William Marks was a close associate of Joseph Smith whose legacy has been largely overlooked. His story sheds light on some of the most pivotal and contested moments of the early Latter-day Saint movement. For example, he was the Nauvoo Stake President during the turbulent years leading up to Joseph Smith’s death, played a crucial role in the Church’s succession crisis, resisted the introduction of plural marriage, and eventually aligned with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This interview with Cheryl Bruno explores the fascinating biography of William Marks.
Sign upto be notified when we publish new content, like articles about John Turner’s Joseph Smith Biography, Mormon Fundamentalists, and the Nauvoo Temple.
Early Life and Conversion
Who was Williams Marks?
William Marks (1792–1872) was a prominent and influential figure in early 19th-century Mormonism.
He served as Stake President and President of the High Council in Nauvoo, holding significant ecclesiastical authority during the final years of Joseph Smith’s leadership.
Marks is also mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants: in sections 117 and 124 of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Latter-day Saint) edition, and in section 115 of the Community of Christ edition.
He later became an important supporter of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church), now known as the Community of Christ.
What led Marks to join the Latter-day Saint movement?
Marks joined the Church at 43. He was introduced to the movement in early 1834 when Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Parley P. Pratt passed through western New York recruiting for Zion’s Camp.
While visiting his sister Prudence in Freedom Township, Marks attended meetings where these men preached powerfully about the restoration of the Gospel. Impressed by the message and the spiritual fervor he witnessed, Marks embraced the faith and was baptized.
His conversion was shaped by his personal integrity, openness to new religious ideas, and the influence of his family, some of whom joined the movement at the same time.
Divine Mandates and Revelatory History
What revelations did Joseph Smith record about William Marks?
Marks is the subject of several revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants that highlight both his ecclesiastical authority and the conditional nature of his standing in early Mormonism.
D&C 117
In Doctrine and Covenants 117:10, given in 1838, the Lord commands Marks to forsake the “cares of the world” and gather to Far West, Missouri, promising that if he is faithful over a few things, he will be made ruler over many.
This suggests a test of loyalty and a call to greater responsibility, though Marks’s delay in relocating may have impacted his later standing.
D&C 124
In Doctrine and Covenants 124:132, a revelation given in 1841, Marks is appointed to preside over the Church in Nauvoo as Stake President and High Council President and is instructed to labor in the temple. The Lord praises his faithfulness and promises him a “multiplicity of blessings” if he fulfills this calling.
These revelations portray Marks as a trusted and prominent leader during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, holding significant spiritual authority.
However, they also underscore that these blessings were contingent on continued faithfulness.
What role did gathering and excommunication play in the life of William Marks?
The themes of gathering and excommunication were central threads woven throughout William Marks’s life and religious journey.
The Doctrine of Gathering
As a devoted believer in Joseph Smith’s vision of Zion, Marks was deeply committed to the early Latter-day Saint doctrine of gathering: first to Kirtland, then Missouri, and later Nauvoo.
He was repeatedly drawn to physical and spiritual communities that sought to embody Zion, joining multiple such efforts even after Joseph Smith’s death.
The Reality of Excommunication
Yet alongside this desire for unity came the painful reality of exclusion. William Marks both enforced and endured excommunication: he left Presbyterianism to join Mormonism, served on the Kirtland high council, where he participated in disciplinary actions, and was himself expelled from Nauvoo after opposing polygamy.
He later joined James Strang in excommunicating Brigham Young and other apostles. Most notably, he defended Sidney Rigdon at his excommunication trial, showing his devotion to procedure even at personal cost.
Marks’s life thus illustrates how the impulse to gather often came with the necessity and burden of drawing boundaries around who belonged.
Leadership in Kirtland and Nauvoo
What roles did William Marks fill in Kirtland and Nauvoo?
Kirtland, Ohio
In Kirtland, William Marks served on the high council and held a prominent leadership role in the Church.
He was called to assist with church property and helped oversee the Saints during a turbulent period that included:
- The Kirtland banking crisis.
- Growing internal dissent.
- The gathering to Missouri.
Nauvoo, Illinois
In Nauvoo, Marks held even more significant responsibilities. He was appointed president of the Nauvoo Stake and presided over the Nauvoo High Council, making him one of the city’s highest-ranking local leaders.
He was also a member of the Council of Fifty, a secretive political organization Joseph Smith organized in the final months of his life.
Marks’s positions placed him at the center of major developments in the church, including the introduction of plural marriage, the administration of temple ordinances, and the succession crisis following Joseph Smith’s death.
What signs are there of trust and mistrust from Joseph Smith towards William Marks in the last years of Smith’s life?
Despite William Marks’s reluctance to embrace plural marriage, there is strong evidence that Joseph Smith’s overall trust in him remained intact up until the Prophet’s death.
Marks continued in his positions of authority, although there may have been some tension in their relationship due to rumors and financial issues.
Importantly, after Joseph’s martyrdom, both Emma Smith and other leading figures saw Marks as the logical choice to lead the Church, suggesting that Joseph had not distanced himself from Marks or diminished his standing.
The Conflict Over Plural Marriage
How did William Marks feel about plural marriage?
William Marks rejected the principle of plural marriage, both at the 1843 High Council meeting where the revelation was read and at later times in his life.
By the 1850s and 1860s, Marks consistently claimed that Joseph Smith had privately admitted being deceived about polygamy, had repented, and had asked Marks to help end the practice shortly before his death.
Marks described this doctrine as a “curse” and a “damnable heresy,” and believed it would lead to the Church’s downfall if not stopped.
He appeared to feel vindicated when Joseph seemingly reversed course on the issue.
How accurate are William Marks’ claims about Joseph Smith renouncing plural marriage?
While Marks acknowledged that the doctrine of plural marriage was introduced during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he uniquely portrays the Prophet as regretting the practice and planning to denounce it.
No other contemporary witness supports this version. Marks’s account, which reflects his own strong anti-polygamy stance, appears carefully framed for a sympathetic audience.
Still, if Marks’s story contains a kernel of truth, it may reflect a strategic move by Smith, who was concerned about the growing backlash against polygamy and wanted to protect the church from external threats.
Marks stands alone in claiming such a plan.
In this reading, Smith may not have intended to abandon the doctrine entirely but rather to manage its fallout by publicly condemning it while privately controlling it.
According to Marks, Smith proposed that Marks publicly repudiate the principle. If Smith planned to later forgive the offenders, it would allow the church to distance itself from the controversy without fully relinquishing the doctrine.
Even so, Marks stands alone in claiming such a plan, and the lack of corroboration makes his account more a reflection of his personal perspective than a reliable record of Smith’s intentions.
The Succession Crisis and Rigdon Connection
Why did Emma Smith and others see William Marks as being Joseph Smith’s rightful successor?
Emma Smith and others saw William Marks as Joseph Smith’s rightful successor because he held a key leadership role as President of the Nauvoo Stake and High Council.
The church’s published revelations identified these bodies as having authority equal to that of the First Presidency and greater than that of the Twelve Apostles within organized stakes.
Joseph had also personally elevated Marks’s status through sacred temple rites, including ordaining him a Prophet, Priest, and King before any of the Twelve received such an ordination.
Marks outranked other claimants in both the Quorum of the Anointed and the Council of Fifty.
Emma argued that succession should follow established order: with the First President gone, the President of the High Council should step in, form a new First Presidency, and govern the church at its center, leaving the Twelve to their appointed role in the mission field.
Marks represented a familiar, moderate figure connected to Joseph Smith’s family and legacy.
Marks had close ties to Emma Smith and shared her opposition to plural marriage, which further strengthened their alliance.
For those who hoped to steer the church away from polygamy and retain control in Nauvoo, Marks represented a familiar, moderate figure connected to Joseph Smith’s family and legacy.
Why did William Marks stand up for Sidney Rigdon, and how did that support affect Marks?
For a short period of time after Joseph Smith’s death, William Marks supported Sidney Rigdon, the only surviving member of the First Presidency, as entitled to lead the Church. Marks expressed this view early, stating that “Rigdon was to be president,” and he appreciated Rigdon’s intention to appoint him as “Patriark,” Hyrum Smith’s successor.
Marks called a meeting on August 8, 1844, to decide the matter, directing that a platform be built from which Rigdon could address the Saints, showing his public endorsement of Rigdon’s proposal to serve as “guardian” of the Church.
His stance led to growing alienation and eventual estrangement.
Although Marks remained quiet during the vote that afternoon, his earlier support was remembered.
As Brigham Young and the Twelve consolidated authority, they saw Marks as a potential threat. He was summoned to defend himself the very next day and forced to repeatedly prove his loyalty.
During Sidney Rigdon’s excommunication trial, Marks offered a defense of Rigdon, partly out of friendship and partly to ensure fairness and to follow proper High Council procedure.
He argued that past accusations against Rigdon had not been proven and reaffirmed his belief in a First Presidency as essential to Church leadership.
Still, he was willing to submit to the will of the majority.
Despite this, his public defense of Rigdon deepened mistrust from the Twelve and other leaders. Though he helped ensure the trial was conducted correctly, his stance led to growing alienation and eventual estrangement from Church leadership in Nauvoo.
Post-Nauvoo Affiliations
What Latter Day Saint groups was William Marks affiliated with?
Strangites
Despite his early support, Marks never affiliated with Sidney Rigdon’s movement. Rejected by Brigham Young and the Twelve, Marks was courted and recruited by James Strang, who recognized his talents, leadership, and the prestige he carried under his former priesthood position.
Marks personally attended the April 6, 1846, Voree General Conference, and there he was appointed Bishop of Strang’s church. He participated sporadically, even serving as an Apostle at one time.
He withdrew by 1850, likely over concerns about Strang practicing polygamy.
Baneemyites and the Reorganized Church
Marks also spent some time with Charles Thompson’s group of “Baneemyites,” assisting them in finding a place to gather.
He became disillusioned by Thomson as well, and briefly thought about forming a restoration group himself, before finally aligning himself with the Reorganized Church.
What role did William Marks come to play in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Marks played a vital role in the formation and early development of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), lending legitimacy, continuity, and administrative leadership to the fledgling movement.
Initially hesitant, Marks joined the Reorganization in 1859 after a spiritual experience at a conference in Amboy, Illinois, where he was welcomed warmly and appointed to important roles, including participation in publishing efforts and hymnbook development.
As the former Nauvoo Stake President and High Council President under Joseph Smith Jr., Marks’s presence reassured many that the Reorganization was the rightful continuation of the original church.
He was instrumental in ordaining Joseph Smith III as church president in 1860 and was later appointed the First Presidency’s first and only counselor, a role he held until his death.
Marks remained a respected patriarchal figure within the RLDS community until his death in 1872.
Marks participated in conferences and served on important committees, such as overseeing the publication of the Inspired Version of the Bible. He provided testimony connecting early Nauvoo events, like the introduction of plural marriage, to the Reorganization’s theological positions.
Despite being vilified by the Utah church, Marks remained a respected patriarchal figure within the RLDS community until he died in 1872, helping guide its doctrine and institutional structure during a crucial decade of growth and identity formation.
Final Reflections
What do you hope people will take away from Come Up Hither to Zion: William Marks and the Mormon Concept of Gathering?
Come Up Hither to Zion presents the portrait of a pivotal yet often overlooked figure in early Mormon history. Through telling the story of the life of William Marks, the book achieves several things:
- It reframes the traditional succession narrative following Joseph Smith’s death, highlighting Marks’s role as Nauvoo Stake President and trusted leader who was seen by Emma Smith and others as a legitimate successor.
- It explores the Mormon doctrine of “gathering” not merely as physical migration but as a deeply spiritual and communal ideal, and shows how Marks’s evolving views reflected broader tensions within the movement.
- The biography also sheds light on Marks’s moral and theological resistance to polygamy, his quiet dissent from Brigham Young’s leadership, and his later alignment with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
In doing so, the book invites readers to reconsider the legacy of dissenters and forgotten figures, demonstrating the plurality of paths the Restoration took and could have taken.
Ultimately, it provides a valuable bridge between competing Latter Day Saint traditions and offers fresh insight into the complexities of leadership, loyalty, and belief in a formative era of Mormonism.
Did You Enjoy This Article?
Subscribe to receive an email each time we publish new content!
About the Scholar
Cheryl L. Bruno is a co-author of Come Up Hither to Zion: William Marks and the Mormon Concept of Gathering. She is an independent researcher on Mormon history, with publications in the Journal of Religion and Society, the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, the Journal of Mormon Polygamy, and the Journal of Mormon History. She has also presented at several different Mormon- and religious-focused conferences. In addition, Cheryl has published personal essays and poetry in several anthologies and has created a deck of Mormon-themed tarot cards.
Further Reading
- Who Was Joseph Smith?
- What Do Polygamy Skeptics Think About Joseph Smith?
- Who Was William Bickerton?
- How do the Church and Community of Christ Differ in Their Use of Scriptures?
- Did Brigham Young Really Say That? A Closer Look at Rediscovered Sermons
Early Latter-day Saint Leader William Mark Resources
- Come Up Hither to Zion: William Marks and the Mormon Concept of Gathering (Greg Kofford Books)
- A Review: Come Up Hither to Zion: William Marks and the Mormon Concept of Gathering (Times and Seasons)
- William Marks Biography (Joseph Smith Papers)
- “A Mean Conspirator” or “The Noblest of Men”: William Marks’s Expulsion from Nauvoo (John Whitmer Historical Association Journal [PDF])
- Joseph Smith III’s 1844 Blessing and the Mormons of Utah (Dialogue)
- “I Intend to Get Up a Whistling School”: The Nauvoo Whistling and Whittling Movement, American Vigilante Tradition, and Mormon Theocratic Thought (Journal of Mormon History)
