
Darowski, Joseph F. “Seeking After the Ancient Order: Conferences and Councils in Early Church Governance, 1830–34.” In Brigham Young University Church History Symposium; A Firm Foundation: Church Organization and Administration, edited by David J. Whittaker and Arnold K. Garr, 97–113. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011.