QUARTERLY

Scholarship informed by
the restored gospel of
Jesus Christ

Yet to Be
Revealed
Open Questions in
Latter-day Saint Theology
Edited by Eric A. Eliason and Terryl L. Givens
BYU STUDIES QUARTERLY

Editor in Chief
Steven C. Harper TO OUR READERS

BYU Studies Staff

BYU Studies publishes scholarship
Editorial Director informed by the restored gospel of
Roger Terry Jesus Christ. We exist to inspire learn-
Senior Editors
ing “by study and also by faith” (D&C
Matthew B. Christensen
Jennifer Hurlbut 88:118) in three primary constituencies:
Production Editor
Marny K. Parkin
• Educated nonspecialist readers/
Publications Coordinator subscribers
Annette Samuelsen
• Scholars whose work merits publica-
Web Editor
Derek Gurr tion in a venue committed to both
Marketing Team revealed and discovered truth
Erica E. Christensen
Lauren P. Rands • Students who gain experiential learn-
Web Programmers ing while making vital contributions
Madison Brann
Tau Doxey
Chi Ngo
Jakob Klobčič
Youngchan Kim
Editorial Assistants
Andrea Marie Candland
Tina Hawley
Brooke James
Abigail Tree
Elena R. Welch
Audio Team
Doug Nuttall
Elizabeth Tagg
Langi Tuifua
Mamie Belle Tonnies

byustudies.byu.edu
 Editor in Chief Yet to Be Revealed:
Steven C. Harper
Open Questions
Associate Editor in Latter-day Saint
Susan Elizabeth Howe
Theology
Editorial Board
Carter Charles  history
W. Justin Dyer  social science
Sherilyn Farnes  history
Edited by
James E. Faulconer  philosophy/theology Eric A. Eliason and
Kathleen Flake  religious studies Terryl L. Givens
Ignacio M. Garcia  history
David F. Holland  religious history
Kent P. Jackson  scripture
Tyler Johnson  medicine and culture
Megan Sanborn Jones  theater and media arts
Ann Laemmlen Lewis  independent scholar
Jennifer L. Lund  social history and historic sites
Kerry Muhlestein  Egyptology
Marjorie Newton  history
Josh E. Probert  material culture
Susan Sessions Rugh  history
Jenny Rebecca Rytting  literature and medieval studies
Lisa Olsen Tait  history
Greg Trimble, entrepreneurship, internet engineering
Richard E. Turley Jr.  history and law
John G. Turner  history
Gerrit van Dyk  Church history
John W. Welch  law and scripture
Ashlee Whitaker  visual arts Scholarship Informed
Frederick G. Williams  cultural history by the Restored Gospel
Jed L. Woodworth  history of Jesus Christ
BYU STUDIES
QUARTERLY
Volume 60 • Number 3 • 2021

5 Introduction
Eric A. Eliason and Terryl L. Givens

HOW AND WHAT DO WE KNOW?

13 “Oh Say, What Is Truth?” Approaches to Doctrine
Michael Goodman
39 Is Sure Knowledge an Ideal for Everyone or
One Spiritual Gift among Many?
Blair Dee Hodges and Patrick Q. Mason

THE NATURE OF GOD AND HUMANITY

49 Is God Subject to or The Creator of Eternal Law?
James McLachlan
65 What Is the Nature of God’s Progress?
Matthew Bowman
75 Was Jesus Married?
Christopher James Blythe
85 The King Follet Discourse: Pinnacle or Peripheral?
James E. Faulconer with Susannah Morrison

AGENCY AND SALVATION

105 Understandings of the Relationship between Grace and Works
Terryl L. Givens
113 Shards of Combat:
How Did Satan Seek to Destroy the Agency of Man?
Philip L. Barlow
 127 How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?
Terryl L. Givens
139 Each Atom an Agent?
Steven L. Peck

SCRIPTURE
147 The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible:
Ancient Material Restored or Inspired Commentary?
Canonical or Optional? Finished or Unfinished?
Jared W. Ludlow
159 Is the Bible Reliable? A Case Study:
Were King Josiah’s Reforms a Restoration from Apostasy or
a Suppression of Plain and Precious Truths?
(And What about Margaret Barker?)
Eric A. Eliason
183 Is the Song of Solomon Scripture?
Dana M. Pike and Eric A. Eliason
193 Book of Mormon Geographies
Andrew H. Hedges
203 The Book of Mormon Translation Process
Grant Hardy

HISTORY, SOCIETY, AND ESCHATOLOGY

213 Narrating Religious Heritage: Apostasy and Restoration
Miranda Wilcox
 229 Civil Disobedience in Latter-day Saint Thought
Nathan B. Oman
241 What Is Women’s Relationship to Priesthood?
Lisa Olsen Tait
273 On the Foreknowledge of God: Time, Knowledge, Reality, Agency
Rosalynde Welch
287 Will Things Get Better or Worse before the Second Coming?:
Are the Latter-day Saints Premillienarians or Postmillenarians?
Jed Woodworth

REVIEW
299 In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks
by Richard E. Turley Jr.
Reviewed by John W. Welch
Introduction to a BYU Studies Quarterly
Special Issue on Open Questions
in Latter-day Saint Theology

Eric A. Eliason and Terryl L. Givens

T hrough revelation, our knowledge of the Lord’s creations and his

plan for us is gloriously multifaceted, and ever increasing. Revealed
truth continually pushes back darkness, opening our eyes to ever-more
expansive vistas. Joseph Smith’s revelations often came as answers to
questions that occurred to him in the context of his current state of
knowledge. But as insight increases, it may seem that each answered
question precipitates three more. This is the natural condition for fol-
lowers of a religion of continuing revelation.
Virginia Woolf referred to the desire of audiences everywhere to find
“after an hour’s discourse a nugget of pure truth to wrap up between the
pages of your notebooks and keep on the mantelpiece forever.”1 Indeed,
one of the great contributions of the Restoration is its promise that
through the power of the Holy Ghost, disciples can know “the truth of
all things” (Moro. 10:5; D&C 124:97; Moses 6:61). Repeated references to
the “fulness of times,” the “fulness of the scriptures,” the “fulness of the
gospel,” and the “fulness of truth” hammer home the insistent theme
that the doors of heaven are open wide, and Latter-day Saint chapel
pulpits everywhere reverberate to the omnipresent words, “I know . . .”
In our celebration of wave upon wave of revealed truth washing over
us, we may sometimes forget that eternity is wide and the ocean of truth
deep. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
birth is not the beginning and death is not the end. Those two idols of

1. Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
1989), 3.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)5

6 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

human nature, certainty and closure, can come into conflict with the
reality of ongoing progress in learning the truths of salvation. “This is a
wide field for the operation of man,” said Brigham Young, “that reaches
into eternity.”2 “When you climb up a ladder,” Joseph Smith explained,
“you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive
at the top, and so it is with the principles of the Gospel— you must begin
with the first and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation;
but it will be a great while after you have passed through the vail before
you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this
world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even
beyond the grave.”3
From the beginning of this dispensation until recent times, prophets
have reminded the Saints that the Restoration is an ongoing process, not
an accomplished event. In 1829, the Lord apprised a generation that he
was about to bring a “part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people”
(D&C 10:52, emphasis added). More recently, President Russell M. Nel-
son taught that the Restoration is a process and we have seen just “the
beginning.”4
Our purpose in assembling this collection of essays is simple: we
wish to celebrate the miracle of continuing revelation and the promise
of more to come, in which God will “yet reveal many great and impor-
tant things” (A of F 1:9). This means that included essays represent only
a few of the hundreds of possible subjects, not nearly an exhaustive list
of open questions.
An important part of discipleship is knowing what questions to ask—
and which ones have not yet been adequately answered. Many of the topics
addressed in the following pages may already be resolved in the minds
of some readers. (Historical quotations strongly advocating one side or
another of the topics considered in this publication can be easily found on
the internet.) However, we believe that the resolution of these questions

2. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1855–

1886, 9:242 (March 6, 1862).
3. “History, 1838–1856, Volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” 1971, Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed May 20, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/his​
tory​-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/343.
4. Quoted in “President Nelson about the Church in Coming Years: ‘Eat Your Vita-
min Pills. Get Some Rest. It’s Going to Be Exciting,’ ” LDS Living, October 31, 2018,
https://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-About-the-Church-in-the-Coming​-Years​
-Eat-Your-Vitamin-Pills-Get-Some-Rest-It-s-Going-to-Be-Exciting/s/89632.
 Introduction   V7

lies outside the pale of official Church teachings as these have recently
been defined.
In the past, the term “Mormon doctrine” might have been used
quite expansively to refer to a vast corpus of varied ideas espoused by
Latter-day Saints over many years—much of it speculative and beyond
the scope of today’s official teaching. More recently, as our lead essay
shows, Church leaders, acting in their divinely ordained role of defining
and promoting doctrine, have made a concerted effort to more precisely
reserve the term “doctrine” for the core beliefs and principles of the
restored gospel. This does not necessarily mean ideas once imprecisely
called “doctrine” are no longer true. It just means they are more open
for discussion from various perspectives. Our contributors’ priority is
not to resolve seeming paradoxes or incompatibilities between various
perspectives; neither is our goal a compendium of speculative theology.
Rather, ours is an effort to clarify some of the hazy borders of orthodoxy
and to honor the dynamism, the richness, and the possibilities of a Res-
toration still very much in process of unfolding.
This publication is about how Latter-day Saints have considered some
distinct ideas that flow from the restored gospel’s answered questions
but that are not at this time, and may never be, official Church doctrine.
As editors, we invited contributors to use the following description as a
touchstone: “an anthology of essays by specialist scholars, on topics dis-
tinctive to Latter-day Saint religion, about which there have been more
than one school of thought, with a significant history of discussion, that
have not been authoritatively resolved.”5
These parameters necessarily exclude some topics readers might
expect, such as a treatment of those core doctrines officially promul-
gated by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum
of the Twelve. These doctrines can be defined only by those with an

5. In turning to subject-matter experts, we follow the example of President M. Rus-

sell Ballard, who, in a speech to Brigham Young University students that addressed diffi-
cult questions, some doctrinal, advised the following: “It is important to remember that
I am a General Authority, but that does not make me an authority in general! My calling
and life experiences allow me to respond to certain types of questions. There are other
types of questions that require an expert in a specific subject matter. This is exactly what
I do when I need an answer to such questions: I seek help from others, including those
with degrees and expertise in such fields.” “Questions and Answers,” Brigham Young
University devotional, November 14, 2017, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/m-russell​
-ballard_questions-and-answers, emphasis in original.
8 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

authority and stewardship the editors and contributors to this publica-

tion do not have. Unlike the nondoctrinal concepts we consider, official
doctrines are not open questions.
We also do not try to square the Genesis Creation account with bio-
logical evolution and the geological age of the Earth. This topic has
greatly exercised many Christian minds and produced many proposed
solutions for over a century and a half. Fascinating as this topic may be,
it is not a distinctively Latter-day Saint issue.6 Since the focus of this
publication is on theology and beliefs, it does not directly address many
social issues such as when, if ever, abortion is permissible; religious
freedom vs. LGBTQ rights; and which, if any, political party we should
favor. These are not distinctively Latter-day Saint issues either—though
their consideration in the light of the restored gospel would surely offer
unique insight.
Our focus is on ideas about which mainly, or even exclusively,
Latter-day Saints might entertain multiple views. This is also not a col-
lection of Latter-day heresies. So, “the Book of Mormon is fiction that
took place nowhere” versus “it recounts events that happened in the past
somewhere” are not opposing views we will consider. Some may believe
the first proposition, but it has not been, and is not now, what William
James would call a metaphysical “live option” within the framework of
restored gospel orthodoxy.7
Also absent are topics that may have been open—or of pressing
interest—at one time, but no longer are. In 1855, “Should we view Adam
‘as our Father and our God’ and the progenitor of our spirits or more
appropriately as the initial ancestor of the human race in a physical sense
only?” was a vigorous discussion concerning a distinctive Latter-day
Saint open question of the time.8 However, this topic has been closed
in favor of the latter proposition for many years. Discussions about
what role premortal choices might have had in determining our mortal
circumstances and lineage were once quite lively but have increasingly
dried up since 1978.
The scope of this publication follows its purpose—which might be
helpfully described by comparing it to what it is not. It is not prescriptive

6. For those interested in a discussion of this topic, we suggest John H. Walton, The
Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove,
Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009).
7. William James, “The Will to Believe, An Address to the Philosophical Clubs of
Yale and Brown Universities,” The New World, June 1896.
8. See, for example, Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 1:46–53 (April 9, 1852).
 Introduction   V9

but descriptive. It does not promote; it presents. It does not seek to say
what Latter-day Saints should believe; it examines and considers con-
cepts Latter-day Saints have believed. The publication seeks not to fuel
doctrinal disputes but to defuse them. There is no ammunition here for
those wishing to bring a contested doctrine into definitive resolution or
to bring the spirit of contention into a Sunday School class. Our purpose
is exactly the opposite—to model examples of respectful consideration
of various points of view.
Presenting side by side, without resolution, a multiplicity of seem-
ingly contrasting ideas is nothing new. Scripture is replete with this
pattern. The Bible in particular often eschews smoothing over and mini-
mizing differences. Instead, this publication will present more than one
righteous viewpoint for consideration. Proverbs’ simple message that
a person who pursues “righteousness . . . findeth life . . . and honour”
while the wicked perish (Prov. 21:21) is quite distinct from Ecclesiastes’
and Matthew’s message that God “sendeth rain on the just and unjust”
(Matt. 5:45; see also Eccl. 9:2).
The Old Testament repeatedly forbids ancient Israelites from
wedding noncovenant peoples such as Egyptians, Moabites, or Per-
sians (Deut. 7:3–4; 23:3; 1 Kgs. 11:1–8; Neh. 10:30; 13:23–27). Ezra even
demanded divorce for those who had (Ezra 9:1–2, 14). Yet the same
Bible presents Joseph, Boas, and Esther, without excuse or explanation,
as blameless heroes who entered such marriages (Gen. 41:45; Ruth 4:10–
13; Esth. 2:5–20). Many creative extrascriptural attempts to harmonize
these head-scratchers have emerged over the years—including Joseph
and Asaneth, an apocryphal book, likely from before 500 BCE, claiming
that Asaneth conveniently converted before marrying Joseph.9
Some scholars suspect James’s message that “faith without works is
dead” (James 2:20) was written in concerned response to Paul’s “faith
alone” teaching that “man is justified by faith without the deeds of
the law” (Rom. 3:28).10 Neither view was expunged from the Bible.
Hundreds of years later, Martin Luther’s enthusiasm for Pauline sola
fide waxed so strong that he flirted with contradicting his own belief
in the Bible’s perfect completeness. He called the book of James “an
epistle of straw” that had “nothing of the nature of the gospel about it,”

9. H. F. D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1984).
10. See also James 2:14–26; Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 259–63.
10 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

doubted its apostolic authorship, wistfully claimed some early Chris-

tians rejected its canonicity, and relegated it to the back of his edition
of the Bible.11
In the Book of Mormon, Alma’s consideration of the possibility of
one, two, or even three times for resurrection (Alma 40:5)—instead
of merely asserting which option he favored—has served as an inspira-
tion for this publication. We might also imagine a conversation between
a Nephite soldier and an Anti-Nephi-Lehi about the rightness of tak-
ing up arms to defend one’s family and religion.12 Book of Mormon
figures model a beautiful tolerance for divergent belief and practice
when Nephites self-sacrificingly gave land to those who had differ-
ent convictions and then interposed themselves between the people
of Ammon and those Lamanites intent on killing them. For their part,
the Anti-Nephi-Lehies didn’t burn their draft cards but instead chose
to provide material support to the Nephite armies (Alma 27:24). Some
readers might see in these passages justification for universal pacifism
or mandatory military support. We see examples of how people of dif-
ferent views, within the same covenant fold, might live together and
serve each other.
Twentieth-century prophets, seers, and revelators have displayed a
similar openness. For example, President J. Reuben Clark wrote to his
missionary son, “The philosophy of the Gospel is so deep and many
sided, its truths are so far reaching it is never safe to dogmatize, even
about the most elemental principles, such as faith.” And referencing
one of the topics in this publication, “it does not make any difference
to your service nor to mine, whether God is progressing or whether He
has come to a stand-still.”13 This approach echoes and brings us back

11. Martin Luther, “Prefaces to the New Testament,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 35: Word
and Sacrament 1, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, trans. Charles M.
Jacobs (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 33.
12. Julie M. Smith has edited a wonderfully thought-provoking book of imagined
dialogues between various scriptural figures with differing viewpoints. Her book shares
much the same spirit as ours. See As Iron Sharpens Iron: Listening to the Various Voices
of Scripture (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2016).
13. J. Reuben Clark Jr. to J. Reuben Clark III, May 23, 1929, box 355, J. Reuben Clark
Papers, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; and J. Reuben
Clark to M***** R. R***, September 24, 1953, fd. 8, box 389, J. Reuben Clark Papers, as
cited by Robert Boylan in “J. Reuben Clark vs. Naive/Fundamentalist Views of Church
Leaders and Their Knowledge of Doctrine,” Scriptural Mormonism (blog), November 9,
2018, http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2018/11/j-reuben-clark-vs-naivefun​da​
mentalist.html. Boylan quotes D.  Michael Quinn, J.  Reuben Clark: The Church Years
(Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983), 166.
 Introduction   V11

to Joseph Smith who taught, “By proving contraries truth is manifest.”14

A common nineteenth-century usage of the word “prove” meant some-
thing other than today’s “to demonstrate conclusively by evidence.”
Rather, “proving” was to find out by experience, or to test quality by
measurement, consideration, and allowing it to manifest.15 Bakers fol-
low a similar sense of the word when they give dough time to “prove,”
letting the yeast do its work before it enters the oven. These meanings of
“prove” suggest that a fuller understanding of truth can come by keeping
multiple perspectives in mind and letting them work themselves out in
patience and God’s own time, like fruitful leaven.

14. Israel Daniel Rupp, author of a book on American churches, invited each
denomination to describe its own history and doctrines in their own words. Joseph
Smith provided an article describing his own life history, the Book of Mormon, the
Church’s founding, and the Articles of Faith. In June 1844, the Prophet received a copy
of the book. He dictated a thank-you letter to Rupp praising him for letting each church
tell its own story. In doing so, Joseph argued that not all religions have equal truth, but
that the truth can be found in comparing their many perspectives: “Although all is not
gold that shines, any more than every religious creed is sanctioned with the so eternally
sure word of prophesy, satisfying all doubt with ‘Thus saith the Lord’, yet, ‘by proving
contrarieties truth is made manifest.’ ” The quotation marks suggest that Joseph Smith
might have been referencing some other unknown source. Joseph’s dictated letter uses
the word “contrarieties.” Subsequent quotations of this letter in Church literature often
use a less archaic synonym—“contraries.” The recounting above is drawn from Jared
Cook, “Book Review: As Iron Sharpens Iron,” By Common Consent (blog), August 30,
2016, https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/08/30/book-review-as-iron-sharpens-iron.
See also I. Daniel Rupp, He Pasa Ekklesia: An Original History of the Religious Denomi-
nations at Present Existing in the United States (Philadelphia: J.  Y. Humphreys, 1844),
404–10, https://archive.org/stream/hepasaekklesiaa00ruppgoog#page/n414/mode/2up.
With the source author’s permission, this citation maintains and slightly adapts the
source’s original wording.
15. Merriam-Webster.com, s.v. “prove, ” accessed May 21, 2021, https://www.merriam​
-webster.com/dictionary/prove.
“Oh Say, What Is Truth?”
Approaches to Doctrine

Michael Goodman

Yes, say, what is truth? ’Tis the brightest prize

To which mortals or Gods can aspire.
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies,
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies:
’Tis an aim for the noblest desire. . . .
Then say, what is truth? ’Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o’er.
Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore.1

T he restored gospel of Jesus Christ, like other religious traditions,

claims to be based on true doctrines.2 The above hymn, included in
the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price, encapsulates the deep long-
ing for truth by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. Statements by Church leaders abound extolling the virtue and
power of truth, but such statements often beg the question, What is
truth? Scripture states that “truth is knowledge of things as they are,
and as they were, and as they are to come.”3 Church curricular material

1. John Jaques, “Oh Say, What Is Truth?,” in Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985),
no. 272.
2. Joseph Smith stated that “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraced
it felt himself at liberty to embrace every truth.” “Copy of a Letter from J. Smith Jr. to
Mr. Galland,” Times and Seasons 1, no. 4 (February 1840): 53.
3. Doctrine and Covenants 93:24. One scholar pointed out that this definition closely
aligns with the correspondence theory of truth. See Loyd Ericson, “The Challenges of

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)13

14 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

further states that “divine truth is absolute reality” and “truth is eternal.”4
In the theology of the Church, truth is inextricably connected to God.

Truth and God

Canonized scripture portrays truth as co-eternal with God.5 Church
theology has long held that there is a reciprocal, interdependent rela-
tionship between God and truth. The Book of Mormon teaches that if
God varied from eternal law and truth, God would cease to be God.6
One Book of Mormon prophet exclaimed, “Yea, Lord, I know that thou
speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth” (Ether 3:12). Doctrine
and Covenants  93 further teaches the intricate relationship between
truth and God by making it another name for God. Christ himself is
referred to as “the Spirit of truth” twice (D&C 93:9, 11). Truth is further
identified as a synonym for light, spirit, and intelligence, each of which
further connects truth to God.7 Not only is God referred to as “truth,”
but he is also considered the source of all truth for his children: “true
doctrine comes from God, the source and foundation of all truths.”8

Defining Mormon Doctrine,” Element 3, nos. 1 and 2 (2007): 69–90. For a modern defi-
nition of the correspondence theory of truth, see Marian David, “The Correspondence
Theory of Truth,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (2016),
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/truth-correspondence/.
4. “Divine Truth,” in Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, ed. Church Educa-
tional System (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2010), 2–3.
5. See Doctrine and Covenants 1:39; 88:66; 93:29–30.
6. Three times in Alma’s teachings recorded in Alma 42, he states that such a devia-
tion from truth would cause God to cease to be God, even as he emphatically states, “But
God ceaseth not to be God” (42:23).
7. “He [Christ] that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in
that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light
of truth; which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the
light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon,
and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; as also the light
of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; and the earth also, and the
power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which shineth, which
giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light
that quickeneth your understandings; which light proceedeth forth from the presence
of God to fill the immensity of space—the light which is in all things, which giveth life
to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God
who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all
things” (D&C 88:6–13).
8. L. Tom Perry, “The Doctrines and Principles Contained in the Articles of Faith,”
Ensign 43, no.  11 (November 2013): 46; see also Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “We Are Doing a
Great Work and Cannot Come Down,” Ensign 39, no. 5 (May 2009): 59–62.
 Approaches to Doctrine   V15

These scriptures and comments highlight the relational nature of

truth in Latter-day Saint thought. “Truth is knowledge of things as they
are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24), but only
God knows this truth perfectly, and hence he is the only sure source
of truth. Accordingly, it is only in compliance with and in relationship
to God that man can come to know all truth. A philosopher who is
a Latter-day Saint explained that “among the main original senses of
‘truth’ was ‘troth’—a pledge or covenant of faithfulness made uprightly
and without deceit. . . . It is in the spirit of these ancient etymologies
that Latter-day Saints believe that to walk in truth is to keep one’s com-
mitments to follow Christ’s way uprightly.”9 To know truth according
to these statements is to know God. For this reason, Church members
often believe the surest source of truth comes by way of direct commu-
nication (revelation) from God.10

Truth, Doctrine, and Revelation

Latter-day Saints are instructed to “seek learning, even by study and
also by faith” (D&C 88:118). In the cosmology of the restored gospel of
Jesus Christ, though intimately connected to his mortal children, God
stands outside of the mortal sphere and hence outside of man’s ability
to perfectly measure and investigate using only secular means. Perhaps,
for this reason, Church members have traditionally placed great empha-
sis on learning truth through spiritual means. Elder Bruce R. McCon-
kie once stated, “True religion is revealed religion; it is not a creation
of man’s devising; it comes from God. . . . God stands revealed or he
remains forever unknown, and the things of God are and can be known
only by and through the Spirit of God.”11 Though individual revelation
is seen as an essential aspect of confirming true doctrine for each per-
son, in the theology of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, only those
sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators are authorized to reveal or
declare new doctrine.

9. C. Terry Warner, “Truth,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow,

4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 4:1490.
10. As taught by D.  Todd Christofferson in “Truth Endures,” address to Church
Educational System religious educators, January 26, 2018, https://www.churchofjesus​
christ.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2018/01/truth-endures​
?lang=eng.
11. Bruce R. McConkie, “The Lord’s People Receive Revelation,” Ensign 1, no. 6 (June
1971): 77.
16 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Truth, Doctrine, and the Role of Prophets

Latter-day Saints differ from most other Christians in believing that
God continues to reveal truth through living prophets.12 Joseph Smith
stated that it is through this priesthood or prophetic channel that “all
knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter
truth is revealed from heaven.”13 Thus, Latter-day Saints continue to
believe that true doctrine is revealed through prophets. These prophets
are accepted as the authoritative mouthpiece of God as the first section
in the Doctrine and Covenants states: “Whether by mine own voice or
by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).
With the belief that a perfect God reveals eternal truths directly to
prophetic servants, it might seem that Church members would largely
feel secure in their knowledge of most truth or doctrine. Though probably
accurate on several core doctrines, this security becomes less sure as we
move further away from that core.14 Adding to the challenge is the real-
ity that some beliefs, and more frequently the practices associated with
those beliefs, have varied over time. Though practice and belief are not
synonymous, changes in either add to the complexity of interpretation.
This has led some members to ask, “If our understanding of belief ‘x’ has
changed, how do I know that our understanding of belief ‘y’ won’t change
sometime in the future?” The concept of continuing revelation opens an
interpretive door for such a reality and begs for further clarity regarding
what changing beliefs mean as well as what beliefs can or cannot change.
Since the theology of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ stresses the
role of prophets in declaring doctrine, prophetic reliability becomes
an important consideration. Beginning with Joseph Smith, prophets
have repeatedly sought to add nuance to members’ understanding of
the role of a prophet. Joseph stated that “a Prophet was a Prophet only,

12. “Prophets,” in True to the Faith: A  Gospel Reference, ed. The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 2004), 129.
13. “Instruction on Priesthood, Circa 5 October 1840,” 1, Joseph Smith Papers,
accessed April 5, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction​
-on​-priesthood-circa-5-october-1840/1; see also James E. Faust, “The Key of the Knowl-
edge of God,” Ensign 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 52.
14. A national survey has found that strong majorities of those who identify as
Mormons agree on such major doctrinal issues regarding Christ’s resurrection (98%),
eternal families (95%), modern prophets (94%), and the Book of Mormon (91%). “Mor-
mons in America—Certain in Their Beliefs, Uncertain of Their Place in Society,” Pew
Research Center, January 12, 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/01/12/mormons​-in​
-america-executive-summary/.
 Approaches to Doctrine   V17

when he was acting as such.”15 Thus, not everything a prophet says is

a doctrinal declaration.16 The Lord revealed to Joseph that God gave
reve­lation “unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their
language, [so] that they might come to understanding” (D&C 1:24). As
one Latter-day Saint scholar explained, “Revelation is communication
in which God is a flawless, divine encoder, but mortals are the decoders.
Various kinds of ‘noise’ prevent perfect understanding.” Even though in
traditional belief, prophets are the most trustworthy of “decoders,” they
both receive and share revelation in a cultural and linguistic context.
The same scholar goes on to quote Joseph’s statements bemoaning the
inadequacy of language to convey the revelatory truths he was receiv-
ing. “He [Joseph] considered it ‘an awful responsibility to write in the
name of the Lord,’ as he put it, largely because he felt confined by what
he called the ‘total darkness of paper pen and Ink and a crooked broken
scattered and imperfect Language.’ ”17
Though prophets have taught from the days of Joseph Smith that they
are not infallible, they and other Church leaders continue to teach that
God reveals his will to his prophets and that God holds people account-
able for their response to those revelations. For instance, Joseph sought
to balance the reality of a fallible prophet with the ability to trust in the
revelations he received when he taught, “I never told you I was perfect;
but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.”18 Probably
the most famous of such statements came from Wilford Woodruff when
he declared, “The Lord will never permit me nor any other man who
stands as President of this Church, to lead you astray.”19 Perhaps more

15. “History, 1838–1856, Volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843],” 1464 (February 8,
1843), Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 5, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers​.org/
paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/107.
16. Joseph complained that “he did not enjoy the right vouchsafed to every Ameri-
can citizen—that of free speech. He said that when he ventured to give his private
opinion, his words were often garbled and their meaning twisted. And then given out
as the word of the Lord because they came from him.” Jesse W. Crosby, quoted in They
Knew the Prophet: Personal Accounts from over 100 People Who Knew Joseph Smith, ed.
Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1974), 144.
17. Steven C. Harper, “‘That They Might Come to Understanding’: Revelation as
Process,” in You Shall Have My Word: Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants,
ed. Scott C. Esplin, Richard O. Cowan, and Rachel Cope (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies
Center, Brigham Young University, 2012), 21.
18. “History, 1838–1856, Volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844],” 21 (May 12, 1844),
Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 5, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper​
-sum​mary/history-1838-1856-volume-f-1-1-may-1844-8-august-1844/27.
19. Wilford Woodruff, “Remarks by President George Q. Cannon and President
Wilford Woodruff, at the Sixty-First Semi-annual General Conference of The Church of
18 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

now than ever, with the abundance of information and at times disin-
formation regarding past and current prophets accessible with a single
mouse click, some Church members struggle to know where to draw
the line between acknowledging prophetic fallibility while adhering to
scriptural mandates to follow the prophet.
From the increasing number of talks and lessons focusing on these
issues in the last few decades, it seems obvious that the Church leader-
ship recognizes the challenge members face and that they are seeking
to assist in resolving it.20 This assistance appears to take a two-pronged
approach. First, Church leadership is regularly teaching that members
need to support each other in their search for truth by showing more
charity and acceptance as they work their way through the process of
discovering truth.21 Second, General Authorities have made a concerted
effort, as will be illustrated below, to help members define the param-
eters surrounding the Church’s doctrine to better enable members at
large to differentiate between what is considered authoritative and what
is considered speculative.

Defining Doctrine
In both ancient and Restoration scriptures, the meaning of the word
doctrine often changes depending on whether it is in singular or plural
form. In most instances, doctrine in the singular refers to the authori-
tative and authentic teachings of God.22 However, sometimes when it
is used in the plural form, it is in reference to the teachings of men or
even false teachings.23 From the beginning of the Restoration, the word

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 6, 1891, Immediately Following the Adoption
by the General Assembly of the Manifesto Issued by President Wilford Woodruff in
Relation to Plural Marriage,” Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, 2.
20. The following are just four of many such talks: Neil L. Andersen, “Trial of Your
Faith,” Ensign 42, no. 11 (November 2012): 39–42; M. Russell Ballard, “Stay in the Boat
and Hold On!,” Ensign 44, no. 11 (November 2014): 89–91; Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Lord,
I Believe,’ ” Ensign 43, no. 5 (May 2013): 93–95; Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Be Not Afraid, Only
Believe,” Ensign 45, no. 11 (November 2015): 76–79.
21. Two examples are M.  Russell Ballard, “To the Saints in the Utah South Area,”
address broadcast to the stakes of the Utah South Area, September 13, 2015, https://www​
.church​ofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-the-saints​-in​-the​
-utah​-south-area?lang=eng; Uchtdorf, “Be Not Afraid, Only Believe,” 76–79.
22. For a few examples, see Doctrine and Covenants 10:62; 11:16; 68:25; 97:14; 128:7;
2 Nephi 31:2; 32:6; Jacob 7:2; Helaman 11:22; 3 Nephi 11:28; Matthew 7:28; 22:33; Mark 1:22;
11:18; Luke 4:32; John 7:16; 18:19.
23. For a few examples, see Doctrine and Covenants 46:7; 2  Nephi 3:12; 28:9;
Alma 1:16; Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; 1 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 13:9. For a more thorough
 Approaches to Doctrine   V19

doctrine has been used by Church leaders to simply connote something

that is taught or religious instruction with little specificity of meaning
besides the fact that it was a teaching.24
However, defining doctrine as simply any religious instruction leaves
many modern members unable to differentiate between a teaching that
is considered “authoritative” and a teaching that is simply the best under-
standing of the person speaking. Over the last several decades, Church
leaders have begun to define the term doctrine more tightly with the
result being greater clarity on what can be relied on as fixed doctrine.

Defining Doctrine—
The Last Three Decades—General Authorities
In order to determine how General Authorities, especially members of
the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles, have been using the
word doctrine, a systematic review of every occurrence of the word doc-
trine in general conference over the last three decades (over two thousand
occurrences) was made.25 By reviewing every instance of the word rather
than simply looking at select, well-known statements, the hope was that
it would capture patterns of usage that might best show how those tasked
with establishing the doctrine of the church, meaning the First Presidency
and Quorum of Twelve, are using the word today.26 As has been under-
stood for much of the Church’s history, these two bodies have a special
stewardship when it comes to establishing doctrine in the Church. Elder
D. Todd Christofferson explained this concept in general conference by
quoting from Presi­dent J. Reuben Clark Jr. of the First Presidency.
In 1954, President J.  Reuben Clark  Jr., then a counselor in the First
Presidency, explained how doctrine is promulgated in the Church and
the preeminent role of the President of the Church. Speaking of mem-
bers of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he

investigation into how scriptures use the word doctrine, see M.  Gerald Bradford and
Larry E. Dahl, “Meaning, Source, and History of Doctrine,” in Encyclopedia of Mormon-
ism, 1:393–97.
24. Anthony Sweat, Michael H. MacKay, and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, “Doctrine: Models
to Evaluate Types and Sources of Latter-day Saint Teachings,” Religious Educator 17, no. 3
(2016): 103.
25. The search was performed using the LDS General Conference Corpus at https://
www.lds-general-conference.org/.
26. D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensign 42, no. 5 (May 2012):
86–89; Howard W. Hunter, “‘Exceeding Great and Precious Promises,’ ” Ensign 24, no. 11
(November 1994): 7–9; Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Is at the Helm,” Ensign 24, no. 5 (May
1994): 53–60.
20 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

stated: “[We] should [bear] in mind that some of the General Authori-
ties have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special
gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives
them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching
of the people. They have the right, the power, and authority to declare
the mind and will of God to his people, subject to the over-all power
and authority of the President of the Church. Others of the General
Authorities are not given this special spiritual endowment and author-
ity covering their teaching; they have a resulting limitation, and the
resulting limitation upon their power and authority in teaching applies
to every other officer and member of the Church, for none of them is
spiritually endowed as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Furthermore, as
just indicated, the President of the Church has a further and special
spiritual endowment in this respect, for he is the Prophet, Seer, and
Revelator for the whole Church.”27
Since most Church members base their understanding of Church
doctrine on what the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are
teaching, those teachings would seem to be a crucial starting point to
understanding how modern Church members might be defining doc-
trine. Most of the two-thousand-plus references to the word doctrine
in the last three decades were not efforts to define the word but rather
­simply to use the word. However, the systematic review of every instance
where efforts were made by members of the First Presidency and Quo-
rum of Twelve to define doctrine yielded three specific criteria that were
repeatedly used: the first stressed the unchanging, eternal nature of true
doctrine; the second stressed the authoritative sources from which doc-
trine may come; and the third stressed the appropriate scope or subject
matter for official doctrine (see fig. 1).28
In 1841, Joseph Smith taught that “every principle proceeding from God
is eternal.”29 This concept has been repeatedly expressed by modern proph-
ets. Elder Boyd K. Packer stated that “procedures, programs, the adminis-
trative policies, even some patterns of organization are subject to change.

27. Christofferson, “Doctrine of Christ,” 86–87, quoting from J.  Reuben Clark  Jr.,
“When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?,” Church News, July 31,
1954, 9–10. See also Doctrine and Covenants 28:1–2, 6–7, 11–13.
28. These three criteria are not meant to be an authoritative declaration of how to
determine doctrine but rather a systematic analysis of how members of the First Presi-
dency and Quorum of Twelve have done so over the last several decades.
29. “Discourse, 5 January 1841, as Reported by Unidentified Scribe,” 1 (January 5,
1841), Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 5, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers​.org/
paper​-summary/discourse-5-january-1841-as-reported-by-unidentified-scribe/1.
 Approaches to Doctrine   V21

Is it eternal? Is it salvific?

Doctrine

License Certificate June 17, 2021

ROYALTY–FREE LICENSE

Image: “sun Icon #2548039”

Is it being taught by
the First Presidency and
Purchased via Subscription from Noun Project
Quorum of the Twelve?

LICENSEE LICENSOR
Figure 1. Graphical representation of model for determining doctrine proposed
Michael
herein byGoodman
the author. The Noun Project, Inc.
User ID: 7194082
On behalf of
We are quite free, indeed, quite obliged to alter them from time to time.
But the principles, the doctrines, never change.”30 President PanuwatJamesSrijantawong
E. Faust
Transfer license to: Creator ID: 3910155
explained that “one cannot successfully attack true principles or doctrine,
because they are eternal. ”31 President Dieter F. Uchtdorf mirrored Boyd K.
Transfer date: / /
Packer when
Signature of original license holder:
he taught, “Procedures, programs, policies, and patterns of
organization are helpful for our spiritual progress here on earth, but let’s
not forget that they are subject to change. In contrast, the core of the gos-
This license grants its holder perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide rights to unlimited use of the licensed
pel—the doctrine and the principles—will never change.”32 Especially in
image, as covered by Noun Project's Terms of Use (www.thenounproject.com/legal).
the last three decades, the eternal, unchanging nature of doctrine is the
most frequently referenced criterion. In addition to talks by members of
the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, this criterion has continually
been stressed in the curricular material of the Church as well.33

30. Boyd K. Packer, “Principles,” Ensign 15, no. 3 (March 1985): 8, emphasis original.
See also Gordon B. Hinckley, “This Work Is Concerned with People,” Ensign 25, no. 5
(May 1995): 51–53.
31. James E. Faust, “Lord, I Believe; Help Thou Mine Unbelief,” Ensign 33, no.  11
(November 2003): 21–22.
32. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Developing Christlike Attributes,” Ensign 38, no. 10 (October
2008): 5.
33. For examples, see Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual (Salt Lake City:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2010); New-Teacher Training Resource:
22 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

The second criterion that has been emphasized over the last three
decades is that true doctrine is taught regularly and consistently by
members of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve. Elder Neil L.
Anderson explained that “there is an important principle that governs
the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members
of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in
an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently
and by many.”34 In line with the scriptural mandate that every decision
made by the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve “must be by the
unanimous voice of the same,”35 they have emphasized the authority
that flows from the combined voice of members of the First Presidency
and Quorum of Twelve to declare doctrine. “With divine inspiration,
the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quo-
rum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the
Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently pro-
claimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four
‘standard works’ of scripture . . . , official declarations and proclamations,
and the Articles of Faith.”36 This last sentence points to the pivotal role
of canonized scriptures and official proclamations and declarations as
repositories for the doctrines of the Church.
Lastly, perhaps as part of the definition that doctrines are eternal in
nature, some leaders have stressed that doctrine is that which pertains to
eternity and specifically to salvation. In other words, doctrine is salvific
in nature. Perhaps Elder David A. Bednar explained this most cogently:
“A gospel doctrine is a truth—a truth of salvation revealed by a loving

A Teacher-Improvement Companion to the Gospel Teaching and Learning Handbook (Salt

Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2016); Teaching in the Savior’s
Way (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2015).
34. Neil L. Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith,” Ensign 42, no. 11 (November 2012): 41.
See also Christofferson, “Doctrine of Christ,” 88, for a similar statement.
35. Doctrine and Covenants 107:27. The following statement from President Gor-
don B. Hinckley reinforces this principle: “But any major questions of policy, procedures,
programs, or doctrine are considered deliberately and prayerfully by the First Presidency
and the Twelve together. These two quorums, the Quorum of the First Presidency and
the Quorum of the Twelve, meeting together, with every man having total freedom to
express himself, consider every major question. And now I quote again from the word
of the Lord: ‘And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unani-
mous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its
decisions.’ ” Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Is at the Helm,” 54.
36. “Approaching Mormon Doctrine,” Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, May 4, 2007, https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approach​ing​
-mormon-doctrine.
 Approaches to Doctrine   V23

Heavenly Father. Gospel doctrines are eternal, do not change, and per-
tain to the eternal progression and exaltation of Heavenly Father’s sons
and daughters. Doctrines such as the nature of the Godhead, the plan
of happiness, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ are foundational, fun-
damental, and comprehensive. The core doctrines of the gospel of Jesus
Christ are relatively few in number.”37 General Authorities often refer
to this aspect of doctrine with the words “saving doctrine” or “saving
truths”38 or “essential to (or for) salvation.”39 This final criterion creates
an interesting differentiation between truth and doctrine: all doctrine is
true, but not all truth is doctrine.40 A teaching that is true but not neces-
sary or pertaining to our salvation, such as the commonly taught reality
that there are seven dispensation heads, would be a historical truth but
not necessarily a salvific doctrine.
As clear as these three criteria are on the surface, there are still many
ways members of the Church seek to apply them. Furthermore, though
each criterion provides a positive definition of doctrine, it might be that
their greater influence is in delineating that which would not be con-
sidered doctrine by using these criteria together. For example, the crite-
rion that doctrine is eternal has frequently been used to separate doctrine
(which according to this criterion does not change) from practices and

37. David A. Bednar, Increase in Learning—Spiritual Patterns for Obtaining Your

Own Answers (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 151.
38. For examples, see Neal A. Maxwell, “‘Endure It Well,’ ” Ensign 20, no.  5 (May
1990): 34; Neil L. Andersen, “‘Whom the Lord Calls, the Lord Qualifies,’ ” Ensign 23,
no. 5 (May 1993): 82; M. Russell Ballard, “Standing for Truth and Right,” Ensign 27, no. 11
(November 1997): 38; Henry B. Eyring, “The Power of Teaching Doctrine,” Ensign 29,
no. 5 (May 1999): 73–75; Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Prayer for the Children,” Ensign 33, no. 5
(May 2003): 85.
39. Dallin H. Oaks, “The Godhead and the Plan of Salvation,” Ensign 47, no. 5 (May
2017): 103; Dean M. Davies, “A Sure Foundation,” Ensign 44, no. 5 (May 2013): 10; Dallin H.
Oaks, “No Other Gods,” Ensign 43, no. 11 (November 2013): 74; Robert D. Hales, “Agency:
Essential to the Plan of Life,” Ensign 40, no. 11 (November 2010): 24–25; James E. Faust,
“Called and Chosen,” Ensign 35, no. 11 (November 2005): 54; Richard C. Edgley, “‘We Care
Enough to Send Our Very Best,’ ” Ensign 26, no. 11 (November 1996): 63; Robert D. Hales,
“Gratitude for the Goodness of God,” Ensign 22, no. 5 (May 1992): 63.
40. Loyd Ericson points to this reality: “Furthermore, just because a statement
about a religious matter happens to be true, its truthfulness is likewise not a sufficient
condition for being doctrine. For example, it may be the case that the mortal Jesus was
actually married or that Earth was created less than 13,000 years ago. Even if those were
true unbeknownst to us, that would not be sufficient for it to be doctrine. Like the loca-
tion of the Potomac River, Church doctrine is silent on these matters.” Ericson, “Chal-
lenges of Defining Mormon Doctrine,” 80.
24 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

policies (which also may be authoritative in nature but are subject to

change). However, this becomes more complicated for members as it
becomes clear that many teachings have both “doctrinal” and “practi-
cal” aspects. Most members would agree that Christ’s Atonement is an
official doctrine of the Church. It is believed to be an eternal necessity for
our salvation that is taught regularly by members of the First Presidency
and Quorum of Twelve. However, the Atonement also consists of an act
(Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane and suffering and death at Golgotha)
that happened at a specific time and place. Though the reality and neces-
sity of the Atonement falls neatly into the category of doctrine, the specific
means and mechanism by which it is brought to pass likely does not. The
Atonement is also commemorated through ordinances that, though based
on an eternal doctrine, have changed in nature several times.41 It may
seem strange to say that the sacrament is not necessarily a doctrine, and
yet if doctrine is eternal in nature, then the sacrament would likely be con-
sidered a practice (which had a beginning and which has changed in form
several times) even as it is based on a doctrine (the Atonement, which
does not change). The same could be said of such foundational teachings
in the Church as the Word of Wisdom, family home evening, or even
the temple endowment. According to the criterion of eternality, each is a
time-bound practice that is based on eternal doctrine. The practice could
therefore change without calling into question the veracity of the doctrine
upon which it is based.
These realities raise the point that a teaching can be considered an
authoritative, even revealed, aspect of the Church, but not necessarily a
doctrine according to the three criteria the First Presidency and Quorum
of Twelve have emphasized over the last few decades. To say that the
sacrament or the Word of Wisdom are not necessarily official doctrines
is not to say that they are not official teachings, considered necessary for
our standing with God, based on revelation, and true. In the theology of
the Church, God is able to reveal not only eternal doctrines and prin-
ciples (unchanging verities) but also time-bound commandments, prac-
tices, and policies. Determining who holds and exercises the priesthood
serves as an example of this principle. Priesthood and priesthood keys are

41. What began as the sacrificial ordinance with Adam was changed in its details
within the law of Moses, which was changed by the Savior into his sacrament, which
was further developed as Joseph Smith made modifications in its practice. See Doctrine
and Covenants 27.
 Approaches to Doctrine   V25

listed as one of the basic “doctrines” of the Church.42 And yet the guide-
lines specifying who is permitted to hold or exercise priesthood authority
clearly do not constitute an eternal doctrine. It has changed numerous
times from the days of Adam. Accordingly, who holds or exercises priest-
hood authority, as well as the organization of the priesthood, are policies
or practices—subject to change. As President Dallin H. Oaks explained
in regard to who holds and exercises the priesthood, “The First Presi-
dency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve,
who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions
affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location
of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though
these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to
men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed
pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.”43
A further example would be the plan of salvation. Most members would
agree that the entire plan of salvation is doctrine. Yet the Creation, Fall,
and Atonement all include events that happened in a specific time and
place. Adding further nuance to using eternality as a criterion is the real-
ity that our collective understanding of each part of the plan continues to
grow. It seems obvious that what Moses understood about the creation pro-
cess would differ from what Joseph Smith understood, which would differ
from what today’s prophets understand. So, even though the doctrine of
the Creation has not changed, the understanding of different aspects of the
Creation continues to develop. Furthermore, the reality of God the Father,
Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are clearly doctrines of the Church, and yet
Joseph Smith’s understanding and teachings regarding their nature evolved
throughout his ministry.44 Add to this the myriad of teachings from gen-
eral and local leaders of the Church and it becomes clear that even though
defining doctrine as eternal differentiates it from other teachings, it does
not change the fact that members’ understanding of even the most funda-
mental doctrines is still imperfect.
Adding a need for additional nuance in our efforts to understand
doctrine is the reality that true doctrine is often mixed with man-made
explanations and reasoning. Dallin H. Oaks explained, “If you read the

42. Basic Doctrines (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
2013), 5.
43. Dallin H. Oaks, “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” Ensign 44, no. 5
(May 2014): 50.
44. For further detail, see Bradford and Dahl, “Meaning, Source, and History of
Doctrine,” 1:393–97.
26 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command
this or why did he command that,’ you find that in less than one in a
hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the
Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to revelation. We can put
reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. . . . Let’s
don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other
areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be
man-made to a great extent.”45
The second criterion repeatedly used over the last three decades to
distinguish doctrine from other teachings in the Church refers to the
authoritative nature of the source of the teaching more than it does to
the teaching itself. In the theology of the restored Church of Jesus Christ,
only the prophet is authorized to announce or declare new doctrine. In
addition, it has been regularly taught that the Council of the First Presi-
dency has special authority over Church doctrine.46 And as was pointed
out above, members of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve have
the responsibility to establish the doctrines of the Church that are “con-
sistently proclaimed in official Church publications.” However, members
of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve teach many things besides
eternal doctrines, such as time-bound policies and practices. So the fact
that something is taught regularly by members of the First Presidency
and Quorum of Twelve does not automatically make it a doctrine. How-
ever, any teaching not taught by them would not be considered an official
doctrine by this criterion. All members, even the prophet himself, are
free to hold opinions and beliefs that may or may not be official doctrine.
However, by requiring multiple witnesses within the First Presidency and
Quorum of Twelve, only that which is agreed on and taught regularly by

45. Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned: Personal Reflections (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 2011), 68–69. In addition, two Latter-day Saint scholars also explained,
“Doctrines, however, no matter how pure, do not exist in a vacuum. We encounter them
through teachings, programs, manuals, personal interactions, and institutional forms
and practices. And in the process, we occasionally find the pure gospel entangled with
unfortunate ideas, pharisaical behavior, legalistic thinking, judgmentalism, and rules
based more on tradition than inspiration.” See Terryl Givens and Fiona Givens, Crucible
of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest for Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 103.
46. See Stephen L. Richards, in One Hundred Ninth Semi-annual Conference of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 1938), 115–16; Ezra Taft Benson, “The Gospel Teacher and His Message,”
in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 1982), 51–52; James E. Faust, “The Abundant Life,” Ensign 15, no.  11
(November 1985): 9.
 Approaches to Doctrine   V27

the two highest governing bodies could be considered a possible official

doctrine. Though several scriptural verses and statements by Church
leaders have been made that state that the President of the Church is able,
by himself, to declare doctrine,47 the normative practice from the death
of the prophet Joseph Smith through today is to get the ratification of
both governing counsels before declaring what might be considered offi-
cially binding—whether that teaching is a doctrine, a policy, or a practice.
As explained by Harold B. Lee, “the only one authorized to bring forth
any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will
declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Coun-
cil of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.”48 This process
of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve counseling together under
the leadership of the President of the Church applies to both declaring
new doctrine and official church practice. An example of this would be
President Spencer W. Kimball’s revelation ending the priesthood restric-
tion. The receipt of the revelation was not pronounced to the Church
until the presiding quorums of the Church received their own witness
of the truthfulness of the revelation, so that the revelation could then be
unanimously presented to the Church membership for sustaining, and
thus it became binding on the Church.49
An important caveat regarding the authoritative nature of the source
of a teaching is that though the source may increase the likelihood of
something taught being a doctrine, in and of itself it would be insuf-
ficient to make the determination. This is because every source—be
it a person (such as a prophet, Apostle, or Seventy), a setting (such as
general conference), or even the scriptures—can teach or contain teach-
ings that are not eternal in nature or salvific (which will be discussed
further below). One scholar explained that “it is not uncommon to
hear someone say that anything taught in general conference is ‘official
doctrine.’ Such a standard makes the place where something is said
rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine
­simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office

47. See Doctrine and Covenants 43:1–7; and Christofferson, “Doctrine of Christ,” 88.
48. Harold B. Lee, address, in The First Area General Conference for Germany, Aus-
tria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich, Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and
Discourses (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1974), 69.
49. Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,”
BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (2008): 44–59.
28 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

or position.”50 This is because the source—for example, an Apostle at

general conference—may teach not only eternal doctrines but current
policies, practices, or other teachings of a more time-bound nature. One
obvious example is the announcement of the move to a two-hour Sun-
day meeting schedule and the “Come, Follow Me” curriculum at the
October 2018 general conference.51
Finally, the criterion that doctrine pertains to our salvation further
limits what could be considered official doctrine to those issues which are
most central to our theology. However, it may be challenging for mem-
bers to know what exactly salvific means. In the spirit of Doctrine and
Covenants 29:34–35, if all commandments are spiritual to God, might
they all be salvific? As with the other two criteria mentioned above, the
power of this criterion may be in what it excludes more than in what it
includes. The fact that exaltation requires a physical, eternal body would
make the Creation a salvific doctrine. However, the specific method God
used to create our bodies seems to lie outside of what we need to know for
salvation. Interestingly, none of the three criteria currently being empha-
sized by the presiding authorities would be effective in isolation. But
when used together, they provide a more definitive set of principles to
evaluate the doctrinal status of any given issue.

Defining Doctrine—
The Last Three Decades—Lay Members
Over the past few decades, there have been several attempts by reli-
gious educators and other academics outside of the general leadership
of the Church to create criteria by which to navigate doctrinal issues.52

50. Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel

Questions (Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, 1998), 213–14.
51. See “Changes Help Balance Gospel Instruction at Home and at Church,” Ensign
48, no. 11 (November 2018): 117–19.
52. This study will focus on the last three decades. However, there have been numer-
ous works written since the days of Joseph Smith that have sought to explain Church
doctrine. The following comes from Eleanor Knowles, “Treatises on Doctrine,” in
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:404. “Following is a list of books that have made sig-
nificant contributions to the understanding of doctrine (unless otherwise noted, these
works were published in Salt Lake City): Parley P. Pratt, A Voice of Warning (New York,
1837) and Key to the Science of Theology (1856); Orson Pratt, An Interesting Account
of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records
(Edinburgh, 1840); Orson Spencer, Spencer’s Letters (Liverpool and London, 1852); John
Taylor, Mediation and Atonement (1882) and The Government of God (1884); Frank-
lin D. Richards and James Little, A Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel (1882);
 Approaches to Doctrine   V29

None of these individuals have claimed authority to define doctrine or

asserted that the criteria they highlighted were definitive. Rather, each
has based their criteria on what the general officers of the Church have
taught, listed above. This makes sense when the theology in question is
based on the concept that modern prophets, seers, and revelators are
the only people authorized to announce and declare official doctrine.53

From Most to Least Authoritative

Shortly after the end of the priesthood restriction, Armand Mauss,
then a professor of sociology at Washington State University, proposed
criteria for evaluating and categorizing Church teachings.54 However,
rather than defining what is or what is not doctrine, Mauss catego-
rized teachings into four separate types of “doctrine”: (1) canon doctrine
(that which was received by revelation and submitted to and sustained
by the Church), (2) official doctrine (official statements from the First
Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles), (3) authoritative doctrine
(teachings by authoritative sources, both ecclesiastical and scholarly),
and (4) popular doctrine (basically folklore).

B. H. Roberts, The Gospel (Liverpool, 1888), Mormon Doctrine of Deity and Jesus Christ:
The Revelation of God (1903), and The Seventy’s Course in Theology, 5 vols. (1907–1912);
James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (1899) and Jesus the Christ (1915); Orson F. Whit-
ney, Gospel Themes (1914) and Saturday Night Thoughts (1921); Joseph F. Smith, Gospel
Doctrine (1919); Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. John A. Widtsoe
(1926); John A. Widtsoe, Priesthood and Church Government (1939), A Rational Theol-
ogy (1945), and Evidences and Reconciliations, 3 vols. in 1 (1960); Joseph Smith, Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. by Joseph Fielding Smith (1938); Orson Pratt, Orson
Pratt’s Works, ed. Parker P. Robison (1945), and Masterful Discourses of Orson Pratt, ed.
N.  B. Lundwall (1946); Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages (1945); Dan-
iel H. Ludlow, ed., Latter-day Prophets Speak (1948); J. Reuben Clark, Jr., On the Way
to Immortality and Eternal Life (1949); Writings of Parley P. Pratt, ed. Parker P. Robison
(1952); Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (1958, rev. 1966); Spencer W. Kimball, The
Miracle of Forgiveness (1969); and George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, ed. Jerreld Newquist,
2 vols. (1972, 1974).”
53. See Doctrine and Covenants 28:1–7; 43:1–7; 81:2; 112:30.
54. Armand L. Mauss, “Fading of the Pharaoh’s Curse: The Decline and Fall of the
Priesthood Ban against Blacks in the Mormon Church,” in Neither White or Black: Mor-
mon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, ed. Lester E. Bush Jr. and
Armand L. Mauss (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984), 173–75. Note that as with each
of the following sets of criteria, this paper will provide only a brief listing of the said
criteria and point to the ramifications that flow from them. For a fuller picture of the
rationale and basis behind each set of criteria, the reader is encouraged to thoroughly
review each publication.
30 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

popular authoritative official canonical

doctrine doctrine doctrine doctrine

leastmost
Level of Authoritativeness
Figure 2. Graphical representation of model for determining doctrine first pub-
lished in Mauss, “Fading of the Pharaoh’s Curse,” 173–75, by current, not original,
author.

As can be seen, Mauss’s categorization serves to delineate Church

teachings from the most to the least authoritative in nature (see fig. 2).
This approach is similar to the second criterion the leadership of the
Church is currently emphasizing, outlined above. Rather than focus on
the nature of the teaching itself, it focuses on the source of the teaching.
Mauss’s first two categories largely align with the concept that only those
sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators can be considered a modern
source for doctrine, in addition to the standard works. This approach
divides the teachings of these authorities into canonized teachings (that
which has been sustained by the general membership of the Church
as authoritative and binding) from other official teachings of the First
Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve. His third category could con-
tain a mixture of what might be defined as doctrine today with other
teachings that might not. His fourth category, popular doctrine, would
generally not be considered doctrine based on the three criteria of a
teaching being eternal, authoritative, and salvific. Mauss himself makes
it clear that “popular doctrine” lacks any authoritative source, though he
still refers to it as “doctrine,” and many modern members may consider
some of these teachings official doctrines.

Sustained as Official or Canonical

Stephen Robinson, past chair of the Department of Ancient Scripture in
Religious Education at Brigham Young University, proposed one simple
criterion to determine if something could be considered official Church
doctrine: Has the doctrine been sustained by the Church membership
as official and canonical?55 This would effectively limit official doctrine
to what is contained in the canonically accepted scriptures (see fig. 3).

55. Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991),
13–18. Robinson references the source of this criterion to B. H. Roberts: “The Church
has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world
 Approaches to Doctrine   V31

At first glance, Robinson’s definition Is the doctrine sustained

might seem to be quite restrictive, and yet it by Church membership?
can also be seen as one of the most expan-
sive criteria. His criterion would restrict any Yes
 
No
statement made by prophets, seers, and rev-
elators from being considered doctrine unless Figure 3. Graphical rep-
it has a parallel in the scriptures. This is not resentation of model for
determining doctrine
a strange concept; several authority figures first published in Robin-
have spoken similarly.56 However, the scrip- son, Are Mormons Chris-
tures contain many genres of material such as tians?, 13–18, by current,
history, poetry, and ancient cultural practices not original, author.
that would not be considered doctrine today.
In addition, the eighth article of faith qualifies our belief that scripture,
especially the Bible, as it comes to us today is word perfect with the
phrase “as far as it is translated correctly.” Joseph Smith himself took
issue with certain parts of the Bible: “I  am now going to take excep-
tions to the present translation of the bible in relation to these matters;
our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew
with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand
distinction between the actual meaning of the Prophets and the present
translation.”57 None of this calls into question the value of scriptures in
Latter-day Saint thought. Clearly, the Church believes and teaches that
the scriptures contain true doctrine. These caveats to using the canonical

to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and
those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Cov-
enants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the
Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for
our doctrine.” F. W. Otterstrom, “Answer Given to ‘Ten Reasons Why “Christians” Can
Not Fellowship with Latter-day Saints’: Discourse Delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle July
10, 1921, by Elder Brigham H. Roberts,” Deseret News, July 23, 1921, 7.
56. For examples, see Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writ-
ings of Joseph Fielding Smith, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3  vols. (Salt Lake City: Book­
craft, 1956), 3:203–4; Harold B. Lee, “Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,”
Improvement Era 72, no. 1 (January 1969): 13; Harold B. Lee, “Viewpoint of a Giant” (address
to religious educators, Brigham Young University, July 18, 1968), 6; Theodore M. Burton,
“‘Blessed Are the Peacemakers,’ ” Ensign 4, no. 11 (November 1974): 55; Joseph Fielding Smith,
as quoted in Church News editorial, April 17, 1983.
57. “History, 1838–1856, Volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843],” 1523 (April 8, 1843),
Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 5, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper​
-sum​mary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/166. He further stated,
“There are many things in the Bible which do not as they now stand, accord with the Rev-
elations of the Holy Ghost to me,” 1573.
32 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

status of a teaching as the primary or even only criterion for determin-

ing doctrine simply show that further criteria would be needed in deter-
mining what is and what is not doctrine.

Authoritative Sources in Line with Current Prophetic Leadership

Robert L. Millet, a former dean of Religious Education at Brigham
Young University, has published numerous articles and book chapters
on better understanding the doctrine of the Church.58 As with others
who attempt this, Millet always makes it clear that only those sustained
as prophets, seers, and revelators have the right to announce or declare
new doctrine.59 In one of his articles, Millet started with a criterion
similar to Robinson: (1) Is the teaching “found within the four standard
works?” To this he added, (2)  Is it contained “within official declara-
tions or proclamations?” (3)  “Is it discussed in general conference or
other official gatherings by general Church leaders today?” and (4) “Is it
found in the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church
today?”60 (see fig. 4).
After canonical status, Millet broadens what might be considered
true doctrine by including official declarations or proclamations. This
would be fairly uncontroversial to most, though not all, members of the
Church. His final two criteria privilege what is currently being taught in
the Church. This makes sense in a Church that emphasizes the need for
modern prophets.61 As with the first two sets of criteria, Millet’s criteria

58. The following lists several of these articles or book chapters as contained in
footnote 2 in Ericson, “Challenges of Defining Mormon Doctrine.” See also Robert L.
Millet, “What Do We Really Believe? Identifying Doctrinal Parameters within Mor-
monism,” in Discourses in Mormon Theology: Philosophical and Theological Possibilities,
ed. James M. McLachlan and Loyd Ericson (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007),
265–81. A previous version of this essay was also published in “What Is Our Doctrine?”
Religious Educator 4, no. 3 (2003): 15–33. Also selections from this essay, including his
authoritative model, are included in his latest books: Getting at the Truth: Responding
to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004), 43–63;
What Happened to the Cross? Distinctive LDS Teachings (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
2007), 52–65.
59. “Before beginning this discussion, let me affirm that I understand implicitly that
the authority to declare, interpret, and clarify doctrine rests with living apostles and
prophets. This article will thus speak only about doctrine and in no way attempt to reach
beyond my own stewardship.” Millet, “What Is Our Doctrine?,” 15.
60. Millet, “What Is Our Doctrine?,” 19.
61. For examples of conference addresses emphasizing the need for modern proph-
ets, see Neil L. Andersen, “The Voice of the Lord,” Ensign 47, no. 11 (November 2017):
 Approaches to Doctrine   V33

emphasize the source of the

authoritative teaching more

O
ffi
ks

ci
or
than any attribute of the

al
W

D
rd

ec
teaching itself. As with most

da

la
r
an

at
criteria we have examined,

io
St

sn
Millet’s might have more
power in excluding teach- Doctrine
ings from being accepted
as doctrine than including
teachings. It would exclude

um
G
en

ul
as doctrine anything not
er

ic
rr
al

Cu
Co
currently being taught by

d
nf

ve
e
or in the most authoritative
re

ro
nc

pp
e
sources.

A
Figure 4. Graphical representation of model for
A Hermeneutic Approach determining doctrine first published in Millet,
“What Is Our Doctrine?” 15–33, by current, not
Nathan Oman, a profes- original, author.
sor of law at the College of
William & Mary, provided
a unique approach to determining doctrine.62 Rather than coming up
with a set of criteria to determine whether or not a teaching is official
doctrine (a  formal “rule of recognition”), he posits a theory on how
members actually determine the question for themselves. Drawing from
his legal background, he proposes a “Church Doctrine as integrity” her-
meneutic approach throughout his article published in Element based
on a judicial theory called “law as integrity.” In this approach, individu-
als seek to fit any new teaching into the context of what he refers to
as “easy cases” (see fig. 5)—other doctrines that are clearly accepted as
truths in the Church. Then they seek to determine the possible doctri-
nal parameters of the questionable teachings by looking at “the previ-
ously decided cases and construct[ing] the best possible argument that
[they] can to justify them.” In other words, “when faced with a new

122–26; D. Todd Christofferson, “The Voice of Warning,” Ensign 47, no. 5 (May 2017):
108–11; Henry B. Eyring, “Continuing Revelation,” Ensign 44, no. 11 (November 2014):
70–73; Russell M. Nelson, “Sustaining the Prophets,” Ensign 44, no.  11 (November
2014): 74–77; Ronald A. Rasband, “Standing with the Leaders of the Church,” Ensign
46, no. 5 (May 2016): 46–49.
62. Nathan B. Oman, “Jurisprudence and the Problem of Church Doctrine,” Element
2, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 1–19.
34 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Teaching in Teaching in
Question Question

Easy Cases
“Settled Teaching”

Teaching in Teaching in
Question Question

Figure 5. Graphical representation of model for determining doctrine first pub-

lished in Oman, “Jurisprudence and the Problem of Church Doctrine,” 1–19, by
current, not original, author.

question about Church Doctrine, rather than trying to determine . . .

the correct rule of recognition they can simply reason on the basis of
clear cases, fitting the new question into a story that will place things
in their best possible light.”63 Hence, just as a legal judge uses past prec-
edent (both past decisions and the reasoning of past decisions) to make
new judgments on the law, Oman sees members doing the same thing
to determine what true doctrine is for themselves.
Again, it is important to point out that this is not an attempt to
come up with a specific set of official rules for recognizing doctrine, but
an attempt to explain how members can decide for themselves what
is and what is not doctrine. This method for determining doctrine is
perhaps the least concrete of those considered in this essay. Modeled
on judicial precedent, it encourages members to base their decisions on
where new teachings would fit with what they already consider settled
doctrine and their overall understanding of the gospel. Of course, this
requires members to know what settled doctrines, or as Oman calls it,
“easy cases” are. As much as this method lacks specificity, in some ways
it could encourage a more conservative and maybe a more charitable
approach to interpreting doctrine. All decisions on what is to be con-
sidered doctrine can only be understood in light of where that teaching
fits with more central or core doctrines. In some ways, it encourages
the evaluation of doctrine in relation to other doctrines, similar to

63. Oman, “Jurisprudence,” 7, 9–10.

 Approaches to Doctrine   V35

Core, eternal teachings/doctrine

(unchanging truths of salvation)
Supporting teachings/doctrine
(elaborative, descriptive, timely
teachings expanding on core
doctrines)
Policy teachings/doctrine
(timely statements realted to
applications of supportive and
eternal teachings)
Esoteric teachings/doctrine
(unknown, only partially
revealed, or yet-to-be-revealed
truths)

Figure 6. Graphical representation of model for determining doctrine first published

in Sweat, MacKay, and Dirkmaat, “Doctrine: Models to Evaluate Types and Sources
of Latter-day Teachings,” 101–25, by original author. Recreated with permission.

an approach advocated by Elder Neal  A. Maxwell. He explained that

“orthodoxy ensures balance between the gospel’s powerful and correct
principles. .  .  . But the gospel’s principles do require synchronization.
When . . . isolated, men’s interpretations and implementations of these
doctrines may be wild.”64

From Core to Esoteric Teachings

A recent approach to defining doctrine was made by three professors
in the Department of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young
University—Anthony Sweat, Michael MacKay, and Gerrit Dirkmaat.65
In an approach reminiscent of Armand Mauss, rather than proposing
a system meant to delineate whether something is Church doctrine or
not, their model seeks to separate teachings into one of four catego-
ries or types in descending order from most to least authoritative (see
fig. 6). Their first level is core, eternal doctrines (unchanging truths of

64. Neal A. Maxwell, “‘Behold, the Enemy Is Combined’ (D&C 38:12),” Ensign 23,
no. 5 (May 1993): 78.
65. Anthony Sweat, Michael Hubbard MacKay, and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, “Doctrine:
Models to Evaluate Types and Sources of Latter-day Teachings,” Religious Educator 17,
no. 3 (2016): 101–25.
36 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

salvation). Their second level is supporting teachings and doctrines

(elaborate, descriptive, timely teachings expanding on core doctrines).
Their third level is policy teachings and doctrines (timely statements
related to applications of supportive and eternal teachings). Their final
level is esoteric teachings and doctrines (unknown or only partially
revealed or yet-to-be revealed truths).
As with most of the other models, this model focuses on the source of
the teachings as much as if not more than the substance of the teaching.
It mirrors Mauss’s model by dividing teachings into four decreasingly
authoritative categories. The model recommends asking four ques-
tions when evaluating how authoritative or official a teaching is: (1) Is
it repeatedly found in the scriptures? (2) Is it proclaimed by the united
voice of the current Brethren? (3)  Is it consistently taught by current
general authorities and general officers acting in their official capacity?
and (4)  Is it found in recent Church publications or statements? The
model differs from the approach the current General Authorities are
using by referring to each level of teachings as “doctrine” (core doctrine,
supporting doctrine, policy doctrine, and esoteric doctrine). In some
ways, this might be seen as more of a semantic than substantive dif-
ference since they also emphasize that, unlike “core, eternal doctrine,”
policies can and do change and esoteric doctrines are not considered
authoritative in the church today.
Though each of these models have some aspects in common with the
others, such as an emphasis on source or canonicity, they differ in detail.
Each recognizes that in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
doctrine is officially determined by those who have been called and who
have formal authority to declare doctrine, namely the First Presidency
and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Therefore, none of the mod-
els are presented as an official means of declaring “doctrine” itself. As
would be expected, the different models produce somewhat different
answers to the question, What is our doctrine?

Defining Doctrine—
Utilitarianism and Revelation
Two final means of determining doctrine that are continually emphasized
by leaders and members alike are the witness of the Holy Spirit and the
utilitarian concept of knowing by doing. The top three collocates (words
juxtaposed or used side by side) with the word “doctrine” in the last three
decades of general conference were “covenants,” “section,” and “book.”
 Approaches to Doctrine   V37

These clearly are tied to the book of scripture the Doctrine and Cov-
enants. The next two most common collocates of doctrine were “taught”
or “teach.” This makes sense because doctrine is an authoritative teaching.
But the next most frequent collocate over the entire corpus of general
conference addresses was the word “whether.” This seemed strange until
it became clear where it was coming from. In John 7:17, Jesus Christ gives
a key for determining doctrine. “If any man will do his will, he shall know
of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Other
than references to the Doctrine and Covenants and the counsel to teach
doctrine, the ability to determine the veracity of doctrine by trying it was
the most frequently referred-to collocate of the word “doctrine” used by
General Authorities in general conference.
Finally, perhaps no counsel on how to recognize truth would be
more familiar to a Church member than the instruction to pray and
receive a spiritual witness.66 In the Church, it is considered not only
the right but the responsibility of members to determine truth for
themselves, and the promise is made that God will provide a revelatory
answer to all who seek to know. Both ancient and modern scriptures
are replete with similar admonitions and promises.67 Likely the most
common advice a member might receive when evaluating teachings
is to pray and seek an answer from God. Such an individualized and
spiritual approach to truth seeking would not carry much weight in
a secular society nor be binding on the Church as a whole. Yet simply
asking God without purposeful investigation is even contrary to com-
mon understanding in light of the Lord’s instruction in Doctrine and
Covenants 9:7–9. Members are expected to study as well as pray in
order to know truth.
The founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Joseph Smith, was an adamant preacher of what he believed
were true principles, and he spent his life teaching those truths. And yet
he was just as adamant that it was the responsibility and right of each
individual to determine what they themselves would believe. He once
stated, “When I have used every means in my power to exalt a mans
[sic] mind, and have taught him righteous principles to no effect [and]

66. Besides the purpose of confirming truth, Henry B. Eyring stated that “doctrine
gains its power [in the life of the member] as the Holy Ghost confirms that it is true.”
Eyring, “The Power of Teaching Doctrine,” 74.
67. See Nehemiah 9:30; John 5:32; 1 Corinthians 2:11; 2 Nephi 31:18; Alma 5:46;
Moroni 10:3–5; Doctrine and Covenants 9:7–9.
38 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

he is still inclined in his darkness, yet the same principles of liberty and
charity would ever be manifested by me as though he embraced it.”68 He
further stated, “I never feel to force my doctrines upon any person [and]
I rejoice to see prejudice give way to truth, and the traditions of men
dispersed by the pure principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”69 In this
spirit, each member has the right and responsibility to “seek learning,
even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).

Michael Goodman is an associate professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham

Young University.

68. See “Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume  1, 10  March
1844–1 March 1845,” 120 (April 11, 1844), Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 5, 2021, http://
www.josephsmithpapers.com/paper-summary/council-of-fifty-minutes-march​-1844​
-january-1846-volume-1-10-march-1844-1-march-1845/122.
69. “History, 1838–1856, Volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” 1888 (February 12,
1844), Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 5, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers​.org/
paper​-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/260.
Is Sure Knowledge an Ideal for Everyone
or One Spiritual Gift among Many?

Blair Dee Hodges and Patrick Q. Mason

I
“ ’d like to bear my testimony. I know the Church is true. I know that
Heavenly Father lives and loves us. I know that Jesus Christ is our
Savior. I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and restored the
Church on the earth. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
I know that the Church is led by living prophets today. In the name of
Jesus Christ, amen.”
Some variation on this basic formulation is heard throughout The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its monthly “fast and
testimony meetings,” where Church members are encouraged to share
personal expressions of faith from the pulpit. Similar testimonies are
spoken every day by full-time missionaries around the world and as
part of many classes and trainings in the Church. As members do so,
the spiritual gift of knowledge is simultaneously affirmed, demonstrated,
and reinforced. The mantra of Latter-day Saint faithfulness is “I know.”
The sheer ubiquity of this discursive formulation raises the question
of whether sure spiritual knowledge, gained via the witness of the Holy
Ghost, is an ideal and even a mandate for all of God’s children seeking
salvation, or whether people can be faithful and receive eternal life even
when they do not feel they can testify with absolute certainty of core
gospel truths. Is faith—akin to belief, hope, or trust and differentiated
in many scriptural passages from knowledge—sufficient for salvation,
or is it merely a waystation on the path toward greater surety? Further-
more, is there any room in the disciple’s life for sincere doubt, or does
doubt represent the antithesis of both faith and knowledge and there-
fore should be banished from the believer’s lexicon and experience?

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)39

40 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Scriptural passages and teachings of modern-day prophets can be

mustered to support multiple positions in answer to these questions. For
instance, God seems to leave room for honest strivers along the entire
belief-knowledge continuum. In a March 1831 revelation regarding the
diversity of spiritual gifts, God told the restored Church, “To some it is
given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
. . . To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might
have eternal life if they continue faithful” (D&C 46:13–14). In this pas-
sage, the Lord differentiates knowledge from belief yet validates each
and marks them both as salvific. In this essay, we will demonstrate the
great value that Latter-day Saints have assigned to the acquisition of
spiritual knowledge. But the variety of human religious experience also
suggests the importance of validating and embracing the faith of those
who desire to believe but do not—and may never in this life—possess
sure knowledge.

Saving Knowledge
Latter-day Saint scriptures build on the biblical witness that knowledge
ranks among the principal attributes of God and that he desires his chil-
dren to share his knowledge. Indeed, Adam and Eve became fully human
and initiated God’s plan of salvation for his spirit children only after
eating the fruit of the tree that granted them knowledge (2 Ne. 2:22–25;
Moses 4:11–12; 5:11). Though as a consequence they were driven from the
garden and separated from the tree of life, Jesus promised the Fall would
be reversed and eternal life would be granted through the acquisition
of godly knowledge (John 17:3). Three different lists of spiritual gifts
provided in the Church’s canonized scripture agree that “the word of
knowledge” is among the chief bequests of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:8;
Moro. 10:10; D&C 46:18).
For Latter-day Saints, knowledge is life-giving and sanctifying. The
Book of Mormon is bookended, and saturated, with righteous disciples’
desire to know, along with repeated promises that knowledge will be
granted to those who seek it (see 1 Ne. 11:1–3; Moro. 10:3–5). Joseph Smith’s
prophetic career was defined by the quest for and receipt of spiritual knowl-
edge. This pattern stretched from his direct and unmedi­ated knowledge of
God secured in the First Vision to the ritualization of godly knowledge
introduced systematically, and democratically, through the ceremonies of
the temple. God has promised each faithful seeker that “if thou shalt ask,
thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge”
(D&C 42:61). Among its exalting functions, the Melchizedek Priesthood
 Sure Knowledge   V41

restores and holds “the key of the knowledge of God” (D&C 84:19). Those
who obey the Word of Wisdom are promised the “great treasures of
knowledge” (D&C 89:19). In the dispensation of restoration, Joseph Smith
declared that no earthly opposition can “hinder the Almighty from pour-
ing down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints”
(D&C 121:33). Teaching the Saints in Illinois, Smith underscored the role
of knowledge not simply as an “advantage” in this life and the next (D&C
130:19) but as an absolute necessity for salvation and exaltation: “A man is
saved no faster than he gets knowledge for if he does not get knowledge
he will be brought into Captivity by some evil power in the other world as
evil spirits will have more knowled[g]e & consequently more power than
many men who are on the earth.”1 In Latter-day Saint scriptural theology,
ignorance is damning (D&C 131:6), and knowledge is saving.
The Latter-day Saints’ early revelations and experiences fostered a
culture of spiritual confidence in which surety became not only the end
but also the means of their quest for salvation. Joseph Smith taught that
when a person had been “thoroug[h]ly proved,” God would say, “thou
shalt be exalted,” and the person would “find his calling & Election
made sure” and receive “a  perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the
kingdom of God.”2 As Christians had taught since biblical times, Smith
affirmed that it was conceivable for a person “to obtain a promise from
God for myself that I shall have Eternal life.”3
However, for most Church members who heard Smith’s sermons,
their spiritual surety was of a different sort. Through the knowledge
bestowed by the Spirit, they testified that God had spoken in the latter
days and restored his Church, and that they had direct access to divine
truth through the gift of the Holy Ghost, the words of prophets, and
priesthood ordinances. This type of spiritual certainty was a crucial
component in the faith that fueled the first decades of the Restoration,

1. “Discourse, 10 April 1842, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” pp. [146–47], Joseph

Smith Papers, accessed April 2, 2021, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper​-sum​
mary/discourse-10-april-1842-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/1.
2. “Discourse, between circa 26 June and circa 2 July 1839, as Reported by Willard
Richards,” pp.  19–21, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 2, 2021, http://www.joseph​
smith​papers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-2-july​
-1839​-as-reported-by-willard-richards/5.
3. “Discourse, 21 May 1843, as Reported by James Burgess,” p.  [8], Joseph Smith
Papers, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-21-may-1843-as​
-reported-by-james-burgess/1. Smith was preaching on the text of 2 Peter 1:10, which
exhorts the Saints in the primitive Church to “give diligence to make your calling and
election sure.”
42 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

sustaining Saints as they endured persecution, crossed the plains, went

or sent their loved ones on far-flung missions, settled the West, and built
Zion over and over again.
The ideal of seeking spiritual certainty persists in the twenty-first-
century Church. In an oft-cited talk, Boyd K. Packer, late President of the
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, advised missionaries to take a “leap of
faith,” to declare the certainty of gospel principles they were yet unsure
of. “Oh, if I could teach you this one principle,” he admonished. “A tes-
timony is to be found in the bearing of it!” The Holy Ghost would bring
assurance to the testifier’s heart and mind, first in the form of faith and
eventually as “great spiritual knowledge.”4 General conference addresses
frequently conclude with solemn affirmations of knowledge about God’s
love, Jesus Christ’s divine sonship, the eternal importance of families,
the truthfulness of the Church, the authority of the priesthood, and the
reliability of Church prophets. Parents are invited to cultivate knowl-
edge in their children in order to ensure righteous development. Former
Primary General President Coleen K. Menlove taught, “Children need
to be filled with the light of the gospel so when temptation comes they
can say: ‘I know who I am. I am a child of God. I know what I am to do.
. . . I know who I can become. I can become a righteous young woman,’
or, ‘I can become a righteous young man and receive the priesthood of
God.’ Children filled with this knowledge and light can make the deci-
sion to reject darkness and turn to the light and peace of the gospel.”5
Many of the Church’s distinctive truth claims are wrapped up in history.
Specifically, most Latter-day Saints have believed that Joseph Smith liter-
ally saw God and Jesus in the Sacred Grove; that the angel Moroni literally
appeared to Joseph Smith and delivered literal gold plates to him; that Book
of Mormon figures like Nephi, Sariah, and Alma literally lived and proph-
esied on the American hemisphere and that Jesus Christ literally appeared
to the Lehites after his resurrection; that the actual personages of John the
Baptist and Peter, James, and John literally appeared and laid hands on
the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, literally restoring God’s
priesthood on the earth in modern times. “In a particularly pronounced
way,” Latter-day Saint scholar T ­ erryl Givens observed with regard to the

4. Boyd K. Packer, “The Candle of the Lord,” Ensign 13, no. 1 (January 1983): 53. For
a more recent example, see Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” Ensign 42, no. 5 (May
2013), 94.
5. Coleen K. Menlove, “All Thy Children Shall Be Taught,” Ensign 35, no.  5 (May
2005): 14; see also Glenn L. Pace, “Do You Know?” Ensign 37, no. 5 (May 2007): 78–79.
 Sure Knowledge   V43

importance of historicity, “the meaning and value of the Book of Mormon

as a religious text are tied to a specific set of historical claims.”6 Latter-day
Saints express spiritual knowledge not just of a set of abstract theological
propositions but also of the particular ways that God has acted in and
through history.

Dissent and Doubt

Church leaders’ insistence on the literal historicity of miraculous events
associated with the Restoration has always provoked skepticism and
ridicule from nonbelievers. But with the advent of the information age,
and especially the internet’s easy access to information previously hard
to come by, the complexities of Church history emerged as a stumbling
block for many believers as well. Church members learned that much
of what they thought they knew about Church history was incomplete
or sometimes wrong and that contrary information they discovered
online could not always be easily dismissed as the malicious inven-
tion of “anti-Mormons.” When they learned that Joseph Smith gave
multiple and varying accounts of the First Vision, or that he translated
the Book of Mormon with the use of a seer stone otherwise associ-
ated with a now-forgotten culture of folk magic, or that the DNA of
the indigenous peoples of the Americas did not bear any indications
of Middle Eastern ancestry, many believers began to doubt their testi-
monies. If Church leaders past and present—especially prophets—had
been wrong about historical issues, how could they be trusted on mat-
ters of saving knowledge?
To be sure, people have doubted the truthfulness of Latter-day Saint
doctrine from the beginning; dissent is a tradition as old as the religion
itself. Many people have simply drifted away from Church participation,
their enthusiasm waning over a period of weeks, months, or years. This
recurrent atrophying only reinforced the Church’s internal message that
those members who remained within the fold had to guard against even
the beginnings of doubt, which could too easily cascade into apostasy.
Yet many Church dissenters—ranging from the Reformed Church in
Nauvoo to the Reorganization under Joseph Smith III, from nineteenth-
century Godbeites to contemporary fundamentalists and “Snufferites”—
have articulated their own certainties. Collectively, they have expressed

6. Terryl L. Givens, foreword to John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient Amer-

ican Book (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), xiv.
44 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

their dissent less as a lack of spiritual knowledge than as strong assur-

ances of rival claims to truth and authority.7
Despite the persistence of an “I  know” culture in Latter-day Saint
wards and in the Church at large—and partly in reaction to it—a new
dynamic emerged in the late twentieth century, picking up steam in
the early twenty-first. A significant number of Church members were
and are leaving the faith altogether, often rejecting all of the founda-
tional truth claims they once bore witness of as things that they knew
spiritually. Their narratives of dissent and apostasy often form a nearly
perfect inverse of their one-time testimonies.8 But probably an even
larger number of people with doubts remain in the Church. They often
struggle silently to reconcile their own destabilized convictions with
the expressions of certainty they still regularly hear from the pulpits
of general conference and local wards. “Doubt” and “faith crisis” have
entered the popular vocabulary and experience of twenty-first-century
Church members in ways that would have been virtually unthinkable
in previous generations. The recent acknowledgment of the reality of
doubt within the membership of the Church has created the space for
many people to remain active even with their questions. The prevalence
of “faith crisis” has also prompted a series of responses both from the
institutional Church and lay scholars and members seeking to preserve
room for faith and even spiritual knowledge in spite of aspects of the
Church’s history or doctrine that trouble some members.9

7. See Ronald W. Walker, Wayward Saints: The Godbeites and Brigham Young
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998).
8. See Seth Payne, “Ex-Mormon Narratives and Pastoral Apologetics,” Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 46, no. 4 (Winter 2013): 85–121; E. Marshall Brooks, Dis-
enchanted Lives: Apostasy and Ex-Mormonism among the Latter-day Saints (New Bruns-
wick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2018). For a critique of ex-Mormon certainties, see
Mette Harrison, “The Five Doctrines of Ex-Mormonism,” Religion News Service, June 30,
2020, https://religionnews.com/2020/06/30/the-five-doctrines-of-ex-mormonism/.
9. Beginning in November 2013, the Church began publishing an online series of
“Gospel Topics Essays” to address various theological and historical points of concern,
available at https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng. See Tad Walch, “Essays on
Mormon History, Doctrine Find New Visibility in Official App, Sunday School,” Deseret
News, December 26, 2016, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865669945/Essays-on​
-Mormon​-history-doctrine-find-new-visibility-in-official-app-Sunday-School.html. See
also Terryl L. Givens and Fiona Givens, The Crucible of Doubt: Reflections on the Quest
for Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014); Patrick Q. Mason, Planted: Belief and
Belonging in an Age of Doubt (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious
Scholarship; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015); and Laura Harris Hales, ed., A Reason
 Sure Knowledge   V45

Three Views
The contemporary situation, with antecedents but no direct precedents
in the Church’s history, has produced new debates over the possibility
and desirability of certainty as part of an individual’s spiritual journey.
At least three distinctive positions, even camps, have formed. On one
side are secularists, including many profoundly disaffected and alien-
ated former Church members, who discount or deny the reliability
of claims of sure spiritual knowledge. This position can range from a
hardened atheism that denies the existence of God (and thus the very
possibility of spiritual communication) to a more specific rejection of
Latter-day Saint truth claims. Skeptics insist that believers’ supposed
knowledge is built upon wishes more than facts, that the Church’s teach-
ings are fundamentally based on falsehoods and delusions, and that
various religions’ competing assertions of exclusive truth negate any
single claimant’s case.10
On the other end of the spectrum are those who absolutely affirm
not only the possibility but the reality of sure spiritual knowledge, not
just as the limited experience of a select few but as the mark and mean-
ing of a Christian life. Many of these defenders of (the) faith have dou-
bled down on the Church’s truth claims and tend to doubt the legitimacy
of other people’s expressed doubts. In this context, a lack of assurance
is interpreted as a sign indicating a person’s lack of worthiness or more
generously a temporary spiritual shortcoming that could be allevi-
ated with sincere desire and effort. “As doubts arise,” an article in the
Church’s official magazine for adults once counseled, “it may be useful
to honestly ask yourself, Is there something I am doing or desiring that
is contrary to the gospel? If you answer yes, seek help from your bishop.
It can make all the difference! Letting your doubts justify your sins is
never a successful substitute for repenting.”11 For those whose souls

for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies
Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016).
10. A paradigmatic and influential example of the skepticism expressed by a disaf-
fected Church member is Jeremy T. Runnells, “CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My
Mormon Doubts,” CES Letter Foundation, https://cesletter.org/.
11. Adam Kotter, “When Doubts and Questions Arise,” Ensign 45, no.  3 (March
2015): 38. See also Hugo Montoya, “Overcoming the Danger of Doubt,” Liahona 23, no. 9
(September 2017): 44–47; and Valerie Johnson, “Overcome Your Doubts with Study and
Repentance, BYU–Idaho President Says,” Church News, September 26, 2018, https://
www.lds.org/church/news/overcome-your-doubts-with-study-and-repentance-byu​
-idaho​-president-says?lang=eng.
46 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

burn with the fire of faith, it can be simultaneously bewildering and

painful to watch the embers of spiritual conviction die out in those they
love, leading them to believe that something sinister (or sinful) must
have acted as an extinguishing agent. The often well-intentioned stig-
matization of doubt in Church culture results in feelings of alienation
and loneliness among those who deal with questions about aspects of
Church doctrine or history.12
Between these two opposing camps—which of course can be and
often are reduced to caricature—is a third position, or more accurately a
cluster of closely related middle ways. In a stirring address to employees
of the Church Education System, President M. Russell Ballard directly
urged educators to take a more thoughtful and sympathetic approach to
doubt than in times past. “Gone are the days,” he said, “when a student
asked an honest question and a teacher responded, ‘Don’t worry about
it!’ Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a
teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the
issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who
attacked the Church.” Ballard affirmed that greater “gospel transparency
and spiritual inoculation through a thoughtful study of doctrine and
history, coupled with a burning testimony, is the best antidote we have
to help students avoid and/or deal with questions, doubt, or faith crises
they may face in this information age.”13
Middle-way perspectives have typically emerged from an apprecia-
tion and validation of the wide range of lived experiences present within
the contemporary and historical Church. Doubt is recognized as an
authentic reality for many people in the twenty-first century, but so is sure
spiritual knowledge. Church leaders often make the distinction between
the spiritual corrosiveness of perpetual doubt and the positive value of
curiosity and questions as part of the search for spiritual knowledge.

12. Those trying to minimize the conflict between believers (or “knowers”) and
doubters have produced lists of recommendations for how those whose faith remains
secure can more compassionately relate to those with doubts. See M. Sue Bergin, “Keep-
ing the Faith,” BYU Magazine, Spring 2014, https://magazine.byu.edu/article/keeping​
-the-faith/; Mason, Planted, esp. 17–19.
13. Russell M. Ballard, “The Opportunities and Responsibilities of CES Teachers
in the 21st  Century,” address to Church Educational System religious educators, Feb-
ruary 26, 2016, https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-author​
ity/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century.
For similar expressions from senior Apostles, see Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” 93–95;
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” Ensign 43, no. 11 (November 2013): 21–24.
 Sure Knowledge   V47

Doubt is never upheld as a positive virtue in the scriptures, whereas

questions drove Joseph Smith into the grove of trees. BYU–Idaho geol-
ogy professor Julie Willis’s “three primary points about questions and
questioning” among Latter-day Saints, shared during a university devo-
tional, exemplify this trend: “1. Asking questions is part of our religious
heritage. 2.  Questions of different types can be sources of intellectual
stimulation and light. 3.  Challenging questions are not forbidden and
can be embraced with faith and light.”14
A growing number of Church leaders, scholars, and members
acknowledge the brittle nature of an all-or-nothing approach to spiri-
tual knowledge that leaves no room for questions and vilifies any form
of doubt. They concede and even commend the fact that a person may
question some aspects of Church history and doctrine while retaining
and acting on a personal testimony of core principles. Elder Jeffrey R.
Holland publicly acknowledged the “desperation” that nearly all Church
members feel at some point as we wrestle with what we do not know or
understand. His counsel was to “hold fast to what you already know and
stand strong until additional knowledge comes.” For those unable to
express the language of knowledge, Holland affirmed “with all the fervor
of [his] soul that belief is a precious word, an even more precious act,” and
that a person need not ever feel ashamed for “only believing.”15 Without
abandoning the possibility and even ultimate desirability of spiritual
knowledge, the vocabulary of this middle way is more expansive than
the traditional formula of “I  know.” People increasingly invoke words
like believe, hope, resonate, love, insightful, compelling, and profound to
describe their encounter with gospel principles and practices.16 While
refusing to valorize doubt for its own sake or affirm it as a desirable end-
point of a person’s spiritual quest, the twenty-first-century Church seems
to be carving out more space for people who have not yet achieved—and
may never in this life attain—absolute spiritual certainty.

14. Julie Willis, “Gaining Light through Questioning,” Brigham Young University–
Idaho devotional, July 1, 2014, https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/at-the-pulpit/bonus​
-chapters/bonus-chapter-7-gaining-light-through-questioning-julie-willis.
15. Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” 94, emphasis in original.
16. Caroline, “Knowing, Believing, and Hoping: Going beyond the Usual Testimony
Words,” Exponent  II, May 6, 2018, https://www.the-exponent.com/knowing-believing​
-and-hoping-going-beyond-the-usual-testimony-words/.
48 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Conclusion
In the end, Latter-day Saint theology makes room for people at all
points of the faith spectrum. While affirming that every human being
possesses innate spiritual gifts, the revelations celebrate the diversity of
those gifts and that “all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the
children of God.” Some are given “the word of knowledge,” while others
are “given to believe on their words, that they also might have eter-
nal life” (D&C 46:14, 18, 26). For those who do not experience even a
“particle” of these gifts of spiritual knowledge, the self-willed “desire to
believe” is hailed as sufficient (Alma 32:27). The Church struggles to find
a place for those who have categorically ruled out the very possibility of
spiritual experience. But for those who are open to the search, however
uncertain the path, one of the primary attractions of the Restoration
is the promise of an eternal existence characterized by the pursuit and
reception of ever-greater knowledge and light, which “groweth brighter
and brighter until the perfect day” (D&C 50:24).

Blair Dee Hodges earned a master’s degree in religious studies from Georgetown Uni-
versity in 2013. His thesis focused on intellectual disabilities in Latter-day Saint thought
in the nineteenth century. After graduating, he served as public communications spe-
cialist at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young
University from 2013 to 2021. He is the former editor of the Institute’s Living Faith book
series and past host of the Maxwell Institute Podcast. He currently works as communi-
cations director at the nonprofit Volunteers of America, Utah.

Patrick Q. Mason holds the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Cul-
ture at Utah State University, where he is an associate professor of religious studies and
history. He is the author or editor of several books for academic and Latter-day Saint
audiences, including most recently Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World and
Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict.
Is God Subject to or the Creator of
Eternal Law?

James McLachlan

W hether God is subject to law or whether God created all law is

a question long debated in priesthood quorums, Relief Society
meetings, Gospel Doctrine classes, and around Latter-day Saint dinner
tables. Both sides claim the scriptures and the Prophet Joseph Smith.
The divide usually lines up with, on one side, Joseph Fielding Smith and
Bruce McConkie teaching of God’s power over all things and, on the
other, B. H. Roberts, John Widtsoe, and James Talmage seeing God as
the revealer of laws that even God must follow. Not only is the question
open and unsettled as a matter of doctrine, but whether these brethren
line up so neatly on either side is itself a question.

An Ancient Question
Whether God is subject to eternal laws or is their creator who is free
to change them is a very old question. In one of Plato’s early dialogues,
his hero Socrates askes Euthyphro, an Athenian prophet who has come
to the courts to charge his own father with murder, a question about
the nature of piety: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is
pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (10a).1 To
frame this question in Christian terms, Socrates’s question asks whether
something is good because it has been decreed so by God, being subject

1. Plato, Plato: Five Dialogues; Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo, trans.
G. M. A. Grube, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett, 2002), 11.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)49

50 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

to God’s will, or whether God decrees it because it is good in itself.2 The

question has been considered, avoided, and sometimes even answered
in various ways in the history of Christianity. It relates both to ethics
and the problem of evil and suffering, as well as to natural laws and
logical rules. If one is a follower of “divine command theory” in ethics,
then whatever God decrees is good because God decides what is good.
For example, if one accepts that the good depends on the will of God, it
makes some sense that God could command Moses and the Israelites
to wipe out the Midianites, including their children, and keep the vir-
gins as their slaves (Num. 31). God loves Israel and hates the Midianites.
This is good because God has decreed it so. If one tries to explain why
God would order such things—for example, the Midianites had certain
diseases or were irredeemably evil; in other words, that God had rea-
sons for destroying the Midianites—one is already sliding toward the
idea that God must follow certain laws.
Disturbing stories in scripture—God hardening Pharaoh’s heart,
the massacres associated with the entry into Canaan, Jephthah’s sac-
rifice of his daughter, the wager between God and Satan over Job, and
some of the descriptions of the coming apocalyptic conflicts—­create
conflicts in the minds of even the most committed believers. The
destruction of the Midianites led an uneasy nonbeliever, Mark Twain,
to ask in his Letters from the Earth, What kind of “Father” would
decree such a thing?3 In The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Karamazov
asks what idea of morality we have other than the human one, which
says such actions as described in scripture are beyond justification.4
To answer objections like Ivan’s, some will cite Isaiah 55:9, that God’s
thoughts are higher than our thoughts as the heavens are higher than
the earth. But this only raises the question, Are there any things we

2. Plato seems to be on the side that claims God(s) are subject to the good. Plato’s
God is a demiurge, a workman, who does the best he can with the materials he has; he
creates order from chaos, but he does not create the original materials from nothing.
(An already long tradition in Greek philosophy held that creation from nothing was
an incoherent idea.) As a result, Plato does not face the “problem of evil” troubling the
Judeo-Christian tradition; if God creates the world from nothing, then why does he
create evil as part of it? Plato’s God is a creator in the way a craftsman is; he makes the
product, which is an excellent one, but he is not responsible for the effects of “Necessity,”
the unavoidable defects of the materials.
3. Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth, ed. Bernard DeVoto (New York: Harper and
Row, 1962), 75–79.
4. Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa
Volokhonsky (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1990), 245–46.
 God Subject to or Creator of Law?   V51

could begin to understand about God if all the moral and physical
rules by which we understand are subject to God’s will? Certainly, the
idea that God sanctions massacres of children is dangerous. The mas-
sacre and enslavement of the Midianites, and the other slaughters that
accompanied the Israelite entry into Canaan, have been used to justify
genocides or the enslavement of masses of God’s children.
But the question about law goes beyond ethics. Is God, in his
omnipotence, subject to the rules of logic? Could God create square
circles, make mountain ranges with no valleys, or microwave a burrito
so hot God couldn’t eat it and then eat it? Thinkers with very strong
notions of omnipotence, like William of Ockham, John Calvin, and
Al-Ghazali, will say yes, but how this is so is beyond human under-
standing.5 Thomas Aquinas gets around the question by saying that the
rules of logic are “in Gods nature” so God doesn’t do irrational things.6
God cannot violate the principle of noncontradiction. Omnipotence
is not irrationality. But what about natural laws and human freedom?
Process theologians, on the other hand, claim that besides the principle
of noncontradiction, God is also limited by the freedom of others and
the brute continual persistence of nature.7

Latter-day Saints, God, and Eternal Laws

Where do Latter-day Saints fall in the debate?8 Latter-day Saint scripture
shows that law itself is extremely important for Latter-day Saints. In the

5. For William of Ockham, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, Lucifer: The Devil in the
Middle Ages (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), 274–76. For Al-Ghazali, see
Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese, Philosophers Speak of God (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1975), 106–11; Daniel A. Dombrowski, A History of the Concept
of God: A Process Approach (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2016), 35–38.
For John Calvin, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 3, ed. John T.
McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 14.15, 23.1;
Anna Case-Winters, God’s Power: Traditional Understandings and Contemporary Chal-
lenges (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 39–96.
6. Hartshorne and Reese, Philosophers Speak of God, 119–33; Dombrowski, History
of the Concept of God, 43–60.
7. David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville, Ky.: West-
minster John Knox Press, 2004), 275–311.
8. It is interesting that many contemporary scholars think the answer is clear.
Latter-day Saints follow Plato: God is a craftsman who knows the laws. The laws are
eternal, and God is subject to them. See, for example, Francis Beckwith, “Moral Law, the
Mormon Universe, and the Nature of the Right We Ought to Choose,” and Paul Copan
and William Lane Craig, “Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon
52 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Book of Mormon, the prophet Lehi says without law there could be no
God, no humanity, no creation.
And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye
shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And
if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no
righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And
if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are
not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things,
neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have
vanished away. (2 Ne. 2:13)
According to Lehi, law must exist for there to be anything beyond the
sheer chaos of nothing or no-thing. All things would vanish away. With-
out order, all is chaos. But are these laws eternal themselves, or are they
dependent on the will of God? Latter-day Saints have approached this
question in a variety of ways. Consider the following scripture, which
emphasizes the importance of law in relation to blessings, progress, and
perfection: “Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this
life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more
knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedi-
ence than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to
come. There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the founda-
tions of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when
we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon
which it is predicated” (D&C 130:18–21).

Doctrine and a Defense of Creation ex Nihilo,” in The New Mormon Challenge: Respond-
ing to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, ed. Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser,
and Paul Owen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002).
The irony here is some critics accuse the Latter-day Saints of following the Greeks
and not the Bible. This is a charge that Latter-day Saints, at least since Talmage and
Roberts, have argued is a source of the apostasy in early Christianity. It was part of the
reason that a restoration was necessary. Greek philosophy, with its static ideal of perfec-
tion, demanded a God without body, parts, or passions, and this is one source of the
doctrine of creation ex nihilo which appears to be nonbiblical. Ex nihilo creation, that
God created the universe from nothing, protects the absolute omnipotence of God but
is also a source of the problem of evil. If God is good, why couldn’t God have made a
better world? It also creates problems about how one might think of freedom. Notice
this is also the philosophical source and justification of the idea that God creates all the
laws since God created everything ex nihilo. Gerhard May, Creation Ex Nihilo (London:
T&T Clark, 2004); Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama
of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); James McLachlan,
“The Problem of Evil in Mormon Thought,” in The Oxford Handbook of Mormonism, ed.
Philip Barlow and Terryl Givens (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 276–92.
 God Subject to or Creator of Law?   V53

The question we need to consider here is, “What does it mean to say
the law was decreed?” If we examine the verses, they are open to at least
three possible readings.9 Each reading has a complementary question as
to whether the laws are one decreed or many.10
1. God decreed the law or laws that would govern the world before
the creation of the world.
2. The law or laws are eternal since they are before the foundation of
the world. God decreed the law or laws because they are eternal
truth.
3. Laws emerge with the world and are at its foundation. In this
sense, as the world emerges from the chaos of disorganized mat-
ter, laws are the descriptions of the order and limitations imposed
because of the emergence of plural beings. God finds himself in
the midst of other persons.
In brief, were the laws decreed by God, were they made clear by God,
or did they emerge with the relation between God, other spirits, and
the world? Consider the following passage drawn from three different
accounts of the King Follett Discourse. I think all three interpretations
are still possible here.
God himself— find[ing] himself in the midst of spirits and glory—
because he was greater saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest
could have a privilege to advance like himself.11 The relationship we
have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God
has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences that they
may be exalted with himself.12 God . . . saw proper to institute laws for
those who were in less intelligence that they mi[gh]t have one glory
upon another in all that knowledge power & glory & so took in hand to
save [them in] the world of Sp[irits].13

9. In this essay, I indicate three possible readings of this text. But these are only
three possible readings; there may be more.
10. Do the blessings depend on an infinite or finite number of separate laws, or do all
these laws depend on obedience to one basic law, love of God and neighbor?
11. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton [28],” 16–17 [28–29],
Joseph Smith Papers, accessed June 18, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper​
-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-william-clayton/6.
12. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” [137], Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed June 18, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-sum​mary/dis​
course-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/5.
13. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Thomas Bullock,” 19, Joseph Smith Papers,
accessed June 18, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/dis​course​
-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/6.
54 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

B. H. Roberts is usually associated with position 2, that God is sub-

ject to the eternal law or laws decreed before the foundation of the
world. He argued that omnipotence must be thought of as somewhat
limited. In the quote below, Roberts, as others have done, limits God’s
omnipotence in relation to logical necessities without which we can-
not understand our world. But notice God is also placed within space
and time (duration). God neither creates space nor annihilates matter.
For Roberts, this would seem to place God under explanation 2 of the
law(s). The laws are eternal and God is God because God embodies
them perfectly.
The attribute “Omnipotence” must needs be thought upon also as
somewhat limited. Even God, notwithstanding the ascription to him of
all-powerfulness in such scripture phrases as “With God all things are
possible,” “Nothing shall be impossible with God”—notwithstanding
all this, I say, not even God may have two mountain ranges without a
valley between. Not even God may place himself beyond the boundary
of space: nor on the outside of duration. Nor is it conceivable to human
thought that he can create space, or annihilate matter. These are things
that limit even God’s Omnipotence. What then, is meant by the ascrip-
tion of the attribute Omnipotence to God? Simply that all that may or
can be done by power conditioned by other eternal existences—dura-
tion, space, matter, truth, justice—God can do. But even he may not act
out of harmony with the other eternal existences which condition or
limit even him.14
The statement that God’s power is limited by other eternal existences
including truth and justice would seem to bring this part of Roberts’s
stance closer to position 3. In order for the universe that includes per-
sons to emerge, each person has a kind of eternal power that limits
the other persons, powers, and laws. These eternal existences include
duration, space, and matter but also truth and justice. Other eternal
existences, including other eternal intelligences, limit God’s power.
Latter-day Saints occasionally sing a hymn that reflects this position:
“Know This, That Every Soul Is Free,” which includes the line “God will
force no man to heav’n.”15 This relates to Alma 42:13 in the Book of Mor-
mon where Alma declares that should God’s mercy rob justice, “God

14. B. H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course in Theology: Years One–Five (Scotts Valley:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2015), locations 14122–14129, Kindle.
15. “Know This, That Every Soul Is Free,” Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985),
no. 240.
 God Subject to or Creator of Law?   V55

would cease to be God.” This is how Brigham Young understood the

passage. God seems subject to some eternal principles, whether laws or
tenets arising from his relation to other persons. He explains this in a
discourse from 1866.
The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence and
the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease
to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for
them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessing of life; if
they choose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has
always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout
all the eternities to come.16
In 1853 Young outlined what he believed were two eternal principles:
increase and destruction. These were eternal.
The Lord Jesus Christ works upon a plan of eternal increase, of wis-
dom, intelligence, honor, excellence, power, glory, might, and domin-
ion, and the attributes that fill eternity. What principle does the devil
work upon? It is to destroy, dissolve, decompose, and tear in pieces. The
principle of separation, or disorganization, is as much an eternal prin-
ciple, as much a truth, as that of organization. Both always did and will
exist. Can I point out to you the difference in these principles, and show
clearly and satisfactorily the benefit, the propriety, and the necessity of
acting upon one, any more than the other?17
These two eternal principles echo Lehi’s discussion of order and dissolu-
tion of order in 2 Nephi 2:11 and in 2:27 of choosing between liberty and
eternal life or captivity and death, increase or dissolution: “Wherefore,
men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which
are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal
life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and
death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh
that all men might be miserable like unto himself ” (2 Ne. 2:27).

Omnipotence, Chaos, and Creation Ex Nihilo

One way to protect God’s absolute power is to claim that he created all
things ex nihilo. There is thus nothing that limits the power of God. For
Augustine and most of the Christian tradition, the world exists in space

16. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 26  vols. (Liverpool: F.  D. Richards,
1855–86), 11:272 (August 19, 1866).
17. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 1:116 (February 27, 1853).
56 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

and time, but God exists in eternity—not as everlasting time but as

something more like an eternal now.18 God created all matter, time, and
space from nothing. Thus, God created the laws by which the world is
governed. This may or may not include the laws of logic. Ex nihilo cre-
ation thus defends the idea that God is not subject at least to some laws,
because God, in his eternity, transcends the realm of space and time and
natural law. The question for most theists is, then, Is God subject to the
rules of logic, or are these created when God created the world ex nihilo?
The question can also be extended to moral laws and to freedom. Does
God have a duty to respect the freedom of human persons if God cre-
ated them and moral laws ex nihilo? The Calvinist God is the epitome of
the all-powerful ex-nihilo artist of the universe. Even more powerfully
than Augustine, Calvin argued that humanity was under the predesti-
nating power of God.19 Augustine had written, “If it were not good that
evil things exist, they would certainly not be allowed to exist by the
omnipotent God.”20 Calvin goes further clarifying the position. “Those
whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other
reason than that he wills to exclude them for the inheritance which he
predestines for his own children.”21 God literally decreed all events to
take place. God “foresees future events only by reason of the fact that
he decreed they take place.”22 “Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall
irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant off-
spring in eternal death because it so pleased God?” Calvin replied, “The
decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.”23 But he concludes that “God’s will
is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by
the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous.”24 This rejec-
tion of human independence in relation to God could be at the heart
of Joseph Smith’s famous alterations to the text of the Exodus passages

18. See Augustine’s famous analysis of time in book 11 of Saint Augustine, Confes-
sions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
19. Jeffrey Burton Russell, Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), 46–48.
20. Saint Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dodds (New York: Modern
Library, 1993) bk. 11, ch. 18.
21. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 3, ed. John McNeill, trans.
Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), xxiii1–xiv.15.
22. Calvin, Institutes, 3:xxiii1–xiv.15.
23. Calvin, Institutes, 3:xxiii, 6.
24. Calvin, Institutes, 20:xxiii 7; xxiii, 2. See James McLachlan, “Mark Twain and the
Problem of Evil,” in The Philosophy of Mark Twain, ed. Alan Goldman and Jacob Held
(New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2017).
 God Subject to or Creator of Law?   V57

where God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (for example, Ex. 9:12; 10:20).
In Smith’s version, Pharaoh hardens his own heart (see, for example,
JST Ex. 9:12; 10:20). In this case, God could either be subject to ethical
principles or permit the freedom of Pharaoh as a separate person.
Joseph Smith rejected creation ex nihilo explicitly in the King Follett
Discourse, where he stated that there is something uncreated about the
spirit of man. “God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all.
He could not create himself— Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent prin-
ciple— [it] is a spirit from age to age & [there is] no creation about it.”25
Even before Joseph Smith unveiled his Nauvoo theology, Parley Pratt
thought that, since Joseph Smith had denied the idea of creation ex nihilo,
it followed that God was subject to certain laws. It is impossible, he wrote
in an 1838 essay, “for God to bring forth matter from nonentity, or to
originate element from nothing,” because “these are principles of eternal
truth, they are laws which cannot be broken, . . . whether the reckoning
be calculated by the Almighty, or by man.”26 In Key to the Science of The-
ology, he declared that even the Father and Son, as part of an eternal and
physical universe, are “subject to the laws that govern, of necessity, even
the most refined order of physical existence,” because “all physical ele-
ment, however embodied, quickened, or refined, is subject to the general
laws necessary to all existence.”27 John A. Widtsoe agreed; God was “part
of the universe”; his “conquest over the universe” was a function of his
“recognition of universal laws” and “the forces lying about him.”28

The Discussion Goes On

The tradition that God is subject to eternal laws that either exist eter-
nally or that emerge in Creation in relation to other eternal existences
external to God is long and often defended in Latter-day Saint thought,

25. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton [28],” 16 [28]. Joseph
Smith started teaching this doctrine as early as August 1839. He then repeated it in (at
least) February 1840, January 1841, March 1841, April 1842, and, of course, April 1844.
This is one of the best-documented teachings of Joseph Smith. Charles Harrell quotes
each of these instances in “The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830–1844,”
BYU Studies 28, no. 2 (1988): 75–96.
26. Parley P. Pratt, The Millennium and Other Poems: To Which Is Annexed a Treatise
on the Regeneration and Eternal Duration of Matter (New York: W. Molineux, 1840), 110.
27. Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1855), 37.
28. John A. Widtsoe, A Rational Theology: As Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: General Boards of the Mutual Improvement Associa-
tion, 1932), 24–25.
58 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

but the idea that God decreed the laws from eternity is also present. In
its 1929 response to B. H. Roberts’s book The Truth, the Way, the Life,
which, as we have seen, held positions like 2 or 3, the apostolic com-
mittee reviewing the book for publication objected that God “is the
author of law” and cited D&C 88:42: “And again, verily I say unto you,
he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times
and their seasons.” The committee’s main objection was that Elder Rob-
erts claimed in relation to his position that God is subject to law; if so,
then it was the case that God, like human beings, progressed in knowl-
edge, learning all laws. The committee argued that this could not be the
case since God was the author of all law.29
Although less clear on this point of whether God is subject to eternal
laws, Elder Bruce R. McConkie thoroughly rejected the idea that God
could be progressing in knowledge and seemed to hold that all laws
were ordained by God. In his highly influential Mormon Doctrine, Elder
McConkie wrote that all progress relates to obedience to divine laws
that were ordained by God so that we might become like him. But Elder
McConkie did not make clear exactly what “ordained” means in this
context. Were the laws created or approved?
Obedience is the first law of heaven, the cornerstone upon which all
righteousness and progression rest. It consists in compliance with
divine law, in conformity to the mind and will of Deity, in complete
subjection to God and his commands. To obey gospel law is to yield
obedience to the Lord, to execute the commands of and be ruled by
him whose we are. Obedience is possible because of two things: 1. Laws
were ordained by Deity so that his spirit children by conformity to them
might progress and become like him; and 2. The children of God were
endowed with agency, the power and ability to either obey or disobey
the divine will.30
It seems to me that we can read Elder McConkie’s statement about law
in all three of the possible readings I mentioned above, but 1 and 3 seem
the most likely. God can be seen as omnipotent in a very strong sense,
and in this case the law is created by God, which would mean that
McConkie espouses the first position. And yet Elder McConkie also
writes that God ordained the laws that his spirit children might become
like him through obedience. This sounds more like position  3, where

29. B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology,
ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo: BYU Studies, 1994), 418 n.
30. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 539.
 God Subject to or Creator of Law?   V59

God exists in relation with other beings, his children and other Gods.
This is in line with Joseph Smith’s description of God and the spirits
of glory in the King Follett Discourse: “God himself— find himself in
the midst of spirit and glory— because he was greater saw proper to
institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like
himself.”31
Latter-day Saint writers like O. Kendall White in his Mormon Neo-
Orthodoxy: A  Crisis Theology have claimed that positions like Elder
McConkie’s reflect a retreat from traditional Mormon theology toward
a type of Protestant crisis theology.32 This might also, perhaps unfairly,
be said of the work of Robert Millet, Stephen Robinson, and others who
have sought a kind of rapprochement with evangelical Christians. But
as Eugene England, not a champion of anything like a Latter-day Saint
crisis theology, pointed out, one could trace this more traditionally the-
istic view from Elder McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, J. Reuben Clark,
and Joseph F. Smith to Hyrum Smith’s early objections to his brother
Joseph’s Nauvoo theology.33 In any case, Latter-day Saint attitudes, at
least historically, toward the question of the eternity or creation of eter-
nal law are diverse and not always clear.
Elder Neal A. Maxwell seemed to say that God transcends space and
time. “The past, present, and future are before God simultaneously. . . .
Therefore God’s omniscience is not solely a function of prolonged and
discerning familiarity with us—but of the stunning reality that the past,
present, and future are part of an ‘eternal now’ with God.”34 The scrip-
tural reference related to this is, “The angels do not reside on a planet
like this earth; but they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a
sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past,
present, and future, and are continually before the Lord” (D&C 130:6–7).
One could read Elder Maxwell’s statement in an Augustinian fashion,
which would make it easier to argue the case that God created space and
time and all the laws. But what complicates this reading, as Blake Ostler
points out, is that it is difficult to read this passage to say God is beyond
time since verses 4–5 say God exists in time but God’s time is different

31. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton [28],” 16 [28]–17 [29].
32. O. Kendall White Jr., Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology (Salt Lake City:
Signature, 1987).
33. Eugene England, “The Weeping God of Mormonism,” Dialogue: A  Journal of
Mormon Thought 35, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 70.
34. Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1979), 95–96.
60 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

from earthly time. “In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of
God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to
the planet on which they reside? I answer, Yes. But there are no angels
who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to
it” (D&C 130:4–5).35
Beyond statements of the General Authorities, the discussion about
issues surrounding the idea of God being the author or the creator of
laws has been common among Latter-day Saint thinkers. The Latter-day
Saint philosopher Sterling McMurrin claimed that Latter-day Saint the-
ology was essentially “non-absolutistic.”36 This did not mean that in
their everyday discourse Latter-day Saints didn’t talk about God using
the same absolutist terms as other Christians, only that their idea of
God would not let them do so consistently. McMurrin thought that an
embodied God who had advanced in knowledge and understanding had
to be still advancing in knowledge and power. This was what McMur-
rin thought was the Latter-day Saint response to the problem of evil.37

35. For a discussion of time and divine knowledge, see Blake T. Ostler, Exploring
Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001),
148–56. Earlier in an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Ostler elabo-
rated on Elder Maxwell’s statement and alluded to personal correspondence with Elder
Maxwell: “The idea of God’s eternity here appears to consist not in the Hebrew notion
of God’s eternal duration in time without beginning or end; but of transcendence of
temporal succession. In fairness to Elder Maxwell, we must recognize that his observa-
tions are meant as rhetorical expressions to inspire worship rather than as an exacting
philosophical analysis of the idea of timelessness. Furthermore, in a private conversa-
tion in January 1984, Elder Maxwell told me that he is unfamiliar with the classical idea
of timelessness and the problems it entails. His intent was not to convey the idea that
God transcends temporal succession, but ‘to help us trust in God’s perspectives, and
not to be too constrained by our own provincial perceptions while we are in this mortal
cocoon.’ ” Blake T. Ostler, “The Mormon Concept of God,” Dialogue 17, no. 2 (Summer
1984): 75, emphasis in original.
In a footnote, Ostler reproduces some more of his personal correspondence with
Maxwell: “I refer to this private conversation and to excerpts from Elder Maxwell’s letter
with his permission. He writes, ‘I would never desire to do, say, or write anything which
would cause others unnecessary problems. .  .  . I  would not have understood certain
philosophical implications arising (for some) because I quoted from Purtill who, in turn,
quoted from Boethius. Nor would I presume to know of God’s past, including His for-
mer relationship to time and space.’ Elder Neal A. Maxwell to Blake T. Ostler, January 24,
1984. My thanks to Elder Maxwell for his helpful and generous comments on this and
numerous other subjects.” Ostler, “Mormon Concept of God,” 76 n. 30.
36. Sterling M. McMurrin, Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion (Salt
Lake City: Signature Books, 2000), 27–29.
37. McMurrin, Theological Foundations, 96–109.
 God Subject to or Creator of Law?   V61

Douglas Davies, a non-LDS scholar who studied the Latter-day Saints,

claims, “It is this presence that poses Mormonism’s strategic yet apolo-
getic dilemma of ‘otherness,’ of wanting to be accepted as Christian by
the wider Christian world while not accepting that world’s definition
of Christianity; issues of heavenly and earthly apostasy, transcended by
Restoration and prophecy, make this so.”38 For Davies and McMurrin,
Latter-day Saints might use terms like unchanging, eternal, omnipotent,
omniscient, and so forth, but it is hard to see, without radical redefinition
of all these terms, often used to describe the transcendent deity of theism,
how the Latter-day Saint God would fit any of them. Latter-day Saint the-
ologies, even in their most conservative versions, do not see God as com-
pletely ontologically distinct from human beings. In Joseph Smith’s First
Vision, God appears as an embodied human being. This is important to
note at the beginning because the traditional problem of evil does not
arise for Latter-day Saints in the same way it arises for other theists. Or,
to be more precise, it arises only to be dismissed once Latter-day Saints
pass from the language they share about God with other Christians—
which Latter-day Saints (and one might argue the entire Judeo-Christian
scriptural tradition) use hyperbolically as a language of praise—to dis-
cussion of the problem in philosophical terms.
Authoritative pronouncements from Latter-day Saint scriptural tradi-
tions and founding authorities use terms like omnipotence but define it
in ways quite different from most of the main creedal theistic traditions.
Omnipotence, for example, has been used in Latter-day Saint writings to
mean almighty, or all the power that a being can possess given they exist
alongside other self-existing free beings that logically limit omnipotence.
The late LDS philosopher David Paulsen has explained omnipotence in
this way.39 Like process theologians, Latter-day Saints can claim that most
creedal Christians and traditional theists place limits on omnipotence when
they define it as God only being able to do what is “logically possible.”40 If
God is limited by what is logically possible, that would include being lim-
ited by the activity of other free beings. The thought seems to be if omnipo-
tence is limited by logic by traditional theists, why not also claim that it is

38. Douglas J. Davies, Joseph Smith, Jesus, and Satanic Opposition: Atonement, Evil
and the Mormon Vision (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), 228.
39. David L. Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil,” BYU Studies 39, no. 1
(2000): 53–65; David Paulsen, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James,” The
Journal of Speculative Philosophy 13, no. 2 (1999): 114–46.
40. John Cobb Jr. and Truman G. Madsen, “Theodicy,” in Encyclopedia of Mormon-
ism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1473.
62 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

just as inconsistent to say that God could force beings to act against their
freedom as to say that God could create a square circle. The first statement
is to misunderstand freedom, just as the second is to misunderstand geom-
etry. Thus, God is understood as having all the power any being could have
and is thus in religious terms “Almighty.”41
Theologians and philosophers like Blake Ostler and Terryl Givens
have taken positions close to Roberts or the Pratts.42 Ostler has staked
out a position close to Open Theism but denies creation ex nihilo and
in this respect approaches Process Theology.43 Others, like Robert Mil-
let and Stephen Robinson, in dialogue with evangelical theologians like
Richard J. Mouw and Craig Blomberg, emphasize the grace in Latter-day
Saint teaching in a way that affirms the power and majesty of God
in ways more compatible with traditional theism.44 James Faulconer
and Adam Miller take a more postmodern approach to the question.
Faulconer forsakes theology altogether, referring to the restored gos-
pel’s “atheological” character, “without an official or even semi-official
philosophy that explains and gives rational support to [its] beliefs and
teachings.”45 For Faulconer, Latter-day Saint thought, like Judaism, is
an orthopraxis rather than an orthodoxy. In other words, it emphasizes
practice above theology. Miller does not eschew theology but follows the

41. David Paulsen uses this strategy in his well-known article on Joseph Smith and
the problem of evil and again with Blake Ostler in the most complete treatment of the
problem from a Latter-day Saint point of view. Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Problem
of Evil,” 53–65; David L. Paulsen and Blake T. Ostler, “Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making:
Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil,” in Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor
of Truman G. Madsen, ed. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Stephen D. Ricks
(Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2014), 237–84.
42. See Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought:
Cosmos, God, Humanity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 84–88.
43. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God, 122–29. See also John
Cobb and Clark Pinnock, eds., Searching for an Adequate God: A  Dialogue between
Process and Free Will Theists (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000); David Ray Griffin
and James McLachlan, “A Dialogue on Process Theology,” in Mormonism in Dialogue
with Contemporary Christian Theologies, ed. Donald W. Musser and David L. Paulsen
(Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2007), 161–210.
44. Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, foreword
and afterword by Richard J. Mouw (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005); Craig L.
Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon and an Evangeli-
cal in Conversation (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1997).
45. James E. Faulconer, “Why a Mormon Won’t Drink Coffee but Might Have a
Coke: The Atheological Character of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,”
Element 2, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 21.
 God Subject to or Creator of Law?   V63

French thinker Bruno Latour, arguing against Givens that laws are not
ideal and eternal but are material in the sense that they are em­bodied in
creation.46 The question is still an open one, and this is probably a good
thing. Lively debate about the meaning of the gospel can be a form of
worship.

James McLachlan is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at Western Carolina

University. He is past co-founder and co-chair of the Mormon Studies Group at the
American Academy of Religion and past president of the Society for Mormon Philoso-
phy and Theology. He was the organizer of the Personalist Seminar. He has assisted as
co-chair of the Levinas Philosophy Summer Seminars in Vilnius, Buffalo, Berkeley, and
Rome and is co-director of the NEH Summer Seminar on Levinas at the University at
Buffalo in summer 2017 and 2022. His recent publications have dealt with concepts of
hell in existentialism; Satan and demonic evil in Boehme, Schelling, and Dostoevsky;
and the problem of evil in Mormonism. He is currently working on a study of Mormon-
ism and Process Theology and a study of the early Mormon philosopher William H.
Chamberlin.

46. Adam Miller, Future Mormon: Essays in Mormon Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg
Kofford Books, 2016), 62–64.
What Is the Nature of God’s Progress?

Matthew Bowman

I n the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the

question of whether or not God progresses can be separated into two
more precise questions, each of which has been the topic of strenuous
debate. The first has to do with whether God has always been divine
or achieved that state through eons of progression, passing through a
humanity much like ours along the way. The second is whether God
continues to progress—and crucially, whether that progression is quali-
tative or simply quantitative: whether God’s progress means that God
learns new things and gains new powers or whether his glory already
achieved simply expands as his creation expands. Naturally, the two
questions are somewhat interrelated.
Both have their roots in the rather ambiguous theology of the relation-
ship between humanity and deity that Joseph Smith taught. Early on in
the life of the Church he founded, Smith endorsed a somewhat conven-
tionally Christian vision of deity: an eternal, unchanging spirit manifest
in the world through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The 1834 Lectures on
Faith, for instance, which Joseph Smith approved and supervised though
did not write himself, declared that “the Godhead” consisted of the Father,
“a personage of spirit,” and the Son, “a personage of tabernacle.” These two,
said the Lectures, “possess the same mind,” which was “the Holy Spirit.”
The Lectures also taught that God “changes not, neither is there variable-
ness with him; but that he is the same from everlasting to everlasting.”1

1. “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835,” 38, 52–53, 57, Joseph Smith Papers, https://www​
.joseph​smithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/60; see, for

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)65

66 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

The Lectures, though, also contained more expansive ideas. For

instance, they drew on the language of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
and the Gospel of John, promising that faithful Latter-day Saints would
become “joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind”;
they would be “filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in
him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.”2 This implica-
tion of human divinization reflected a principle taught in a February
1832 vision that Joseph Smith and his associate Sidney Rigdon received.
Faithful human beings, the revelation declared, would become “priests
and kings, who have received of his [God’s] fulness, and of his glory . . . :
wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God.”3
This promise marked the growing clarity about the relationship
between humanity and divinity that characterized the last fifteen years
of Joseph Smith’s life. In April 1843, he declared that God the Father pos-
sessed “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.”4 In two sermons
the next year, he offered the most radical statements about the nature of
God he had to date. In a funeral sermon popularly known as the “King
Follett Discourse,” Smith offered a series of statements that seemed to
indicate that God had once been a man like human men and had pro-
gressed to achieve Godhood and that this was to be also the fate of his
listeners.5 As Wilford Woodruff recorded the discourse, Smith declared
that God “once was a man like us, and the Father was once on an earth
like us.” And finally, Smith told his audience, “you have got to learn how
to make yourselves God, king, priest, by going from a small capacity to
a great capacity . . . be an heir of God & joint heir of Jesus Christ enjoy-
ing the same rise exhaltation & glory untill you arive at the station of a
God.” After all, Smith asked, “What did Jesus Christ do the same thing
as I se the Father do.”6 In both this sermon and the so-called “Sermon

instance, Noel B. Reynolds, “The Case of Sidney Rigdon as Author of the ‘Lectures on
Faith,’ ” Journal of Mormon History 31, no. 2 (2005): 1–41.
2. “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835,” 54.
3. “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835,” 228.
4. Joseph Smith’s Diary, April 2, 1843, in The Words of Joseph Smith, comp. and ed.
Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 173; see also
“History, 1838–1856, Volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843],” 1511, Joseph Smith Papers,
accessed May 19, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history​
-1838​-1856​-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/154.
5. See James E. Faulconer with Susannah Morrison, “The King Follett Discourse:
Pinnacle or Peripheral?” in this publication, pp. 85–104.
6. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” [135], Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed May 19, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/
 Nature of God’s Progress   V67

in the Grove,” preached two months later, Smith extended these ideas,
teaching that there were generations of gods extending backward into
eternity. “If Jesus Christ was the Son of God & John discovered that God
the Father of Jesus Christ had a father you may suppose that he had a
Father also,” Smith said, according to the scribe Thomas Bullock.7
In the decades following the sermon, Smith’s ideas often seemed
enigmatic to many of those who followed him, and the precise extent of
his meaning sparked an ongoing debate among leaders and intellectuals
of the Church. The question of God’s past progress has seemed less con-
troversial, though members of the Church have interpreted what Smith
said in varying ways.
Throughout the nineteenth century, many Church leaders embraced
the notion that God had achieved godhood through a process of matu-
ration, learning, and growth. For some, like Brigham Young, who suc-
ceeded Joseph Smith as President of the Church, this process was most
comprehensible in terms of family and lineage. Young took Smith’s
meaning at its most frank, imagining a long chain of divine parents.
He said of God the Father, “He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, both body and spirit; and he is the Father of our spirits, and the
Father of our flesh in the beginning. . . . Do you wish me to simplify it?
Could you have a father without having a grandfather; or a grandfather
without having a great grandfather?”8 As the Apostle Orson Hyde, a con-
temporary of Young and Smith, put it, “God, our heavenly Father, was
perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step
in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement.”9 Both Young and
Hyde imagined God, scion of another God on another world, traveling
the long road from childhood through an earthly life toward his inheri-
tance of divinity and presidency over our world. For Young and Hyde,
then, divinity was something gained through experience, knowledge,
and patrimony.

discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/3, all misspellings in original;

see also Ehat and Cook, Words of Joseph Smith, 344–45.
7. “Discourse, 16 June 1844–A, as Reported by Thomas Bullock,” [3], Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed May 19, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/
discourse​-16-june-1844-a-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/3, abbreviations expanded;
see also Ehat and Cook, Words of Joseph Smith, 380.
8. Brigham Young, sermon, October 8, 1854, MS D1234, Addresses, 1854, July–October,
Brigham Young Papers, Church History Library and Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.
9. Orson Hyde, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1855–86),
1:123 (October 1853).
68 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Other nineteenth-century leaders adopted a somewhat different

approach. Orson Pratt took the notion that God was not always God
seriously, but he offered a more abstract version of divine progress than
the lineal parentage statements of Young or Hyde, instead teaching that
in some way God’s divinity is eternal and self-existent. From the King
Follett Discourse, Pratt posited that “the primary powers of all mate-
rial substance must be intelligent” and that therefore the totality of that
intelligence, which was interconnected, self-existent, and eternal, was in
fact what Pratt called the “Great God.”10 The being humans called “God,”
then, partook of the eternal divine attributes that the “Great God” had
always possessed as a singular manifestation of the eternal principles of
divinity. Pratt thus insisted that “God” in the form of the “Great God”
had indeed always existed and always possessed all the attributes of
divinity, but that any particular “God” who entered into communion
with the “Great God” might indeed have had a history of growth and
change. He thus saw both eternity and progress in Smith’s ideas.
Pratt’s theories persisted in some way for many members of the
Church; the early-twentieth-century Apostle Anthon Lund, for instance,
evinced sympathy for Pratt’s attempt to retain traditional Christian
notions of God’s eternity in his famous observation, “I do not like to think
of a time when there was no God.”11 As time went on, however, some
form of Young’s ideas seemed more tempting to many Latter-day Saints
than Pratt’s abstractions. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
tury, the progressive-era philosophy of thinkers like Herbert Spencer
had gained much influence with thinkers in the Church. Spencer modi-
fied Darwinian ideas to emphasize that progress was achieved through
refinement and struggle and that the natural tendency of humanity and
the universe was toward increasing complexity and accomplishment.
For the Apostles James E. Talmage and John A. Widtsoe and the Seventy
B. H. Roberts, then, it made much sense that God became God the same
way that species evolved, through effort and education, and for thinkers
influenced by Spencerian-modified Darwinism, Young’s emphasis on
inheritance and lineage seemed appropriate.

10. Orson Pratt, “Great First Cause, or the Self-Moving Forces of the Universe,”
in The Essential Orson Pratt, ed. David J. Whittaker (Salt Lake City: Signature Books,
1991), 189.
11. Anthon H. Lund, journal, August 25, 1911, cited in Blake T. Ostler, “The Idea of
Pre-existence in Mormon Thought,” in Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed.
Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 143.
 Nature of God’s Progress   V69

Thus, Talmage argued that God the Father “once passed through
experience analogous to those which His Son, the Lord Jesus, after-
ward passed through,” maintaining that the trials and sacrifice of Jesus
contributed to his capacity for working the divine Atonement.12 Both
Roberts and Widtsoe conceived of divinity as the achievement of suf-
ficient education to master the workings of the universe; as Roberts put
it, “The Gods had attained unto that excellence of oneness that Jesus
prayed his disciples might possess, and .  .  . the Gods have attained
unto it, and all govern their worlds and systems of worlds by the same
spirit and upon the same principles.”13 Widtsoe, the most scientifically
minded of them all, explicitly connected God’s achievement of divinity
with his development, writing, “If the law of progression be accepted,
God must have been engaged from the beginning, and must now be
engaged in progressive development, and infinite as God is, he must
have been less powerful in the past than he is today.” Widtsoe credited
this development to God’s “will,” knowledge of “universal laws,” and
“self-effort.”14
While these ideas have not been fundamentally repudiated in the
twentieth century, the subject of God’s origins has certainly been the sub-
ject of less speculation. Neither the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie nor his
father-in-law, President of the Church Joseph Fielding Smith, two of the
most prolific and powerful theological minds of the twentieth-century
Church, dealt at great length with the issue. Indeed, Fielding Smith wrote,
puzzled, if “God is infinite and eternal, . . . how does this conform to the
Prophet’s teaching” that God was once a man? “This is one of the myster-
ies,” he concluded. “There are many things that we will not comprehend
while in this mortal life.”15 Rather, both Fielding Smith and McConkie
routinely used absolute language to describe God.
For instance, in his encyclopedic Mormon Doctrine, McConkie
quoted the Lectures on Faith to describe God as “the one supreme and
absolute being; the ultimate source of the universe.” He insisted further
that God “is not a progressive being in the sense that liberal religionists

12. James E. Talmage, “The Son of Man,” in The Essential James E. Talmage, ed.
James P. Harris (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 137.
13. B. H. Roberts, A New Witness for God (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and
Sons, 1895), 474.
14. John A. Widtsoe, A Rational Theology (Salt Lake City: General Priesthood Com-
mittee, 1915), 23–24.
15. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,
1954–56), 1:8.
70 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

profess,” instead paraphrasing scripture: God is “the same yesterday,

today, and forever.”16 When a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle
asked Church President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1997 if he believed “that
God was once a man,” Hinckley said, “That gets into some pretty deep
theology that we don’t know much about.”17
Far more controversial than the debate over God’s origins has been
the notion only hinted at in Smith’s discourses: that God continues to
progress. Woodruff recorded Joseph Smith describing Jesus’s intentions
in the King Follett Discourse: “I will give to the father which will add to
his glory, He will take a Higher exhaltation & I will take his place and
am also exhalted.”18 This implied, at least, that God the Father’s divinity
continues in some way to expand. For some, the idea was self-evident,
and those who were most vocal in insisting that God did progress also
tended to argue that God’s progress was qualitative: that God is increas-
ing in knowledge and power, changing and developing even as human
beings do the same. Brigham Young and John Widtsoe were the two
most vocal, and though they expressed their sentiments somewhat dif-
ferently, at the heart of both men’s ideas was the notion that progress was
part and parcel of divinity itself. Young sought to refute Orson Pratt’s
theory of the “Great God,” saying, “According to his theory, God can
progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve
is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all
eternity, if they are faithful.”19 For Young, change was inevitable: “All
organized existence is in progress either to an endless advancement in
eternal perfections, or back to dissolution.”20 Wilford Woodruff speci-
fied in particular that God “is increasing and progressing in knowledge,
power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end.”21
Widtsoe felt as Young did, but he and other Latter-day Saint
progressive-­era theologians drew on Herbert Spencer’s theories that
stasis was destructive and change was progressive to make their case. As

16. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1st ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958),
291–92.
17. Don Lattin, “Musings of the Main Mormon,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 13,
1997, https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUNDAY-INTERVIEW-Musings-of-the​
-Main​-Mormon-2846138.php.
18. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” [135], Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed May 19, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/dis​
course​-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/3; see also Ehat and Cook, Words
of Joseph Smith, 345.
19. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 11:286–87 (January 1857).
20. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 1:349 (July 1853).
21. Wilford Woodruff, in Journal of Discourses, 6:120 (December 1857).
 Nature of God’s Progress   V71

B. H. Roberts put it, “God’s immutability should not be so understood as

to exclude the idea of advancement or progress of God. . . . An absolute
immutability would require eternal immobility—which would reduce
God to a condition eternally static.”22 Thus it seemed inconceivable to
Widtsoe that God was not progressing. God “must now be engaged in
progressive development, and, infinite as God is, he must have been less
powerful in the past than he is today. Nothing in the universe is static
or quiescent.”23
As the twentieth century went on, however, Widtsoe’s and Young’s
ideas were increasingly marginalized. Rather, many Church leaders
came to conclude that in referring to “higher exaltation,” Joseph Smith
meant that God’s glory increased as Jesus worked out his mission and
human beings progressed. They found the notion that God continues
to gain knowledge and power incompatible with scriptural declarations
that God possesses all power and wisdom. Elder Neal A. Maxwell wor-
ried that “some have wrongly assumed God’s progress is related to His
acquisition of additional knowledge. . . . Mortals should not aspire to
teach God that He is not omniscient by adding qualifiers that He has
never used in the scriptures. Job rightly asked, ‘Shall any teach God
knowledge?’”24 McConkie said, “God is not progressing in knowledge,
truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the attributes of godliness. .  .  . He is
progressing in the sense that his creations increase, his dominions
expand, his spirit offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to
his domains.”25 Indeed, McConkie, whose mind worked in definitives,
denounced as one of his “Seven Deadly Heresies” the idea that “God
is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. This is false—
utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it.”26
Other Church members were more equivocal than the lawyerly
McConkie. Brigham Young University English professor and theologian
Eugene England sought in 1980 to reconcile the positions of leaders like
Young and Widtsoe with those of leaders like McConkie and Fielding
Smith. While McConkie was influenced by his legal training, England’s

22. B. H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course in Theology, vol. 4, The Atonement (Salt Lake
City: Deseret News Press, 1911), 69.
23. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 24.
24. Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1986), 6, 14.
25. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1st ed., 221; see also Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon
Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 239.
26. Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Deadly Heresies,” in 1980 Devotional Speeches of
the Year (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1980), 75.
72 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

literary interest in paradox led him to attempt to find a way in which

both sides might be true. He suggested that “perfection in one sphere
is possible, but then so is progress in a higher sphere or realm.”27 He
thus concluded that it was possible to speak of God as both perfect and
progressing, both expanding in knowledge and power and possessed of
maximal authority.
But after forwarding the essay to McConkie, England received a
stern reply which indicated that McConkie perceived England’s posi-
tion as dangerous. McConkie freely acknowledged there was a debate,
noting that Brigham Young had taught at times that God was perfect
and at times that God was progressing. However, the Apostle was also
certain humanity must “choose between the divergent teachings of
the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has
set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.”28 This was essential because
McConkie held that “if we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned.
. . . Wise people anchor their doctrine on the Standard Works.”29 Just as
Widtsoe and Roberts drew upon progressive-era philosophy to frame
their beliefs about divine progress, so was McConkie influenced by
a twentieth-century movement that emphasized scriptural literalism
and divine authority, popular among conservative Christians of many
denominations.
By the late twentieth century, many members of the Church seemed
comfortable with indeterminacy of the sort President Hinckley had
embraced in his response to the San Francisco Chronicle reporter, rather
than insisting that one position or another must be taken. Indeed, some,
like the Brigham Young University theologian and professor of philoso-
phy David Paulsen, were taking the discussion of God’s nature in differ-
ent directions entirely. They were inspired by new schools in Protestant
Christian theology, the related notions of “open theology” and “process
theology,” both of which emphasized God’s mutability and insisted that
his divinity drew not from his abstract, static perfection but from his
interaction with other beings. For Paulsen, God’s perfection emerged
from being “lovingly interrelated as to constitute one perfectly united
community” with the Son and the Holy Spirit; as God fostered such rela-
tionships with others of God’s children, God’s glory expanded through

27. Eugene England, “Perfection and Progression: Two Complimentary Ways to

Talk about God,” BYU Studies 29, no. 3 (1989): 45.
28. Bruce R. McConkie to Eugene England, February 19, 1981, 6–7, http://www.eu​gene​
england.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined.pdf.
29. McConkie to England, 7.
 Nature of God’s Progress   V73

those relationships.30 Paulsen sought to set aside the old debates and
instead develop a new way of thinking about God’s progress that might
help resolve them.
The increased comfort with ambiguity about the precise nature of
God’s progress led to renewed emphasis on a practical relationship
with God, and both found increased expression in the Church at the
turn of the millennium. The prominent Brigham Young University
professor of ancient scripture Stephen Robinson wrote in the 1992
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, a semiofficial work, that while it was clear
that “Gods and humans are the same species of being, but at differ-
ent stages of development,” and “there has been speculation among
some Latter-day Saints on the implications of this doctrine,” it was
also clear that “nothing has been revealed to the Church about condi-
tions before the ‘beginning’ as mortals know it.”31 Similarly, elsewhere
in the Encyclopedia, author and attorney Lisa Ramsey Adams stated
bluntly that while “ideas have been advanced to explain how God
might progress in knowledge and still be perfect and know all things,”
at the same time, “no official Church teaching attempts to specify all
the ways in which God progresses in his exalted spheres.”32 Thus, the
Encyclopedia fostered rather than foreclosed debate. It acknowledged
that each competing idea had within it some characteristic rooted deep
within the theology of the Church. For some—like John A. Widtsoe,
B. H. Roberts, and Brigham Young—naturalism and optimism about
human potential led them to believe in God’s progression and human-
ity; for others, like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, faith
in scripture and prophetic authority lent weight to more traditional
notions about God. The argument, then, contains within it much that
makes the Church itself distinctive.

Matthew Bowman is an associate professor of religion and history at Claremont Gradu-

ate University, where he serves as Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies. He is
the author most recently of Christian: The Politics of a Word in America (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2018).

30. David L. Paulsen and Matthew G. Fisher, “A  New Evangelical Vision of God:
Openness and Mormon Thought,” FARMS Review 15, no. 2 (2003): 423.
31. Stephen E. Robinson, “God the Father: Overview,” in Encyclopedia of Mormon-
ism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:549.
32. Lisa Ramsey Adams, “Eternal Progression,” in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormon-
ism, 2:466.
Was Jesus Married?

Christopher James Blythe

W hile the belief that Jesus was married during his lifetime has been
popular among Church leaders and lay members since the nine-
teenth century, it has never been an essential of Latter-day Saint theol-
ogy. Rather, belief in a married Christ prospered in the early decades
of the Church with little controversy among members, until leaders
in the early twentieth century discouraged its public discussion while
never disparaging the concept. A century later, as FAIR, an independent
apologetic think tank, states on its website, “Some [Latter-day Saints]
believe that He was married; others believe He wasn’t. Most members
are open to believe either way.”1
While this essay is confined to the subject as it developed among
Latter-day Saints, in recent years, the question of Jesus’s marital status
has been broached by scholarly and (rarely) theological voices outside
of the Latter-day Saint tradition. A series of fictional works and con-
spiratorial histories have claimed a secret history that Jesus was married
and had offspring.2 Among scholars, two arguments for a married Jesus
dominate the literature. First, some have argued that because it was pre-
sumed that rabbis in the mainstream Jewish culture of the time would
marry, the silence on Jesus’s marriage in the Gospels should be taken as

1. “Mormonism and the Question of Whether or Not Jesus Christ Was Married,”
FAIR, accessed April 22, 2021, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Jesus​_Christ/
Was_Jesus_married.
2. Most well-known of these volumes are Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry
Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982), and Michael
Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, Messianic Legacy (New York: Henry Holt, 1986).

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)75

76 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

evidence that he likely was married. Second, some turn to enigmatic ref-
erences about Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Philip and other texts.3

A Married Christ in
Nineteenth-Century Latter-day Saint Readings of the Bible
The earliest Latter-day Saint statements in favor of a married Jesus date
to the 1840s. Not surprisingly, these statements correspond with the tim-
ing of new theological developments surrounding marriage. In fact, the
same revelation that introduced eternal marriage and plural marriage
also distinguished between angels and gods based on their marital status.
In Joseph Smith’s teachings, angels, like gods, were once mortals, but
only gods had obeyed the commandment—what this revelation termed
“the law of [God’s] Holy Priesthood”—to be sealed in an eternal mar-
riage.4 As Orson Hyde would explain, just as Jesus was baptized “to fulfill
all righteousness,” so too would he follow his “Father’s law” to multiply
and replenish the earth.5
Perhaps the earliest sermon to depict Jesus as married was preached
by the Apostle William Smith, younger brother of Joseph Smith, on
August 17, 1845. Then at odds with his fellow Apostles, who wished to
keep their polygamous relationships secret, Smith openly defended the
biblical practice of plural marriage. At the end of his remarks on that
day, he declared, “The Savior loved all men, and some women too: I do
not suppose he lived upon the earth more than 30 years, and not marry.
I don’t know but he had as many wives as old Jacob had.”6 While Wil-
liam Smith’s comments were an oddity for the time, the context of his
remarks—a defense of plural marriage—was representative of public
defenses of Jesus as a married man in the early Latter-day Saint tradi-
tion. In subsequent years, particularly after the official announcement of

3. Two fascinating takes on this question include Bart D. Ehrman, “Jesus, Mary
Magdalene, and Marriage,” in Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A  Historian
Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 141–62; and James D. Tabor, “There’s Something
about Mary .  .  . Magdalene,” 4  parts, TaborBlog, January 10, 2016, https://jamestabor​
.com/theres​-something-about-mary-magdalene-part-1/.
4. Doctrine and Covenants 132:28.
5. Orson Hyde, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1855–86),
4:260.
6. William Smith, discourse, August 17, 1845, CR 100 317, box 1, folder 3, Historian’s
Office Reports of Speeches 1845–1885, Church History Library, Salt Lake City (hereafter
cited as CHL).
 Was Jesus Married?   V77

the practice of plural marriage in 1852, other Apostles also preached on

Jesus’s marital relationships.
While the Gospels do not include any references to Jesus having a
spouse or children, Latter-day Saints claimed scriptural support for a mar-
ried Messiah in Jesus’s interactions with women, most prominently Mary,
Martha, and Mary Magdalene. Specific attention was given to Mary’s
anointing of Christ’s feet and his appearance to Mary Magdalene after
his Resurrection.7 In 1847, Brigham Young presented the image of Mary
Magdalene attempting to cling to Jesus’s feet as how “every woman [at the
Resurrection] will come right to her husband’s feet same as Mary.”8 On
October 6, 1854, Apostle Orson Hyde explained that Mary’s reference to
Jesus as “Rabboni; which is to say, Master[,] . . . manifested the affections
of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are
common to that relation of husband and wife.”9
Elsewhere, Hyde taught that Jesus’s marriage was documented in
Jesus’s enigmatic involvement at the wedding at Cana.10 In his address
on October 6, 1854, Hyde read from the second chapter of John, point-
ing out that after Jesus had miraculously provided wine to the feast’s ser-
vants at Mary’s request, “the governor of the feast called the bridegroom”
and praised him for saving the best wine till the end of the celebration.
Hyde believed the text hinted that Jesus was the bridegroom. It was “as
plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare
allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the
bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what
to do.”11
In 1853, Apostle Orson Pratt expounded on “intimations in scripture
concerning the wives of Jesus.”12 Pratt added to the accumulating proof
texts Psalm 45, which, based on its use in the New Testament, he under-
stood as a prophecy about Jesus. The relevant passage reads, “Kings’
daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did
stand the queen in gold of Ophir” (Ps. 45:9). Pratt reasoned that these

7. See John G. Turner, The Mormon Jesus: A Biography (Cambridge: Belknap Press
of Harvard, 2016), 226–28.
8. Richard S. Van Wagoner, ed., The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, 5 vols.
(Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2009), 1:271 (December 27, 1847).
9. Orson Hyde, in Journal of Discourses, 2:81 (October 6, 1854).
10. “Br. Holly and the Sentinel,” Frontier Guardian, December 26, 1851, 2.
11. Orson Hyde, in Journal of Discourses, 2:82. This reading of John 2 was also shared
by Joseph F. Smith (Wilford Woodruff, Journal, July 22, 1883, CHL).
12. Orson Pratt, “Celestial Marriage,” The Seer 1, no. 10 (October 1853): 159.
78 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

women were the daughters of righteous men—the “kings and priests” of

Revelation 1:6—and one among them would “be chosen to stand at his
right hand: perhaps she may have merited that high station by her righ-
teous acts, or by the position she had previously occupied.”13
Pratt believed that the Gospel writers carefully hinted at these truths
in their original manuscripts so as to not expose the secret of Christ’s
children, and that later King James translators obscured even these ref-
erences for nefarious ends. He also presented what most Christians
would read as symbolic marital language in the New Testament as lit-
eral references to Jesus and his wives. Thus, he reviewed the parables in
which Christ was characterized as the bridegroom, including the par-
able of the Ten Virgins and the parable of the marriage of the king’s son
(see Matt. 22; 25). He pointed to the millennial wedding feast between
Christ and his bride. But while at least one other Latter-day Saint theo-
logian, Orson Spencer, also applied a literal rendering to Christ’s mat-
rimony with the Church, the traditional reading of these passages as
symbolic remained dominant.14
Latter-day Saint commentators were also interested in the identity
of Christ’s descendants. Orson Hyde believed that a passage in Isaiah—
“When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his
seed” (Isa. 53:10)—referred to a specific and otherwise unknown event
in Jesus’s life. He envisioned a scene when, “before the Savior died, he
looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his
seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth.” The
ancient Church ensured that knowledge of Christ’s children “passed
into the shades of obscurity” to protect them from “the hand of the
assassin, as the sons of many kings have done who were heirs apparent
to the thrones of their fathers.” Yet Hyde believed “that seed has had its
influence upon the chosen of God in the last days.”15
Latter-day Saints have always had an interest in identifying sacred
lineages. Since 1834, patriarchs had ceremonially revealed individuals’
ancestry through the twelve tribes of Israel.16 Accounts from the late
nineteenth century told of Joseph Smith or another prophetic figure

13. Orson Pratt, “Celestial Marriage,” The Seer 1, no. 11 (November 1853): 169–70.
14. See Orson Spencer, Patriarchal Order, or Plurality of Wives! (Liverpool: S.  W.
Richards, 1853), 14.
15. Orson Hyde, in Journal of Discourses, 2:82–83.
16. Gary Shepherd and Gordon Shepherd, Binding Earth and Heaven: Patriarchal
Blessings in the Prophetic Development of Early Mormonism (University Park: Pennsylva-
nia State University Press, 2012), 52.
 Was Jesus Married?   V79

identifying individuals as descendants of Jesus Christ. In 1888, Lorenzo

Snow told Orson F. Whitney about “the lineage of my grandparents
[Newel] K. Whitney and wife and [Heber] C. Kimball, who he said, the
Prophet Joseph told his sister Eliza, were descendants of the Savior.”17
A wife of Joseph Smith’s confidant James Adams recalled that the Prophet
had told her husband that Adams too was one of Jesus’s posterity.18 In
1894, George Q. Cannon told his son that Heber C. Kimball had “once
told him he was a direct descendant of the Savior of the world.”19 Five
years before that, in a meeting in the Salt Lake Temple, Cannon declared,
“There are men in this congregation who are descendants of the ancient
Twelve Apostles, and I shall say it, of the Son of God Himself, for he had
seed, and in time they shall be known.”20
These statements delving into Christ’s posterity were confined to
private settings. In fact, after the 1850s, references to a married Jesus
were almost entirely absent from Church publications and public dis­
courses.21 This may have been spurred by the negative reaction to the
teaching. Shortly after Hyde first suggested that Christ was the groom at
the wedding at Cana, the Savannah Sentinel condemned his “construc-
tion” of John 2 as a “wicked perversion.”22 In 1862, an editorial in a Reor-
ganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints newspaper referred
to the idea that Jesus was wed to Mary and Martha as “so absurd” that
only “one adulterously insane” would teach it.23 In 1870, J.  H. Beadle
characterized the Saints’ doctrines on Christ, including that “he had
five wives while upon earth,” as “most strange and blasphemous.”24

17. Orson F. Whitney, journal, November 26, 1888, Special Collections, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah.
18. Oliver Boardman Huntington, History of the Life of Oliver B. Huntington (n.p.,
1878–1900), 27.
19. An Apostle’s Record: The Journals of Abraham H. Cannon, ed. Dennis B. Horne
(Clearfield, Utah: Gnolaum Books, 2004), 314.
20. Elizabeth Oberdick Anderson, ed., Cowboy Apostle: The Diaries of Anthony W.
Ivins, 1875–1932 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2013), 211.
21. Lay members occasionally referenced Jesus’s wives in publications. See, for
example, “Problems,” Ogden Herald, November 23, 1885; and Angus MacDonald, Pro-
phetic Numbers or the Rise, Progress and Future Destiny of the “Mormons” (repr. ed., Salt
Lake City: Utah Kraut’s Pioneer Press, 1885), 59–63, 75–76.
22. “Br. Hyde and the Guardian,” originally published in the Savannah Sentinel,
republished in Frontier Guardian, January 23, 1852.
23. Josiah Ells, “For the Herald: Polygamy,” True Latter Day Saints’ Herald 2, no. 8
(February 1862): 178.
24. J. H. Beadle, Life in Utah; or, the Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism (Philadel-
phia: National Publishing Company, 1870), 328.
80 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Anti–Latter-day Saint writers did more to promote knowledge of argu-

ments in favor of a married Christ than Latter-day Saint proponents
themselves did.

A Married Jesus in the Twentieth Century

As time passed, Church leaders would eventually proclaim that there was
no official position on the topic. In 1912, President Charles W. Penrose
of the First Presidency answered the question “Do you believe that Jesus
was married?” by pleading the Saints’ collective ignorance on the sub-
ject: “We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being married. The
Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject.”25 In a departure
from early exegesis that assumed scripture had been manipulated and
distorted through translators and scribes, Penrose reasoned that if there
was no overt discussion of Jesus’s marriage in scripture, then there was
no way to know anything on the subject.
This did not mean that Church leaders had disavowed their personal
beliefs on Jesus’s marital status. While Penrose implied Latter-day Saints
should not publicly speculate on things not taught in the scriptures, a
later Church leader’s reasons for discouraging discussion had more
to do with his reverence for the theological position. In 1963, Joseph
Fielding Smith responded to a believer who asked a similar question,
“Christ came here to set us the example and, therefore, we believe that
he must have been married. Are we right?” Smith responded in a terse
note, “Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls
before swine!”26
As public conversation on a married Jesus was becoming increas-
ingly rare among orthodox Latter-day Saints, the idea became an
essential doctrine for those at odds with the Church’s issuing of the
Manifesto that ended plural marriage. It was the introduction of plural
marriage that seems to have led to the initial sermons on a married
Jesus, so it is not surprising that the concept would survive most clearly
among those who continued to defend polygamy. One of the principal
founders of Mormon Fundamentalism, Lorin C. Woolley, taught sev-
eral new details about Jesus’s marriages, including the names of eight
of his wives: Martha, Mary, Phoebe, Sarah, Rebecca, Josephene, Mary

25. Charles W. Penrose, “Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered,” Improvement Era 15,
no. 11 (September 1912): 1043.
26. Joseph Fielding Smith, handwritten note on a letter, J.  Ricks Smith to Joseph
Fielding Smith, March 17, 1963, copy in possession of the author.
 Was Jesus Married?   V81

Magdalene, and Mary, Martha’s sister.27 According to Woolley, after

Jesus died, his widows married one of his brothers as was consistent
with the biblical practice of leviratic marriage. Their new husband was
John the Revelator, who Woolley taught was a son of Mary and Joseph.28
Among Fundamentalists, Jesus’s polygamous status was an essential
part of the narrative. Rhea Allred Kunz, a prominent Fundamentalist,
would even report a “beautiful vision” in which she saw Jesus minister
to his wife Mary Magdalene, who was struggling with jealousies over
other women “who had more so-called freedoms than a plural wife,
and who, in some instances were free from financial hardships.”29
The vast majority of Latter-day Saints would be unaware of these
developments in Mormon Fundamentalism; however, the movement
published tracts and newspapers that perpetuated older Latter-day Saint
ideas into the twentieth century. Most importantly, in 1969, Ogden
Kraut published his first and most popular title, Jesus Was Married.30
Because Kraut did not advertise his Fundamentalist allegiance, his work
was carried in stores that marketed to the LDS consumer. Kraut’s widow,
Anne Wilde, recalled that a bookstore near Brigham Young University
in Provo, Utah, had a great deal of success selling the book after the vol-
ume was privately recommended by members of the faculty.31
In the latter half of the twentieth century, the idea of a married Jesus
also appeared in popular scholarship and fiction. In 1970, William E.
Phipps, a non–Latter-day Saint scholar, published his popular book Was
Jesus Married?, which argued that Hebrew culture would have led Jesus
to marry.32 In a departure from the usual silence on beliefs surround-
ing Jesus’s family life, a professor from the Church College of Hawaii
responded to Phipps’s book in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin declaring that
he “has always believed that Jesus was married. .  .  . Mormons easily

27. Joseph Musser, “Book of Remembrance,” March 29, 1932, 20, typescript in the
author’s possession. The “Book of Remembrance” is a journal kept by Musser to record
the teachings of Lorin Woolley.
28. Musser, “Book of Remembrance,” June 12, 1932, 27.
29. Rhea Allred Kunz, Voices of Women Approbating Celestial or Plural Marriage,
2 vols. (Draper, Utah: Review and Preview Publishers, 1985), 2:277.
30. Ogden Kraut, Jesus Was Married (Genola, Utah: Pioneer Press, 1969).
31. “Anne’s Marriage—Was Jesus a Polygamist?” Gospel Tangents, podcast, Novem-
ber 20, 2017, accessed April 23, 2021, https://gospeltangents.com/2017/11/annes-mar​
riage​-jesus-polygamist/.
32. William E. Phipps, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Chris-
tian Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1970).
82 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

accept the idea that Jesus was married.”33 In 1972, Phipps wrote an ­article
on reasons to believe in a married Jesus for Dialogue: A Journal of Mor-
mon Thought.34 In 1982, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry
Lincoln’s Holy Blood, Holy Grail inaugurated a new genre of conspiracy-
theory/history books claiming to have discovered evidence on the lives
of Jesus’s posterity after the Crucifixion.35
The publication of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code in 2003 and its
film adaptation in 2006 again revived among lay Latter-day Saints the
question of whether Christ was married. In the novel and film, inspired
by Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Brown’s protagonist stumbles upon a secret
society that has preserved the truth that Jesus was married to Mary
Magdalene and had children. In the wake of the Crucifixion, a preg-
nant Mary Magdalene fled to Gaul, where Jesus’s descendants would
eventually become the Merovingian dynasty of France. Christian lead-
ers wrote and preached against The Da Vinci Code’s misrepresenta-
tion of the Bible and its human portrayal of Jesus. The Latter-day Saint
response to The Da Vinci Code was made unusual due to the early advo-
cacy for a married Jesus. LDS leaders and educators faced a barrage of
questions about the Church’s stance on the issue of a married Jesus. The
official response remained neutral. In 2006, Church spokesman Dale
Bills stated, “The belief that Christ was married has never been offi-
cial church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church.
While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed
their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church
doctrine.”36
Three professors at Brigham Young University—Richard N. Holz­
apfel, Andrew C. Skinner, and Thomas A. Wayment—also weighed in
on the controversy in articles, various presentations, and a full-length
book. The professors challenged alternative readings of New Testament
scripture that had been used to argue that Jesus was married. Skin-
ner explained, “There is nothing in the canonical New Testament,
there is nothing in restoration scripture, there is really even nothing

33. “Book on Marriage of Christ Arouses Much Controversy,” Honolulu Star-­Bulletin,

November 14, 1970.
34. William E. Phipps, “The Case for a Married Jesus,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mor-
mon Thought 7, no. 4 (1972): 44–49.
35. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail: The
Secret History of Christ; The Shocking Legacy of the Grail (New York: Bantam Dell, 1982).
36. “LDS Do Not Endorse Claims in ‘Da Vinci,’ ” Deseret News, May 17, 2006, https://
www.deseret.com/2006/5/17/19953980/lds-do-not-endorse-claims-in-da-vinci.
 Was Jesus Married?   V83

in non-canonical sources that you can use as evidence that Jesus was
married or he wasn’t married. The sources are silent on that aspect.”37
Holz­apfel, Skinner, and Wayment questioned the popular view that for
Christ to provide an example in all things required him to be mar-
ried, since his special mission differed from others’ lives in many ways.
While they conceded that Latter-day Saint theology did not oppose the
concept of a married Christ, their central message was that the subject
was not central to the Church’s mission and that individual members
should follow the example of Church leaders in refraining from open
speculation.38
Yet, while these voices discouraged public advocacy for a married
Christ, others were inspired to express their beliefs or at least their
interest in the possibilities of a married Jesus. Paintings by Latter-day
Saint artists James Christensen and Brian Kershisnik portrayed the
relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus39 and the later hiding
of Christ’s children40 respectively. Both images were featured in Vern
Grosvenor Swanson’s Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism’s Sacred
Bloodline. Swanson combined a study of nineteenth-century Latter-day
Saint statements on Jesus’s marital relationships with the claims of
Holy Blood, Holy Grail. His ultimate thesis was that Joseph Smith was a
descendant of Jesus.41 In late 2017, these ideas were repeated in a docu-
mentary called Hidden Bloodlines: The Grail and the Lost Tribes in the
Land of the North. Feminist theologian Maxine Hanks also wrote a short
essay in the wake of The Da Vinci Code, arguing that “the idea of a mar-
ried Jesus is known in Mormonism, as a long-held, sacred, discreet, folk
doctrine,” but the implications for Jesus’s proposed wife, Mary Magda-
lene, have largely gone “unexplored.”42 She noted, perhaps hopefully,
that the Church’s belief in continuing revelation allowed for Mary’s role
to be further fleshed out.

37. Andrew Skinner, quoted in “LDS Church Issues Statement Regarding ‘The Da
Vinci Code,’ ” KSL, May 16, 2006, https://www.ksl.com/article/266159/lds-church​-issues​
-statement-regarding-the-da-vinci-code.
38. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Andrew C. Skinner, and Thomas A. Wayment, What
Da Vinci Didn’t Know: An LDS Perspective (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 48–50.
39. Vern Grosvenor Swanson, Dynasty of the Holy Grail: Mormonism’s Sacred Blood-
line (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, 2006), cover and plate 34.
40. Swanson, Dynasty of the Holy Grail, plate 20.
41. Swanson, Dynasty of the Holy Grail.
42. Maxine Hanks, “Mormonism and Mary Magdalene,” in Secrets of Mary Magda-
lene: The Untold Story of History’s Most Misunderstood Woman (New York: CDS Books,
2006), 166, 168.
84 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Conclusion
Current discussions and disagreements concerning Jesus’s marital sta-
tus do not take place in a public forum. Some believe early Church lead-
ers revealed a sacred truth that should only be shared with care. Others
believe that the absence of explicit references to Jesus’s family suggests
that he had either chosen to be single or had yet to marry. Some may
be embarrassed by nineteenth-century statements to the contrary. After
over a century without a public statement on the subject, Latter-day
Saints feel free to accept or reject a married Jesus without departing
from an established orthodoxy.

Christopher James Blythe is an assistant professor of folklore and literature at Brigham

Young University. He received his PhD from Florida State University in religion. His
book Terrible Revolution: Latter-day Saints and the American Apocalypse was published
with Oxford University Press in 2020. Blythe is also the co-editor of the Journal of Mor-
mon History and the co-president of the Folklore Society of Utah.
The King Follett Discourse
Pinnacle or Peripheral?

James E. Faulconer with Susannah Morrison

Historical Background
On March 8, 1844, fifty-five-year-old King Follett, an early convert to
the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, was killed in a well-digging accident.
On April 7, as part of a general conference of the Church in Nauvoo, and
in response to the request of Follett’s family, Joseph Smith memorial-
ized him with a sermon about the general subject of death and the dead.
Smith said his sermon, a revelation on the origins of God and the divine
potential of human beings, was about “the first principles of consolation.”
Though Smith mentions Follett by name only early in the sermon, refer-
ring to him again toward the end of the sermon as “your friend,” it has
come to be called the “King Follett Discourse” or “King Follett Sermon.”
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have con-
tinued to take the sermon as a source for their understanding of various
teachings, though there have been questions about the accuracy of the
transcription and continued changes in thinking about some of its teach-
ings. The place of the King Follett Discourse in Latter-day Saint culture is
signified by the fact that it is one of only two of Joseph Smith’s sermons
that are referred to by name. The other is the “Sermon in the Grove,” often
confused with the King Follett Sermon or even fused with it as if there
were only one sermon. Given several weeks later, the Sermon in the Grove
teaches some of the same doctrines, such as a plurality of gods. Of the two,
however, the King Follett Discourse is, by far, the better known. Yet the
King Follett Sermon’s status in the Church of Jesus Christ is far from clear.
How do Latter-day Saints understand the sermon? Is it authoritative? If so,

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)85

86 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

to what degree and concerning what topics? Is it the pinnacle of Joseph

Smith’s teachings? If so, why has it not been canonized? Or, instead, is
the sermon peripheral to his work? If so, why do so many of its teachings
continue to figure into Latter-day Saint self-understanding?
Part of the problem has been that since Joseph Smith did not speak
from a written text, and no stenographer recorded his remarks, we have
no transcript of the sermon to which we can refer. However, four per-
sons who were present (Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas
Bullock, and William Clayton) made notes as Joseph Smith spoke, and
several versions of the sermon have since been created from those notes.1
The first, which relies primarily on Bullock and Clayton, was published
later that same year, shortly after Smith’s death, in a Church newspaper,
Times and Seasons,2 as well as in two other Latter-day Saint publications
the same year.3 In 1855, Jonathan Grimshaw compiled all of the extant
notes and edited them to create what came to be known as the “amal-
gamated” version. With some edits, his version, published in the Deseret
News in 1857,4 continues to be the version in general use today. It was, for
example, partially published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints in its official magazine, the Ensign, in April 1971 and is still avail-
able on the Church’s website.5
Another version in common use is that published by Joseph Fielding
Smith in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.6 That version is said to be
taken from the Times and Seasons, but it closely resembles Grimshaw’s,
which was published after the Times and Seasons publication. Finally,
a new, scholarly edition of the sermon, “The King Follett Discourse:
A  Newly Amalgamated Text,” was published by Stan Larson in 1978.7

1. “Accounts of the ‘King Follett Sermon,’ ” Joseph Smith Papers, accessed Decem-
ber  28, 2017, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts​-of-the-king​-fol​lett​
-sermon.
2. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Times and Seasons,” 612, Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed August 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/
discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-times-and-seasons/1.
3. Donald Q. Cannon, “The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith’s Greatest Sermon
in Historical Context,” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978): 190.
4. “History of Joseph Smith. April, 1844,” Deseret News, July 8, 1857, 137, http://con​
tent​dm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/desnews1/id/7382/rec/1.
5. Joseph Smith Jr., “The King Follett Sermon,” Ensign 1, no. 4 (April 1971): 13–17.
6. “The King Follett Discourse,” in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp.
Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1938), 342–62.
7. Stan Larson, “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text,” BYU Stud-
ies 18, no. 2 (1978): 193–208.
 King Follett Discourse   V87

Larson’s version deletes material added by Grimshaw and adds material

from the notes that Grimshaw omitted, but nevertheless there are no
substantial differences between it and any of the previous published ver-
sions. It is noteworthy that each of the editors who has worked with the
notes of the sermon has created much the same final version. That should
give considerable confidence in the text as we have it, even if it is only an
amalgamation of notes made at the time.8

The Unique Teachings in the Sermon

In the order in which they appear, the King Follett Sermon’s most impor-
tant teachings were the following:
1. “God himself who sits enthroned in yonder Heavens is a man like
unto one of yourselves.”9
2. The Father once dwelt on an earth as Jesus Christ did and we do;
Jesus Christ did what he saw the Father do before him.
3. The Father found “himself in the midst of spirit and glory—because
he was greater saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could
have a privilege to advance like himself ”10—“you have got to learn
how to make you[r]selves Gods.”11
4. The world was not created ex nihilo.
5. “The mind of man—the intelligent part is coequal with God him­
self ”12; it “exists upon a selfexistent principle.”13
6. We have an obligation to perform proxy religious rites for those
who have passed away.

8. For an account of the King Follet sermon’s textual history and some of the con-
troversies with regard to it, see Van Hale, “The King Follett Discourse: Textual History
and Criticism,” Sunstone 41 (September–October 1983): 4–12; Larson, “Newly Amalgam-
ated Text,” 193–98.
9. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Thomas Bullock,” 16, Joseph Smith Papers,
accessed June 3, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/dis​course​
-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-thomas-bullock/3.
10. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” 16–17 [28–29], Joseph
Smith Papers, accessed June 3, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper​-sum​
mary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-william-clayton/6.
11. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Willard Richards,” [67], Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed June 3, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/dis​
course-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-willard-richards/1.
12. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” 16 [28].
13. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” 16 [28].
88 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

7. To commit the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, a person

must “say that the Sun does not shine while he sees it he has got to
deny J. C. when the heavens are open to him.”14
8. Children who die young will be resurrected as they were when
they died and remain that way eternally, though they will sit on
thrones of glory.
9. Baptism is required for salvation.
Many of these things had already been taught by Joseph Smith. With
perhaps one exception, the origin of God as a human being, there is noth-
ing new in the sermon.15 In addition, of this list, all but the second and the
next to last have been accepted as doctrine by most Latter-day Saints since
at least Smith’s sermon, if not before. It might seem, then, that the King
Follett Discourse is peripheral to Smith’s work as the founding prophet
of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. But consider how items two, three,
five, and eight have been taken up in Latter-day Saint theological discus-
sions, perhaps most often with the King Follett Discourse as their warrant.

The Eternal Essence of Human Beings

First, items two and three. The eternal existence of the essence of human
beings, “intelligence” in Latter-day Saint terms, has been taught since
at least 1833 (D&C 93:29–30; compare Abr. 3:19–23), though, as we will
see, there has been controversy over how to understand that teaching.
That human beings may become gods was taught as early as 1832, when
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon shared a vision of the afterlife, in which
they learned that those “who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the
Holy Spirit of promise . . . are gods, even the sons of God” (D&C 76:53,
58). What it means to say that intelligence is “self-existent” has been a
matter of dispute, but otherwise most, though not all, of the teachings
of the King Follett Sermon were and have since been widely accepted
among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The doctrine that we can become like God or one with him, theosis,
has been taught since at least the second century AD, continues to be
an explicit teaching in Eastern Christianity, and is not entirely absent in

14. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Thomas Bullock,” 20.

15. Joseph Smith may have taught the origin of God as a human being as early
as January 30, 1842. See Matthew C. Godfrey and others, eds., Documents, Volume 9:
December 1841–April 1842, Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s
Press, 2019), 128–29.
 King Follett Discourse   V89

other Christian churches.16 But it is not clear how literally the promise of
Smith and Rigdon’s 1832 vision was initially understood. The more literally,
the less it would be like Eastern Christian theosis. Joseph Smith’s state-
ment “You have got to learn how to make you[r]selves Gods,”17 with later
nineteenth-century discussions of the topic are a good indication of its
literal understanding in the early teachings of the Church. Whatever the
answer to the question of how to understand theosis, though, previous to
the King Follett Sermon, the teaching about becoming like God had not
been publicly connected to the more theologically controversial idea that
the Father was once a human being and has progressed to be the God he is.
That is the only one of Joseph Smith’s teachings in the King Follett
Sermon which stands out as being made public for perhaps the first
time: that the Father was once a human being on an earth like our own.
We know little about how the sermon as a whole was initially received.
But in June 1844, two months after the King Follett Sermon was deliv-
ered, anonymous former Latter-day Saint writers in the Nauvoo Exposi-
tor condemned the teaching: “Among the many items of false doctrine
that are taught the Church, is the doctrine of many Gods. . . . It is con-
tended that there are innumerable Gods as much above the God that
presides over this universe, as he is above us.”18
Even within the Church, to say nothing about outside, some found
at least the teaching of the prehistory and plurality of gods blasphemous.
Joseph Smith’s brother and counselor, Hyrum, appears to have had mis-
givings about the doctrine. At the same conference in which Smith gave
the King Follett Sermon, Hyrum Smith said, “I would not serve a God
that had not all wisdom and all power,”19 but Hyrum Smith’s concern

16. For a good set of academic essays on theosis in Christianity, see Stephen Finlan
and Vladimir Kharlamov, eds., Theōsis: Deification in Christian Theology, vol. 1 (Eugene,
Ore.: Pickwick Publications, 2006); and Vladimir Kharlamov, ed., Theosis: Deification in
Christian Theology, vol. 2 (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick Publications, 2011). For a broader but
nevertheless academic account of how the teaching of theosis is understood in a variety
of traditions, see Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, eds., Partakers of the
Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions
(Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, 2007).
17. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Willard Richards,” [67].
18. “Preamble,” Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844, 2; see Kurt Widmer, Mormonism and
the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830–1915 (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2000),
14–20, for a discussion of the connection between the King Follett Sermon, the destruc-
tion of the Nauvoo Expositor, and the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.
19. Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. Bruce R.
McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 1:5.
90 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

appears to have been that, regardless of whether God progressed to his

present status as God, as God he possesses all wisdom and power; if
he has progressed to his present state, he is not still progressing. Later
Church authorities have continued to make that point. As Elder Bruce R.
McConkie said in the late twentieth century, “There are those who say
that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. This
is false—utterly, totally, and completely.”20 But that is a caveat regarding
the teachings about divine progression rather than a contradiction of it.
According to more than one source, the teaching that God had become
God had been taught to some before the King Follett Sermon, at least as
early as 1843 and perhaps as early as 1842. In April of that year, George
Laub’s journal records that Hyrum Smith taught there is “a whole trane
& leniage [sic] of gods.”21 Lorenzo Snow is reported to have said that in
1836, before his baptism, Hyrum Smith’s father told Snow that he would
become “as great as God.”22 That, of course, is a repetition of the 1832 teach-
ing, though perhaps more explicitly literal and not the same as the teaching
that God has progressed to become what he is. Subsequently, while on a
mission in England in 1840, Snow felt inspired to explain “Father Smith’s
dark saying” about becoming as great as God with the couplet, “As man
now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”23
Traditional Christianity could read that couplet to mean that God
was incarnate in Jesus Christ and we can become like him, a more-or-less
ordinary summary of Christian teaching. Indeed, a similar couplet was
familiar to the Church Fathers (first and second centuries AD): “God
became man, so that man could become God.”24 But that was not how
Snow or those who heard his couplet understood Joseph Smith’s teaching.
For Latter-day Saints, to the notion that in some sense, perhaps even liter-
ally, we can become gods, Snow’s couplet adds the idea that God became
God in the same way, moving from being human to being divine.
On his return to Nauvoo, Lorenzo Snow told Joseph Smith of his
experience, and the latter said, “That is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a

20. Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Deadly Heresies,” Brigham Young University
devotional, Provo, Utah, June 1, 1980.
21. Eugene England, “George Laub’s Nauvoo Journal,” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978): 176.
22. LeRoi C. Snow, “Devotion to a Divine Inspiration,” Improvement Era 22 (June
1919): 654.
23. Eliza R. Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow (Salt Lake City:
Deseret News, 1884), 46.
24. Rémi Brague, Le Règne de l’Homme: Genèse et échec du projet moderne (Paris:
Gillamard, 2015), 46.
 King Follett Discourse   V91

revelation from God to you.”25 Four years later, both the teaching of the
second part of the couplet (doctrine since 1832) and, more significantly,
the teaching of its first part (that God has become God, having once
been a human being) were part of Smith’s public King Follett Sermon.
Though Smith never refers to the couplet in the King Follett Discourse,
for Latter-day Saints, Snow’s couplet has become the précis of what Smith
teaches in the sermon.
One could understand much of the subsequent discussion of the
King Follett Sermon as attempts to clarify Joseph Smith’s sermon with
Lorenzo Snow’s couplet as a stand-in. With the exception of the teach-
ing about the resurrection of those who die in infancy, discussions of
the other King Follett doctrines have not usually been directly linked
to the sermon, presumably because they have other, canonical, war-
rants. Snow’s couplet, thus, becomes the vehicle on which most discus-
sion of the King Follett Sermon is loaded.
For Brigham Young, the teachings of the two halves of the couplet—
“As man now is, God once was” and “As God now is, man may be”—
were equally important and to be taken equally literally. For example,
with regard to the first he said, “How many Gods there are, I do not
know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds,
and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are
now passing through.”26 And with regard to the second he said, “[Eter-
nal matter] is brought together, organized, and capacitated to receive
knowledge and intelligence, to be enthroned in glory, to be made angels,
Gods.”27 Brigham Young is perhaps best known (or even notorious) for
taking a quite literal view of the teaching. In one address he said, “Then
will they become gods, even the sons of God; then will they become
eternal fathers, eternal mothers, eternal sons and eternal daughters. . . .
When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be
prepared to frame earth’s [sic] like unto ours and to people them in
the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our
Father and God.”28
This and similar statements by him and some other early Church
leaders are responsible for the popular view, reflected in the Book of

25. Snow, “Devotion to a Divine Inspiration,” 656.

26. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 26  vols. (Liverpool: F.  D. Richards,
1855–86), 7:333 (October 8, 1859).
27. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 3:356 (June 15, 1856).
28. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 18:259 (October 8, 1877).
92 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Mormon musical,29 that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints believe they will literally become like God and cre-
ate worlds as he did. But the contemporary understanding is generally
more nuanced. For Young, however, the two teachings—that the Father
was once a human being like ourselves and that we can become gods—
go hand in hand.
There has been change in how the doctrine that God became God
is taught, even if not an explicit rejection of it. God’s progress to god-
hood is taught without reservation in James Talmage’s Articles of Faith.30
That book continues to be published by the Church’s commercial press,
though with a note in the “Publisher’s Preface” that appears to be a
caveat: the 1981 edition was last revised in 1924, “at which time it was
consistent with the organization and practices of the Church as they
existed in his day. It is printed here without change.”31
God’s progression is also affirmed strongly in John A. Widtsoe’s
Rational Theology of 1915. He argues that if we accept the law of pro-
gression, God must also be progressing: “God undoubtedly exercised
his will vigorously, and thus gained great experience of the forces lying
about him.”32 Widtsoe’s position is that while we cannot know the mys-
teries of the past, it is only reasonable to believe that God has not always
been as powerful as he is now.
Nevertheless, there are significant differences in what these leaders
teach. Unlike Brigham Young, neither Talmage nor Widtsoe explicitly
says that the Father was once a human being. Talmage implies but does
not say explicitly that he was when he says that humans are allowed to
follow the path that the Father took to his exalted state. Widtsoe, how-
ever, shies away from making that implication of God’s previous human-
ity explicit, and he may not even intend to imply it. Widtsoe teaches that
the Father progresses as we progress and work in harmony with him.

29. The Book of Mormon, first staged in 2011, is a popular and award-winning Broad-
way musical by Trey Parker, Robert Lopez, and Matt Stone. It is about two Latter-day
Saint missionaries in Uganda and the difficulties they have preaching the gospel. It
portrays LDS belief via something commonly believed in the nineteenth century, such
as that exalted beings will create their own planets.
30. James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the Principal Doc-
trines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News,
1899), 442–43.
31. James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith: Being a Consideration of the
Principal Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1981), iii.
32. John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology as Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: General Priesthood Committee, 1915), 23.
 King Follett Discourse   V93

His glory is increased as we become like him. But he writes as if there

is only one God above us, the supreme Intelligence of all intelligences,
a God who has attained his godhood by experience in the universe but
not necessarily one who began as we began.
Thus Young clearly affirms that God was once a human being like
ourselves; Talmage implies it, but doesn’t say so explicitly; Widtsoe is clear
that God progresses in some sense, but he does not commit himself to the
claim that God was once a human being. That is the pattern of Latter-day
Saint thinking about this teaching from the King Follett Sermon, move-
ment from clear affirmation that God was once a human being and pro-
gressed to become God to less confidence in how to interpret the teaching,
even while not denying it and occasionally even embracing it.
The teaching does not disappear from Latter-day Saint discourse, nor
does Snow’s couplet, which often stands in as a mnemonic for Joseph
Smith’s teaching in the King Follett Sermon. But, after the nineteenth
century, most often speakers and writers who repeat the couplet then go
on to discuss only or primarily its second half—as we see both Talmage
and Widtsoe do. They speak of God’s progression but then say little if
anything more about it, focusing instead on the second part of the teach-
ing, that human beings can become like God by partaking in the divine
nature, in such things as benevolence and neighborly love.
Publications such as Young Woman’s Journal take this approach.33
The Laurel Manual for the 1972–73 teaching year appears to ignore the
King Follett teachings almost entirely, saying only, “We are children of
God not only in the preexistence and here on earth, but also in life eter-
nal. We can return to him . . . and live forever as his cherished children.”34
The Melchizedek Priesthood quorum instruction manual for 1931 quotes
Brigham Young but emphasizes only the part of the teaching that has
to do with human potential to become divine: “Intelligent beings are
organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God. . . . We are now in

33. See Andrew L. Neff, “Man’s Existence as an Organism Antedates Earth Life,”
Young Woman’s Journal 13 (1902): 350–54; “Book of Doctrine and Covenants: Les-
son XXVIII, Life Hereafter,” Young Woman’s Journal 15 (1904): 185–87; LeRoi C. Snow,
“Devotion to a Divine Inspiration,” Young Woman’s Journal 30 (1919): 307. The appear-
ance of the doctrine in these journals underscores the point that, as Ileen Ann Waspe
LeCheminant points out, the Latter-day Saint assumption has consistently been that
women as well as men can achieve godhood (see “The Status of Woman in the Philoso-
phy of Mormonism from 1830 to 1845” [master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1942],
http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/etdm417).
34. Focus: Laurel Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1972), 21.
94 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

the school, and must practice upon what we receive.”35 In an address to

Brigham Young University students in 1974, Truman G. Madsen repeated
Snow’s couplet and, following this pattern, said nothing about the first
half, except perhaps by implication. Snow, he said, “saw a conduit, as
it were, down through which, in fact, by our very nature, by our being
begotten of our eternal parents, we descend and up through which we
may ascend.”36 As with virtually everyone after Brigham Young, most of
Madsen’s discussion is of human potential rather than divine progression.
This tack, leaving the question of God’s progression undiscussed to
focus on the doctrine of theosis, is taken by Gordon B. Hinckley, fif-
teenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a
1997 newspaper interview he quotes Lorenzo Snow’s couplet, saying of it,
Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some
pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.
Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progres-
sion. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and
whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise
with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing.
And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can
to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.37

He quotes the couplet but immediately shifts his attention to its sec-
ond half. Several months later, Hinckley said essentially the same thing
in another news interview, though he said slightly more about the first
half of Snow’s couplet: “I don’t know that we teach [that God was once
a human being]. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I understand the
philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and
I don’t think others know a lot about it.”38 Some members of the Church

35. In the Realm of Quorum Activity: Suggestions for Quorums of the Melchizedek
Priesthood (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1931), 108.
36. Truman G. Madsen, “The Highest in Us” (Brigham Young University devotional,
March 3, 1974), accessed April 27, 2021, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/truman-g​-mad​sen​
_become-like-god-highest-us/.
37. Don Lattin, “Sunday Interview—Musings of the Main Mormon / Gordon B. Hinck-
ley, ‘President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator’ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Sits at the Top of One of the World’s Fastest-Growing Religions,” SFGate, updated
January 30, 2012, accessed December 27, 2017, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SUN​
DAY​-INTERVIEW-Musings-of-the-Main-Mormon-2846138.php.
38. David Van Biema, “Kingdom Come: Salt Lake City Was Just for Starters—the
Mormons’ True Great Trek Has Been to Social Acceptance and a $30 Billion Church
Empire,” Time, August 4, 1997, 56.
 King Follett Discourse   V95

were bothered by what they saw as Hinckley’s repudiation of Joseph

Smith’s teaching,39 but he was doing what Latter-day Saints had been
doing for more than a century. The difference is that perhaps he was
more frank.
Thus, while not denying the nineteenth-century teaching, the
emphasis of more recent pronouncements concerning Latter-day Saint
beliefs about the possibilities for us in the hereafter are more in line with
traditional Eastern Orthodox understandings of theosis. We see this in
the essay on the Church’s website “Becoming Like God,” which focuses
on attaining the moral attributes of God.40 Without addressing Young’s
teaching, the essay says that human individuals have “seeds of divinity,”
attributes that “can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father’s
[attributes],” a fulfillment of the fact that human beings are made in the
image of God. We can sum up the essay’s position by saying that learn-
ing to be like God means learning to be godly. Thus, though one will
occasionally hear a Latter-day Saint speak of “creating their own planet,”
most often in a joking way, probably the most common understanding
of becoming like God among contemporary Latter-day Saints is that we
will take on the moral attributes of God.
Ironically, the approach we see members of the Church taking to this
teaching, from just after the delivery of the King Follett Sermon into the
early twentieth century and onward, is not so much a repudiation of
Young’s insistence that God was once a human being as it is a decision
to take his advice: “Instead of inquiring after the origin of the Gods . . . ,
let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to
apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salva-
tion, the intelligence they possess.”41 At least in that quotation, Brigham
Young’s position is that we may not understand Joseph Smith’s teaching
about God’s progression, but what is important is to recognize that we
can become like God by obtaining his attributes. Since at least the turn of
the twentieth century, that is the general position of most of the Church’s
publications or presentations having to do with the King Follett teaching
about God’s prehistory.

39. See Gordon B. Hinckley, “Drawing Nearer to the Lord,” Ensign 27, no. 11 (Novem-
ber 1997), 4.
40. “Becoming Like God,” Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, accessed January 15, 2018, https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like​
-god​?lang=eng.
41. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 7:284 (October 9, 1859).
96 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

There have been significant exceptions to that trend. For example, the
Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society manuals for 1998 (the year
after Gordon B. Hinckley’s interview) and for 2008 explicitly contain
the teachings of both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.42 Each con-
tains their teaching that God was once a human, like ourselves and that
he has had experiences like our own. It is almost certain that there was
discussion of that teaching—in a variety of ways—in most adult classes
in 1998 and 2008. Yet, in spite of those exceptions, over time, two things
happened to the King Follett teaching captured in Snow’s couplet. First,
less and less attention was paid to its first half, “As man now is, God once
was.” That appears to continue to be the Church’s official attitude to the
teaching: we do not know what that means. Second, as time has passed,
the latter half of the couplet, “As God now is, man may be,” has for the
most part been taken less literally—or at least it is left more ambiguous
as to how literally it should be understood.
To a large degree, therefore, the doctrinal tensions generated by
Joseph Smith’s King Follett teaching about God having been a human
being and about our becoming gods were resolved for members of the
Church by the early twentieth century. Nevertheless, tensions about
other aspects of the sermon remained. One sign of the continuing ten-
sion is that even when only discussing the possibility of becoming like
God, the sermon itself is rarely mentioned by name. Its teachings are
referred to in Church publications and official talks, but the sermon
itself is not. A more obvious sign is that in the early twentieth century,
when B. H. Roberts attempted to publish the sermon, those in the Quo-
rum of the Twelve appear to have suppressed it. In a 1912 letter, George
Albert Smith gave the reasons for why it was left out of Roberts’s original
publication of History of the Church, saying, “I  have thought that the
report of that sermon might not be authentic and I have feared that it
contained some thing that might be contrary to the truth.”43 Smith was
not alone in his line of thinking, continuing, “Some of the brethren felt
as I did and thought that greater publicity should not be given to that

42. See Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1997), 30; Teachings of the Presidents of the
Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
2007), 40.
43. George Albert Smith to Samuel O. Bennion, January 30, 1912, George Albert
Smith Family Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City.
 King Follett Discourse   V97

particular sermon.”44 The questions raised by the First Presidency led to

the omission of the sermon from History of the Church, of which Rob-
erts was editor, until 1950. Those points of conflict and the First Presi-
dency’s questions may also explain the infrequency of direct references
to the sermon by name.

The Self-Existence of Intelligence

That brings us to the fifth point of the sermon, the self-existence of intel-
ligence. The 1912 letter mentioned above does not say which points in
the published version “might be contrary to the truth,” but the problem
at the time appears to have been neither the teaching about God’s previ-
ous history nor that about the possibility of becoming like God. Rather,
the concern seems to have shifted from claims about divine and human
progress to the statements that “the mind of man—the intelligent part is
coequal with God himself ”45 and “intelligence exists upon a selfexistent
principle—is a spirit from age to age & no creation about it.”46 Was that
an accurate transcription of Joseph Smith’s teaching, and if it was, what
did it mean?
Restoration scripture was already clear that intelligence, the essence
of human being, “was not created or made” (D&C 93:29). The question
was how Joseph Smith understood the term “intelligence” (sometimes
used as a synonym for “spirit,” as in Abr. 3:19, 22–23). Has it eternally
been individual, in Smith’s terms, “self-existent,” and then at some point
in time been fashioned into a spirit by the Father? Or does “intelligence”
refer to a raw material, comparable to the raw material of matter, a mass
of substance, as it were, from which the plurality of spirits/intelligences
were formed? The second was the position of Charles W. Penrose and
Anthon H. Lund47 and had been the majority opinion among Latter-day
Saints through the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth. Rob-
erts argued for the first view, that the Father created his spirit children
from already existing intelligences, making a distinction between intel-
ligence and spirit that is not clear in Smith’s prophecies and preaching.
Since Penrose and Lund began with a different understanding of Joseph
Smith’s teachings about intelligence, they questioned the accuracy of

44. Smith to Bennion.

45. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” 16 [28].
46. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” 16 [28].
47. John P. Hatch, ed., Danish Apostle: The Diaries of Anthon H. Lund, 1890–1921
(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006), 464–65, 559.
98 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

the document on which Roberts was basing his understanding. After all,
that version of the sermon was created from the notes of those in atten-
dance, and Penrose, Lund, and others had their own, different under-
standing of Smith’s teaching in the King Follett Sermon.
The concerns of Church leaders like Penrose and Lund at least reflect,
and may have given rise to, the concerns of the First Presidency about
the King Follett Sermon. In either case, there can be little question that
in 1911 the First Presidency and other ecclesiastical leaders, specifically
Lund and Penrose, were unsure of the sermon’s accuracy and unsup-
portive of Roberts’s interpretation of it. The second concern may have
been the cause of the first.
There were, and are, those who continued to hold the Penrose-Lund
position that individual persons did not exist as independent agents
prior to their creation as spirits. But over the twenty-some years after
the discussions between Penrose, Lund, and Roberts, the position of
ecclesiastical leaders shifted away from the Penrose-Lund position
toward agnosticism about the meaning of the teaching. Nevertheless, for
numerous Latter-day Saint believers, Roberts’s view that intelligences
have existed eternally as individuals appears to have won out over the
Penrose and Lund view.
Many Latter-day Saint writers of the last half of the twentieth century
took Roberts’s view.48 As an example, Sterling McMurrin, a Latter-day
Saint scholar at the University of Utah, said, “Whatever is essential to
at least the elementary being of the individual person in his full par-
ticularity, therefore, existing in the most ultimate and mysterious sense,
is uncreated, underived, and unbegun,”49 and McMurrin appears to
have said that with little if any challenge. Both he and his readers took
what he said as commonsensical to Latter-day Saints by the 1960s. The
Church’s 1995 “The Family: A  Proclamation to the World” may also
take the Roberts view of intelligence. It says, “Gender is an essential
characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and
purpose.”50 Other readings are possible, but the most obvious one is the
Roberts view that individual identity is eternal, a view taught by Elder

48. Blake T. Ostler, “The Idea of Preexistence in Mormon Thought,” in Line Upon
Line: Essays in Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature
Books, 1989), 140.
49. Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion (Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965), 49–50.
50. The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign 25, no. 11
(November 1995): 102.
 King Follett Discourse   V99

D.  Todd Christofferson in 2015: “Prophets have revealed that we first

existed as intelligences and that we were given form, or spirit bodies, by
God, thus becoming His spirit children.”51

The Resurrection of Children

The final King Follett teaching to be accounted for is the eighth, that
concerning the resurrection of children. As noted, from early on there
was controversy about whether Joseph Smith said everything that he
is reported to have said in the way reported. In particular, there were
doubts about Woodruff ’s report that Smith said, “Eternity is full of
thrones upon which dwell thousands of Children reigning on thrones
of glory not one cubit added to their stature.”52 That claim is from only
Woodruff ’s transcription. It is not backed up by the notes of the others
who reported the conference.
The first publication of the sermon, in 1844, records Joseph Smith’s
teaching more ambiguously: “As the child dies, so shall it rise from the
dead and be forever living in the learning of God, it shall be the child,
the same as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and
exercise power in the same form as they laid them down.”53
Published shortly after Joseph Smith’s death and without his cor-
roboration, we can assume this reflects how the editors of the published
version understood his teaching.
Yet some years later Brigham Young repeated what Joseph Smith had
taught: “You will see the child of three, four, and five years old, possessing
all the intelligence of the Angels of God. Could you not enjoy the society
of such interesting beings? It is the intelligence in them that makes them
capable of enjoyment and duration. Resurrected bodies will be as diversi-
fied as the bodies of mortal flesh, for variety, beauty, and extension.”54
And others, such as Joseph E. Taylor in 1888, have had the same
understanding of Joseph Smith’s teaching.55

51. D. Todd Christofferson, “Why Marriage, Why Family,” Ensign 45, no. 5 (May 2015): 50.
52. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” [139], Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed June 3, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-sum​mary/dis​
course-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/7.
53. “Minutes and Discourses, 6–7 April 1844, as Published by Times and Seasons,” 617,
Joseph Smith Papers, accessed June 2, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers​.org/paper​
-summary/minutes-and-discourses-6-7-april-1844-as-published-by-times-and​-seasons/15.
54. “Discourse of Brigham Young, 19 February 1854,” Brigham Young Collection,
Church Archives, Salt Lake City, accessed 24 June 2021, https://catalog.churchofjesus​christ​
.org/assets/5ed67920-698e-417f-82f7-f33fb559535e/0/9.
55. Joseph E. Taylor, “The Resurrection,” Deseret Weekly, December 29, 1888, 25.
100 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

The belief that Joseph Smith taught what Wilford Woodruff records
him teaching about infant resurrection is well attested into the late nine-
teenth century. In spite of that, clearly some Latter-day Saints were uncom-
fortable with the teaching, and they appear to have been uncomfortable
from the beginning. Van Hale tells us that, according to Pratt, the teaching
caused “quite an anxiety.”56 Woodruff, the very person who recorded the
part of the King Follett Discourse about resurrected children remaining
the same stature, later became fourth president of the Church. While an
Apostle, he said, “There has been a great deal of theory, and many views
have been expressed on this subject, but there are many things connected
with it which the Lord has probably never revealed to any of the Prophets
or patriarchs who ever appeared on the earth.”57 We don’t know what
Woodruff originally thought of the teaching, but thirty-one years after
hearing the King Follett Sermon, he was not sure that he believed what he
had recorded about the resurrection of children.
In 1918, Joseph F. Smith, nephew of Joseph Smith and sixth President
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, went even further
than Wilford Woodruff, from doubt to dismissal. Noting that there are
“strong opinions that some people had in regard to little children being
resurrected and, everlastingly and forever after to remain as little chil-
dren,” he said, “I . . . never did believe that he was correctly reported or
that those who died in infancy would remain as little children after the
resurrection.”58 Joseph F. Smith’s rejection of the teaching is symptom-
atic of a wider discomfort. The discomfort required coming to terms
with the King Follett text, and Joseph F. Smith’s explanation gives the
suggestion for how Latter-day Saints were dealing with the tension
between the text of the King Follett Sermon and their belief: it was not
transcribed correctly.
B. H. Roberts, however, was perhaps the first person to deal with the
problem in anything like a scholarly fashion. In a note on the King Fol-
lett Discourse in History of the Church, he takes Joseph F. Smith’s posi-
tion: the teaching, as reported, is mistaken. Roberts says “it is evident”
that the transcription of the passage in question is inaccurate and that
Joseph Smith taught instead that “little children would come forth from
the dead in the same form and size in which their bodies were laid down

56. Hale, “King Follett Discourse,” 10.

57. Wilford Woodruff, in Journal of Discourses, 18:32 (June 27, 1877).
58. Joseph F. Smith, “Status of Children in the Resurrection,” Improvement Era 21
(May 1918): 571–72.
 King Follett Discourse   V101

but that they would grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the
spirit.”59 At the end of his note, Roberts directs readers to a long, earlier
footnote in the History.
There, we find a record of the same teaching attributed to Smith on a
different occasion in a sermon preached by him on March 20, 1842, a ser-
mon also recorded by Woodruff. However, in his note Roberts explains
that the transcription is inaccurate because it was “reported in long hand
and from memory.” He continues,
The writer of this note [B. H. Roberts] distinctly remembers to have
heard the late President Wilford Woodruff . . . say, that the Prophet cor-
rected the impression that had been made by his King Follett sermon,
that children and infants would remain fixed in the stature of their
infancy and childhood in and after the resurrection. President Wood-
ruff very emphatically said . . . that the prophet taught subsequently to
his King Follett sermon that children while resurrected in the stature
at which they died would develope [sic] to the full stature of men and
women after the resurrection.60

Thus, B. H. Roberts reports that Wilford Woodruff—the source of both

the King Follett text in question and the earlier transcription, but at least
later doubtful of the doctrine—corrected the view that his transcriptions
suggest, and Roberts goes on to cite other witnesses that Joseph Smith’s
actual teaching was as this note describes it. So even during Smith’s life,
the teaching seems not to have been clear.
Over time, Joseph F. Smith and B. H. Roberts’s understanding of this
teaching about resurrection took hold: children will be resurrected as
children, but they will be raised by their mothers and grow to maturity.
As Hale says, “During the final quarter of the nineteenth century, the
idea which won almost universal acceptance among the Latter-day Saints
was that one who died in infancy would be resurrected as an infant, then
nurtured to maturity by his mother from mortality.”61 That understand-
ing continued: in 1928, Charles A. Callis, then president of the Southern
States Mission and later an Apostle, said to parents “that their babies laid
away in death, their youth who have been called to the other side, shall
be restored to them in the resurrection, and that parents shall have the
joy of rearing infant children, in the resurrection, to manhood and to

59. Joseph Smith Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed.
B. H. Roberts, 2nd ed., rev., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1950), 6:316 n.
60. Smith, History of the Church, 4:556 n.
61. Hale, “King Follett Discourse,” 10.
102 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

womanhood.”62 In 1971, LeGrand Richards said much the same thing,63

and that part of his sermon was repeated in a post on the official website
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in December 2016.64
That is how most contemporary Latter-day Saints understand the doc-
trine, whatever the accuracy of Woodruff ’s transcription. Today few
members of the Church would recognize the King Follett teaching about
infant resurrection as their belief.

Conclusion
The King Follett Sermon is one of the most important sermons on doc-
trine in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
yet most of its teachings are contained in other sources that are some-
times less ambiguous. The need to do proxy baptisms and other ordi-
nances for the dead, for example, was not new, nor has the Church’s
understanding of that need changed appreciably (though many related
practices have changed). Nevertheless, the sermon retains its power
among Latter-day Saints because it brings together a number of Joseph
Smith’s previous teachings on humanity’s relationship to God: God has
the form of a human being; he once lived in a world like our own in the
same way that we do; the Father created this world and gave it its laws
so that the spirits around him could become like him; and intelligence,
the essential aspect of the spirits for whom he created the world, is eter-
nal. This was a sermon of consolation, and as part of it Joseph Smith
taught that those who die in childhood will be resurrected as children,
exactly as their parents knew them. And along the way, he defined the
sin against the Holy Ghost. That, too, might have been consolation for
those who feared that their loved ones who had left the Church would
be damned for having done so.
Thus, though the King Follett Sermon has remained central to Latter-day
Saint belief, since 1844 the Church’s understanding of several key elements of
the sermon’s teachings have changed or at least been clarified: the teaching

62. Charles A. Callis, in Ninety-Eighth Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1928), 40.
63. LeGrand Richards, “Laying a Foundation for the Millennium,” Ensign 1, no. 12
(December 1971): 84.
64. LeGrand Richards, “Conference Moment: For Parents Who’ve Lost a Child,”
Church News, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, December 6, 2016, https://
www​.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/conference-moment-for-parents-whove​-lost​
-a​-child?lang=eng.
 King Follett Discourse   V103

about the history of God, that about human potential, that about the nature
of intelligence, and that about the resurrection of infants.
With regard to the history of God, along with Joseph Smith, nineteenth-­
century Latter-day Saints often thought of God as having once been
a human being and having become, by his experience, God. However,
by  the early twenty-first century (indeed by the 1950s at the latest),
though the nineteenth-century teaching is not denied, the official posi-
tion has tended in the direction of agnosticism toward it, with the sig-
nificant exceptions mentioned earlier of the Melchizedek Priesthood
and Relief Society manuals.
With regard to theosis, the King Follett Sermon doesn’t explicitly
take a stand on what it means to become like God, but the belief has
undergone a change similar to that about God’s previous history: at one
point, Latter-day Saints clearly believed that to become like God means
to become, like him, a creator of worlds. For a long time, though, Church
officials and writers have either downplayed that claim or have taken an
agnostic position with regard to its meaning. Instead, the contemporary
Latter-day Saint understanding of what it means to be like God is usually
weighted with terms that would be compatible with traditional Chris-
tian discussions of theosis. To become like God means to receive his
attributes, to become godly. However, an openly discussed, distinctively
Latter-day Saint understanding of exaltation remains the familial or rela-
tional aspect that this life can foreshadow. The Church’s website explains
that members “see the seeds of godhood in the joy of bearing and nur-
turing children and the intense love they feel for those children.”65
With regard to the self-existence of intelligence, the essence of a human
being, this is a doctrine on which there appears to have clearly been not
just a shift in attitude but a shift in belief. In the nineteenth century, intel-
ligence was generally assumed to be a kind of unindividuated material
out of which individual spirits were made. By the 1930s, the official posi-
tion on whether intelligence is eternally individuated was that we don’t
know. By the 1960s, many Latter-day Saints, perhaps most, believed that
intelligences have always existed as individuals. And by the end of the
twentieth century, the latter seems also to have become the predominant,
though not exclusive, view.

65. “Becoming Like God,” Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-­
day Saints, February 2014, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel​
-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng.
104 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

With regard to infant resurrection, there has been a similar turn in the
Church’s understanding of Joseph Smith’s teaching about the resurrec-
tion of children. Until late in the nineteenth century, some important
Latter-day Saint leaders taught (though not without controversy) that
those who die as infants or children will be resurrected at the same stage
of physical development they had when they died and that they will keep
that same stature for eternity, though they would be able fully to become
like God. In the late nineteenth century, however, that belief began to
change, and by the middle of the twentieth century, most Latter-day
Saints understood the teaching to be that children will be resurrected
as children but will then mature to their full stature under the guidance
of their mothers.
Speaking of the King Follett Discourse as a whole, we can say that
its teachings have gradually metamorphosized over time. Some, such
as the nature of intelligence and the status of resurrected children, have
changed. Some, such as whether God was once a human being like us,
have moved to the category of mysteries, things we do not understand.
Eternal progress and the preexistence of human intelligence before
spirit birth continue to be taught in general conferences of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in articles in the Church’s manuals
and magazines, and in the devotional literature of Deseret Book, the
Church’s commercial publishing arm. But they teach those things per-
haps exclusively as part of understanding that human beings are made
in God’s image and that, by living a life devoted to the divine, we can
partake in godliness.
As the place where some of Joseph Smith’s most radical teachings are
enunciated together—and expanded—the King Follett Discourse may
be neither the pinnacle of Joseph Smith’s teaching nor peripheral to it.
Perhaps, instead, we should understand it as the most important mirror
of a Latter-day Saint’s theological self-understanding, both in terms of
its teachings and, even more, in terms of the ongoing rethinking of doc-
trine that the sermon occasions.

James E. Faulconer is a senior research fellow at the Maxwell Institute for Religious
Scholarship and a professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University. His academic
specialty is contemporary French and German philosophy. Except for a year as a visit-
ing professor at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) and a year as a visiting
researcher at the library of the Ecole Normale Superieure (France), Faulconer has been
at BYU since 1975. He has served in several administrative positions at the university and
has published or edited seventeen books and approximately seventy academic essays.
Understandings of the Relationship
between Grace and Works

Terryl L. Givens

N o debate more thoroughly sunders the Christian world into com-

peting factions than the simple question, Are we saved by grace or
by works? It needs to be stated at the outset, however, that the framing
of the debate in such terms is not truly accurate. Sola gratia, or salva-
tion by grace alone, is one of the pillars of Protestantism. No one, on the
other hand, affirms a doctrine of salvation by works. (Pelagians might
have in the fifth century, but they are no longer alive to be part of the
conversation.) The debate is really over the question, Are we saved by
grace alone or by some combination of grace and works?
Like Catholics, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints have long been characterized by others as believing that salva-
tion can be purchased through a life of righteousness. In recent years,
recognizing that our own emphasis on obedience, to the neglect of
Christ’s role as Savior, has contributed to that impression, and in an
effort to find common ground with Evangelicals in particular, a num-
ber of figures have produced a stream of books and talks emphasizing
the role of grace in Restoration belief—to such an extent that Evan-
gelicals are now hopeful that we are verging toward their conception
of Christian orthodoxy. Is this a healthy course correction? Does grace
deserve a more prominent place in Latter-day Saint discourse about
salvation? Or has the pendulum already swung too far?

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)105

106 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Tipping toward Works

“Obedience is the first law of heaven,” proclaims an LDS Gospel Doc-
trine manual, citing both scripture and Elder Bruce R. McConkie.1 And
an article of faith is equally emphatic, stating that we are saved “by obe-
dience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” (A of F 1:3), adding a
rather imprecise “through the Atonement of Christ.” Restoration scrip-
tures tell the same story: “that he who doeth the works of righteousness
shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the
world to come” (D&C 59:23). In the magisterial treatise on Restoration
theology commissioned by the Church, Elder James E. Talmage does
not even employ the term grace, let alone give it any theological weight.2
Bruce McConkie, in his hugely influential Mormon Doctrine, makes
obedience the pathway to salvation, which path is possible because of
Christ’s “love, mercy, and condescension”: “the very opportunity to fol-
low the course of good works which will lead to that salvation sought by
the saints comes also by the grace of God.”3

Tipping toward Grace

In recent years, Latter-day Saints seem to have remembered Nephi’s
words that it is “by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne.
25:23). LDS scholars sought to find a more meaningful synthesis of Paul’s
emphasis on faith and James’s on works. A widely popular interpretation
of that verse compared salvation to a bicycle in a modern parable. We
try to buy it with our pathetic earnings, but they are far short. After we
do all we can to secure it, a generous parent makes up the large deficit in
the purchase price, and the bicycle, or salvation, is secured. As Stephen
Robinson writes, “Having done all we can, it is enough. We may not be
personally perfect yet, but because of our covenant with the Savior, we
can rely on his perfection, and his perfection will get us through.”4

1. Church Educational System, Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual: Religion 430

and 431 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986), 46.
2. His only mentions of grace are in its colloquial or generic, not theological, sense,
as in “the throne of grace,” or “full of grace and truth.” James E. Talmage, The Articles
of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the Principal Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1899).
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966),
670–71.
4. Stephen E. Robinson, “Believing Christ,” Ensign 22, no. 4 (April 1992): 9, italics
in original.
 Grace and Works   V107

Other LDS authors followed suit. Book titles like Grace Works,
Changed through His Grace, Amazed by Grace, and others now popu-
late the Church’s commercial publishing website. The evangelical leader
Richard Mouw has seen the Church’s renewed emphasis on grace, along
with other developments, as “a  sign of a sincere desire to bring a his-
torically heterodox tradition into greater conformity with the orthodox
Christian consensus.”5 So does the Church of Jesus Christ espouse a
doctrine of grace that is conformable with the mainline (Protestant)
understanding? And have recent developments corrected a historical
slighting of Christ’s Atonement and its role in our salvation?

Challenging the Premises

In his important study of Belief, Language, and Experience, the ethnog-
rapher Rodney Needham makes a powerful case for the impossibility of
accurately translating religious vocabularies across cultures. Concepts
we translate as “belief ” and “faith” meant certain things to the Hebrews,
other things to early Christians writing out of a Greco-Roman culture,
and something quite different again to the Nuer people of sub-Saharan
Africa.6 Broadly speaking, of course, this is because no concept trans-
lates seamlessly across linguistic or cultural boundaries. But Needham’s
observation is really a more focused critique of the ways in which reli-
gious terminology especially is given its particular cast by the underly-
ing cosmology of its users. As he writes, “The translation of the verbal
categories which an alien people employ in statements about their cul-
tural universe, especially in the sphere conventionally denoted as that of
religion, is a focus of notorious and inescapable difficulty.”7 Or as Evans-
Pritchard reported in his famous study of the Nuer, “If I speak of ‘spear’
or ‘cow’ everybody will have pretty much the same idea of what I speak
of, but this is not so when I speak of ‘Spirit,’ ‘soul,’ ‘sin,’ and so forth.”8
Or, Evans-Pritchard might have said with even greater accuracy,
“grace.” For grace has a very particular meaning in the Protestant tradi-
tion of which Latter-day Saints who invoke the term are often unaware.
Martin Luther, an early exponent of the doctrine, defined salvation by

5. Richard J. Mouw, “Mormons Approaching Orthodoxy,” First Things, May 2016,

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy.
6. Rodney Needham, Belief, Language, and Experience (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1972), 19.
7. Needham, Belief, Language, and Experience, 15.
8. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion (Oxford: Claredon, 1956), vi.
108 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

grace not in terms of Christ’s Atonement making possible our growing

conformity to eternal law, but as the act whereby Christ substitutes his
righteousness for our sinfulness. When Paul said, “The just shall live by
faith” (Rom. 1:17), Luther did not take this to mean that the righteous
should live by confidence in Christ’s promises. Rather, given the fact
that the object of that faith is certain and steadfast, being Jesus Christ
himself, his reliability is of such perfection as to ground incontestably
the confidence we repose in him. Our faith can relieve us of the purga-
tory of uncertainty, not because our mind is firm but because our foun-
dation is Christ’s faithfulness, not ours. His righteousness, imputed to us,
not our personal righteousness achieved or weighed in the balance, is
what wins us pardon and salvation. With him standing effectively in our
stead at judgment, we are considered righteous. This idea becomes the
doctrine of imputed righteousness. The closest Restoration scripture
that gestures to such an idea is Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5, where
we hear Christ pleading that the Father “spare these my brethren” for
whom he has suffered.
“Considered” righteous is the key. For a Protestant, Christ does not
just suffer in our stead; he is judged in our stead. From one Latter-day
Saint perspective, such a view appears defeatist and a denial of the human
potential to become holy, pure, and sanctified beings in themselves, by a
process of continual repentance and growing conformity to eternal laws,
until we become like our heavenly parents in a literal imitatio Christi. It
is this understanding of grace that led James Talmage to call justification
by belief alone (sola fide) not just wrong, but “a pernicious doctrine.”9 It
makes God an arbitrary sovereign, consigns man to irremediable sinful-
ness, and denies the inherent divinity of a mankind “whole from the
foundation of the world” (Moses 6:54). Talmage may have been basing
his position on the principle enunciated by Joseph Smith in section 88:
Only “that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and per-
fected and sanctified by the same. That which breaketh a law, and abideth
not by law . . . cannot be sanctified by . . . mercy”—that is, by grace—
because “he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom can-
not abide a celestial glory” (D&C 88:34–35, 22). Or as Brigham Young
put the case, “its being the will and design of the Father, Son, and Holy

9. James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith: Being a Consideration of the

Principal Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1981), 97.
 Grace and Works   V109

Ghost . . . that you should be a Saint, will not make you one, contrary to
your own choice.”10
In other words, predominant Protestant conceptions of grace might
be incompatible with the Latter-day Saint understanding of salvation
itself, which is not a rescue from depravity and condemnation but what
the scripture above referred to as preservation, perfection, and sanc-
tification under the discipline of law. What then is salvation? A major
figure in the New Perspective on Paul movement—which is radically
reevaluating Protestant readings of Paul—is James Dunn, who begins
his book on the subject by addressing the question of what we must do
to win “God’s acceptance” and cites another scholar who is also ask-
ing about the respective options of faith or works for “winning God’s
favour.”11
For a Latter-day Saint to enter such a debate is to already accept
a highly suspect premise. We are not vassals seeking ways to placate a
sovereign God. Salvation is not a reward dispensed to those who comply
with a set of requirements imposed by God—of either faith or works. In
the Lectures on Faith, salvation was defined in uniquely Restorationist
language:
Let us ask, where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may
be assimilated, in order that we may be made partakers of life and
salvation? or in other words, where shall we find a saved being? for if
we can find a saved being, we may ascertain, without much difficulty,
what all others must be, in order to be saved—they must be like that
individual or they cannot be saved: . . . whatever constitutes the salva-
tion of one, will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be
saved. . . . We ask, then, where is the prototype? or where is the saved
being? We conclude as to the answer of this question . . . is Christ: all
will agree in this that he is the prototype or standard of salvation, or in
other words, that he is a saved being. And if we should continue our
interrogation, and ask how it is that he is saved, the answer would be,
because he is a just and holy being; and if he were anything different
from what he is he would not be saved; for his salvation depends on
his being precisely what he is and nothing else . . . : Thus says John, in

10. “29 November 1857, SLC Tabernacle,” in The Complete Discourses of Brigham
Young, ed. Richard S. Van Wagoner, 5  vols. (Salt Lake City: Smith-Petit Foundation,
2009), 3:1378.
11. James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2005), 1.
110 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

his first epistle, 3:2 and 3: Behold, now we are the sons of God, and it
doth not appear what we shall be; but we know, that when he shall
appear we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And any man
that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure.—Why
purify himself as he is pure? because, if they do not they cannot be
like him.12
This conception of salvation is why, as Smith said, members of the
Church can agree with neither position on the “once saved by grace,
always saved” debate.13
The same dismissal of Protestant grace seen in Doctrine and Cov-
enants  88 is evident in the Book of Mormon’s recurrent dismissal of
the doctrine that we can be saved “in our sins,” which is effectively the
case with Luther and the whole tradition of grace as imputed righ-
teousness, wherein we are always wholly a sinner and saved because
we allow Christ’s righteousness to be a surrogate before the judging
eye of God for our own always insufficient righteousness. (We are jus-
tified by God’s judgment though wholly a sinner, in Luther’s famous
language.)14 Or as the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the basis of
most Protestant denominations, state, “We are accounted righteous
before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by
Faith” (Article 11).15
If the restored gospel is so emphatically incompatible with salvation
by grace or its equivalents, sola gratia, sola fide, or imputed righteous-
ness, then what role might grace play in the Church’s scheme of things?
One might consider other ways of understanding grace than those
given us by the Protestant inheritance. The nineteenth-century man-of-
letters Matthew Arnold begins his study of the Bible with this statement:

12. “Doctrine and Covenants, 1845,” 65–66, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 4,
2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and​-cove​nants​
-1835/74.
13. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, comps. and eds., The Words of Joseph
Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Orem,
Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 330, 333–34.
14. For commentary and discussion of the principle, see the essays in The Gospel of
Justification in Christ: Where Does the Church Stand Today? ed. Wayne Stumme (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006).
15. “Church of England, The Thirty-Nine Articles, 1571,” in Creeds and Confessions of
Faith in the Christian Tradition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, 4 vols. (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 2:531.
 Grace and Works   V111

We have said elsewhere how much it has contributed to the misun-

derstanding of St. Paul, that terms like grace, . . . which he used in a
fluid and passing way, as men use terms in common discourse or in
eloquence and poetry, . . . people have blunderingly taken in a fixed and
rigid manner, as if they were symbols with as definite and fully grasped
a meaning as the names line or angle, and proceeded to use them on
this supposition. Terms, in short, which with St. Paul are literary terms,
theologians have employed as if they were scientific terms.16
Indeed, the simplest meaning of the Pauline word for “grace,” χαρισ, is
graciousness, or goodwill, undeserved favor or gift. In that sense, the
restored gospel’s acceptance of the grace of Christ as the precondition
of all human salvation is unambiguous. The Book of Mormon declares
both the indispensability of Christ’s grace and the particular gesture to
which it applies in its most transcendent form. “There is no flesh that
can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and
mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life accord-
ing to the flesh” (2 Ne. 2:8).
Job asked, “What is man, that thou shouldst . . . set thine heart upon
him?” (Job 7:17). Restoration doctrine asserts that it was this act of set-
ting his heart upon man that constituted the majesty and miracle of
God’s grace. In this conception, when John said, “We love him, because
he first loved us” (1 John 4:19), he meant that deep in the primeval past
when God found himself in the midst of numerous spirit intelligences,
before the earth was formed or the first man or woman organized, grace
irrupted into the universe. We might consider grace the name of his
relentless, inexhaustible, and ultimately irresistible invitation.
In 1993, Elder Dallin Oaks made a remarkable criticism: “I believe
that for a time and until recently our public talks and our literature were
deficient in the frequency and depth with which they explained and
rejoiced in those doctrinal subjects most closely related to the atone-
ment of the Savior. A prominent gospel scholar saw this deficiency in
our Church periodicals published in a 23-year period ending in 1983.
I saw this same deficiency when I reviewed the subjects of general con-
ference addresses during the decade ending in the mid-1980s.”17

16. Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma: An Essay towards a Better Apprehension
of the Bible (New York: Macmillan, 1883), 9, italics in original.
17. Dallin H. Oaks, “‘Another Testament of Jesus Christ,’ ” Ensign 24, no. 3 (March
1994): 65. He was citing Daniel H. Ludlow, quoted in Bruce C. Hafen, The Broken Heart:
Applying the Atonement to Life’s Experiences (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 3–4.
112 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Reclaiming the beauty of Christ’s supernal gift may require more

frequent employment of the term “grace,” so central to evangelical dis-
course, however misappropriately co-opted. Whether it will be possible,
in so doing, to endow it with a uniquely Restorationist set of assump-
tions and implications is hard to say; and whether in the effort, we will
appear to have ceded inspired doctrinal ground unnecessarily in hopes
of broader Christian acceptance, will be part of the risk.

Terryl L. Givens did graduate work in intellectual history at Cornell and in comparative
literature at UNC Chapel Hill, where he received his PhD. He is Professor Emeritus
of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond and the Neal A. Maxwell
Senior Research Fellow at Brigham Young University. His several books include a his-
tory of Latter-day Saint theology, Wrestling the Angel and Feeding the Flock; biographies
of Parley Pratt (with Matthew Grow) and Eugene England; and several studies of LDS
scripture, culture, and history. With his wife, Fiona, he is the co-author of The God Who
Weeps, The Christ Who Heals, The Crucible of Doubt, and, most recently, All Things New:
Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between.
Shards of Combat
How Did Satan Seek to Destroy the Agency of Man?

Philip L. Barlow

H uman beings in other guise lived before the creation of our world.
This belief is at once controversial and durable, pervading the
history of Western thought and bearing analogues elsewhere.1 That
gods, angels, or other celestial beings rebelled against their superiors
or engaged in cosmic conflict prior to earth’s creation is a related con-
cept, widespread in the ancient world. Depictions or allusions to such
contests appear in the myths, lore, art, literature, and sacred texts of
Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Persia, Greece, Rome, far-flung tribal religions,
and elsewhere. In certain cases, the older traditions endure even to the
present, as in Sufi (Muslim) expressions of Iblis’s rebellion against Allah.
No coherent account of a war in heaven has descended to us in the
biblical record, though entwined imagery and hints from Genesis, I­ saiah,
Luke, 2  Peter, Jude, and the book of Revelation have sustained narra-
tive, visual, musical, theatrical, and theological presentations across the
centuries. In Christianity, these traditions achieved salience, transmit-
ted by the early Christian fathers and medieval mystery plays, among
other avenues. The literary tradition culminated in Milton, informed
as much by Hesiod, Homer, and Virgil as by the Bible. Paradise Lost
exerted colossal influence on subsequent generations, including those
in the United States.

1. Terryl L. Givens gives the most probing and only systematic history of the idea
in Western thought: When Souls Had Wings: Pre-mortal Existence in Western Thought
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)113

114 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Ancient accounts of extraterrestrial battles variously pitted light

against darkness, order against chaos, pride toward one’s betters,
power against power, or good against evil (not necessarily in modern
terms). The notion that heavenly war hinged on the proposed creation
of earth and the prospect of a deepened agency granted to its future
human inhabitants was untaught until Joseph Smith’s revelations in
the antebellum United States recast the war from cosmic military
engagement to a clash of ideas concerning “salvation.”2 In this framing,
expanded in the minds of disciples from scant filaments of scripture, a
pre-earthly Lucifer aspired to redeem an envisioned humankind with-
out exception and to usurp the honor and power of God, who rejected
Satan’s hubris. Satan rebelled, incited war, and, before and perhaps
after being cast out, “sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3),
who was to be sent to earth to experience, to learn, to choose, to be
tested, and to achieve his and her divine potential.3 In Joseph Smith’s
panorama of what existence is about, not even love, grace, intelligence,
or relationships eclipse agency as prime values; their very nature and
meaning depend on it. To inhibit agency is demonic.
In what sense and by what means did Satan seek to extinguish this
agency? This remains an open question; no response reigns official in
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yet examining assump-
tions and possibilities amounts to more than elaborating the unknown.
The effort and the additional questions it spawns lay bare something of
the nature of agency itself, along with threats to it. Whether to believers
who take the War in Heaven as actual pre-earth trauma or to skeptics
sensitive to the potency of mythos, exploring the story’s contours may
affect our maps of historical, existential, and spiritual reality. Hence it
may condition how we choose to live.
Before turning to theories of Satan’s methods in working to negate
the agency of God’s children, we note that key phrasings in Latter-day
Saint scripture concerning agency and even specifically the War in
Heaven have histories preceding Joseph Smith’s restoration and are inde-
pendent of that war. For example, “sought to destroy the agency of man”

2. Paradise Lost seems at first glance to be an exception because liberty (compare

agency) is pertinent in Milton’s account of heavenly war. However, it arises there as an
issue not because Satan objected to a widened agency proposed for prospective humans,
but due to Satan’s sense that his own liberty had been infringed upon by God’s choice of
Christ to reign above others and his choice of humans for special honor.
3. Isaiah 14:12–20; Luke 10:16–18; Jude 1:6, 9; Revelation 12:4–17; Moses 1:39; 4:1–4;
Abraham 3:22–28; Doctrine and Covenants 29:35–41; 76:25–26.
 Satan and the Agency of Man   V115

(Moses 4:3) and “to act . . . and not to be acted upon” (2 Ne. 2:26) were
linguistic formulas embedded in the Arminian/Reformed debates of
the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Whether knowingly or
unconsciously, the Prophet Joseph adopted certain phrases from Armin-
ian critics who accused Calvinists of an exaggerated effort to protect the
sovereignty of God, sacrificing human agency in the process. As New
York’s prominent Calvinist (and Presbyterian) David Low Dodge char-
acterized one such critique of his own position in 1808, “If we are totally
depraved, I think it must destroy moral agency; from which it will follow,
that we do not act, but are acted upon like machines.”4 The language of
“acting” and “being acted upon” traces further back through John Locke
and well beyond to the ancient Epicurean poet, Lucretius.5 In translating
or crafting new revelation, Joseph Smith’s words resembled known but
disparate vocabulary units, frequently of biblical but also Masonic, theo-
logical, and political origins. In many cases the Prophet would not likely
have known their original meanings, but in any event he frequently
transposed these phrasings from their original setting to a fresh context,
weaving them into new and coherent forms, as a mother or father bird
integrates vagrant twigs and debris into a new nest for their young. This
was not plagiarism in any modern sense but rather was intrinsic to his
prophetic mode.6

4. David Low Dodge, A Religious Conference, in Four Dialogues, between Lorenzo

and Evander, by a Layman, to Which Is Added, Leslie’s Short Method with Deists (New
York: Collins and Perkins, 1808), 15. The quotation is actually attributable to Dodge’s
dialogue character “Lorenzo” (possibly referencing Lorenzo Dow), who represents the
Arminian critique of Reformed theology.
5. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, trans. H. A. J. Munro (Cambridge: George Bell
and Sons, 1908), 155.
6. I call this process barauification, after Joseph Smith’s spelling (barau) of the Hebrew
word (ḇārāʾ) that rests behind the English “created” in Genesis 1:1. Joseph Smith learned,
while studying Hebrew in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835, that the word means “to fashion” or
“to organize” rather than to conjure into existence ex nihilo, as per traditional Christian
belief. Just as God forged the world from pre-existent, chaotic materials, so the Prophet
Joseph fashioned translation or new revelation partly from scattered sources. The result
created order from chaos, an order possessing independent coherence, power, and new
meaning in a fresh context. In the process of verbal “barauifying” that sketched the War
in Heaven, Smith intentionally or incidentally resolved a centuries-­­old debate about
free will in Protestant circles. He also broadened the discourse on free will from causa-
tion (God) to ontology (human nature) and cosmology (the divine course of salvation)
planned in the pre-earth heavens. (Thanks to Stephen Betts for the last of these insights.)
Vestiges of a similar process may be seen in hundreds of disparate phrases compris-
ing the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price
116 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

History of the Predominant Understanding

Whether or not readers were attuned to such processes in the formation
of Restoration scripture, two theories eventually coalesced to domi-
nate Latter-day Saint understanding of how Satan conspired to negate
agency. Each of them possesses a history—they were not evident in
Joseph Smith’s lifetime—a fact that lays grounds for noticing other pos-
sibilities latent in the tradition.
Orson Pratt planted the seeds of what became the prevailing theories
as early as 1853. “If Satan had been permitted to carry out his plan,” wrote
Pratt, “it would either have destroyed the agency of man, so that he could
not commit sin; or it would have redeemed him in his sins and wicked-
ness without any repentance or reformation of life. If the agency of man
were destroyed, he would only act as he is acted upon, and consequently
he would merely be a machine.”7 The alternatives Pratt discerned, then,
would have obliterated agency or rendered it moot. However, neither he
nor his contemporaries nor Joseph Smith before them proffered much
in the way of a Satanic method for either possibility. What did it mean
to say Satan intended to annihilate agency? How would he attempt it?
If Church members in the twenty-first century were polled to respond
to the question, an outsized majority would probably explain that Satan
hoped to coerce the human will. He would force human beings to be good.
If a questioner were to wonder aloud why “a  third part of the hosts of
heaven” (D&C 29:36) would be lured to a scheme where morally good
souls were imagined as the product of coercion, some Church members
might refine their thought: perhaps Satan planned to force every person to
obey his commandments. This too would seem to yield conformity rather
than goodness, but the presumption in this model is that this was pre-
cisely why God rejected Satan’s plan. Because scripture and Joseph Smith
are silent on the matter of Satan’s mode, however, tracing how the idea of
Satanic coercion rose to dominance among the Saints seems useful.
From perhaps as early as the 1830–31 reception of the book of Moses,
Joseph Smith and others were aware of a pre-earthly conflict in which

that have been appropriated from secular and religious sources and woven into the
expression of the revelations, which in turn have their own independent meaning and
coherence. These phrasings became natural units in Joseph’s vocabulary as he gave writ-
ten form to his revelations. Samples include “opposition in all things” (2 Ne. 2:11) and
“true and living church” (D&C 1:30). For other examples and wider context, see Philip L.
Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 22–25, 28–32.
7. Orson Pratt, The Seer 1, no. 4 (1853): 52.
 Satan and the Agency of Man   V117

Satan sought to suppress human agency.8 Similarly, leaders from the

Church’s earliest days exuded a distaste for ideological, religious, or politi-
cal coercion.9 Although the tether between these distinct ideas seems
obvious and inevitable to many twenty-first-century disciples, it was not
until 1882 that a Church leader, John Taylor, explicitly asserted that Satan’s
premortal attempt to eliminate agency consisted of coercion.10 The con-
text for this new linkage was the coercion leaders perceived in the increas-
ingly harsh legal and public relations measures that federal authorities
imposed upon the Saints, pressure intended to dismantle their practices
of plural marriage and de facto theocracy. Said President Taylor, “Satan
sought to rob man of his free agency, as many of his agents [congress, the

8. The books of Moses and Abraham were not published until 1851, after which
at least some church leaders, such as Orson Pratt, treated them virtually as scripture—
decades before their canonization in 1880.
9. Joseph Smith taught that all people have the capacity to resist the devil and
championed the sanctity of religious conscience. See “History, 1838–1856, Volume C-1
[2 November 1838–31 July 1842],” 1202, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 20, 2019,
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume ​ - c​
-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/374. Brigham Young avowed that neither God nor the
Church will control the exercise of agency. Journal of Discourses, 26  vols. Liverpool:
F. D. Richards, 1855–86), 6:345–46 (July 31, 1859); see also George Q. Cannon, in Journal
of Discourses, 15:369–70 (March 23, 1873); John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 19:158
(November 14, 1877); Erastus Snow, in Journal of Discourses, 20:184 (April 6, 1879); and
Charles Penrose, in Journal of Discourses, 22:86 (May 1, 1880). Many others spoke in
similar veins.
10. Previous to John Taylor’s statement, leaders and the Saints more broadly did
marshal traditional language concerning the devil’s capacity to deceive, tempt, and try
to control humans and, if people did not take care, to overwhelm them. The devils were
taken to oppose the Saints’ every effort to do good. Many felt that all illnesses of the
Saints come from the devils. Satan has control over the wicked, they believed, but fol-
lowers of Jesus Christ are free from his control. In a representative urging from March
1857, as tensions that would eventuate in the Utah War grew, First Presidency member
Daniel H. Wells lamented the corruption that had beset generations for thousands of
years, with the result that “the devil has power over us through this cause in a measure
that he otherwise would not have; and were it not for the multiplicity of the blessings of
the Almighty that gives us power and strength, we would most likely be overcome of the
devil.” Journal of Discourses, 4:254 (March 1, 1857). Later that month, Apostle and future
Church President Wilford Woodruff noted the imminent spring and cautioned, “As we
turn our attention to the plough and to cultivating the earth, if we forget our prayers, the
Devil will take double the advantage of us.” Journal of Discourses, 5:51 (March 22, 1857).
That autumn, after the outbreak of violence, Apostle Erastus Snow declared, “There is
but one alternative for this people: it is our religion, our God, our liberty, or slavery,
the Devil, and death.” Journal of Discourses, 6:92 (November 29, 1857). So, in the mid-
nineteenth century, Satan was perceived as a threat to liberty, but, again, it was not until
the 1880s that this trait was named a cause for his premortal exile from heaven.
118 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

courts, territorial marshals] are seeking to do today; and for this cause
Satan was cast out of heaven.”11 Beyond the novelty of linking federal
action with the cosmic origins of evil, one wonders if Taylor consciously
or unconsciously implied that, as with the pre-earthly Satan, God could
overthrow coercive politicians in this world. Subsequent leaders seem
to allude more to the devil’s pervasive influence in human history rather
than specifically to the pre-earth casting out of Satan or his this-worldly
human counterparts.
Church rhetoric decrying the government’s heavy hand and linking
it to the forces of evil (not yet Satan’s pre-earthly plan) had spiked before
and during the Utah War of 1857–58 and rose anew after the Civil War,
building through the 1870s. Once President Taylor publicly declared
such compulsion akin to Satan’s rejected scheme in the pre-existent
world, other Church leaders followed suit. Satan’s plan to destroy agency
became his plan to destroy it by compulsion. Apostle Moses Thatcher, for
one, spoke repeatedly of Lucifer’s “coercive, agency destroying plan” in
the mid-1880s.12
This line of thought subsequently took a crucial though subtle turn
amid a seismic shift in power relations between the United States and the
Latter-day Saint Zion. The new détente was enabled in part by Church
President Wilford Woodruff ’s 1890 manifesto directing his followers
against future plural marriages, an accommodation essential to Utah’s
entrance to statehood in 1896. Three years later, soon-to-be Apostle
James Talmage published The Articles of Faith, the first of his two books
that during the twentieth century would attain quasi-canonical status
among the tiny handful of nonscriptural works approved by Church
leadership for use by full-time missionaries. Talmage wrote that, before
creation, Lucifer’s “uncontrolled ambition prompted .  .  . [his] unjust
proposition to redeem the human family by compulsion.”13 In this new
era of attempted rapprochment with the United States in which Talmage

11. John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 23:239 (August 20, 1882). Compare with
John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 24:352–53 (December 9, 1883); 24:194 (June 18,
1883); and John Taylor, An Examination into and an Elucidation of the Great Principle
of the Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City:
Deseret News Publishing Co., 1882), 93.
12. Moses Thatcher, in Journal of Discourses, 26:305 (August 28, 1885), 327 (Octo-
ber 8, 1885).
13. James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the Principal
Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Deseret
News, 1899), 65.
 Satan and the Agency of Man   V119

wrote, his doctrinal work makes no mention of Satanic compulsion by

the federal government. The effect of this absence was to etch Satan’s
coercive pre-existent plan more deeply as theological tenet than as politi­
cal joust.
Reiterated in his even more influential Jesus the Christ (1915)—pub-
lished a decade after a second manifesto on plural marriage gave the
teeth of enforcement to the first one—Talmage’s explanation of Satan’s
agency-destroying mode gradually became axiomatic among widening
circles of Latter-day Saints. The idea was proclaimed in general confer-
ence for the remainder of the century and into contemporary times and
was reinforced in popular musical and theatrical productions.14 Simi-
larly, whenever the issue of Satan’s premortal plan arises in the Church’s

14. Talmage, Articles of Faith, 57; compare James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study
of the Messiah and His Mission according to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern
(Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916), 8–9. Similar instruction has occurred over the
general conference pulpit in every decade from Talmage to the present. See, for example,
Charles W. Nibley, in Eighty-Seventh Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [1917]),
144; Rulon S. Wells, in Ninety-Sixth Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [1926]),
77; Joseph F. Merrill, One Hundred Nineteenth Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, [1949]), 27; David O. McKay, One Hundred Thirty-First Semi-annual Conference
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, [1961]), 5–9; O. Leslie Stone, “Commandments to Live By,”
Ensign 9, no. 11 (November 1979): 72–73; James E. Faust, “The Great Imitator,” Ensign 17,
no. 11 (November 1987): 33–36; Richard G. Scott, “To Heal the Shattering Consequences
of Abuse,” Ensign 38, no. 5 (May 2008): 40–43; Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Perfect Love Casteth
Out Fear,” Ensign 47, no. 4 (April 2017): 104–7.
The idea of Satanic coercion in the preexistence has been taught by educators in
Brigham Young University’s school of Religious Education as well. See, for example,
Brent L. Top, The Life Before: How Our Premortal Existence Affects Our Mortal Life
(Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 119–20. See also the work of LDS philosophers such
as Chauncey C. Riddle, “Devils,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Lud-
low, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:379; and James McLachlan, “A Dialogue on
Process Theology,” in Mormonism in Dialogue with Contemporary Christian Theolo-
gies, ed. David Lamont Paulsen (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2007), 198. “The
popular 1977 production My Turn on Earth, written by Carol Lynn Pearson with music
by Lex de Azevedo, has two musical numbers that focus on the War in Heaven. .  .  .
Lucifer sings, ‘I have a plan. It will save every man. I will force them to live righteously.
They won’t have to choose. Not one we’ll lose. And give all the glory to me.’ ” Boyd
Petersen, “Mormon Literary Treatments of the War in Heaven,” Dawning of a Brighter
Day (blog), February 7, 2011, http://associationmormonletters.org/blog/2011/02/mor​
mon​-literary-treatments-of-the-war-in-heaven/.
120 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Primary, Sunday School, seminary, institute, Relief Society, and priest-

hood courses, the teaching manuals published in recent decades over-
whelmingly assert the coercion theory. A manual for Primary children,
ages 8–11, illustrates how this understanding might be instilled across
generations. The manual invites teachers to help children imagine con-
ditions under Lucifer’s plan by, for several minutes, doing exactly and
only as the teacher instructs. For instance, they might be told to remain
standing perfectly still, then told where to sit, apart from their friends.
Then to sit erect, feet flat to the floor, looking straight ahead, neither
moving or speaking, and to hold their positions. Upon their being
released from this regimen, the manual suggests students discuss how
they would feel if made to do exactly what they were told to do all day,
every day. Teachers are prompted to express gratitude for the blessing
of agency.15

Another View
Although coercion evolved more than a century ago into the domi-
nant gene in the Latter-day Saint theological chromosome concerning
Satan’s primordial threat to agency, an enduring recessive gene pre-
sented another theory bearing a history at least as long as the first. The
coercion theory tended to imply too much law and control, but Brigham
Young had concerns also about too little, which might lull errant minds
to conclude they could be “saved in their sins.”16 Orson Pratt’s supposi-
tions, noted earlier, had gestured to this concern back in 1853: If Satan’s
designs did not “destroy the agency of man,” it would have “redeemed
him in his sins and wickedness without any repentance or reformation
of life.”17 Even earlier, in 1845, W. W. Phelps asserted that Lucifer lost
his heavenly station “by offering to save men in their sins.”18 Alarm at
this prospect derived at least in part from the Book of Mormon, which
does not mention the War in Heaven but does portray the BC prophet
Amulek contesting the sophistry of one Zeezrom. Against him, Amulek
emphasizes that the Lord surely will come to redeem his people not in

15. “Jesus Christ Was Chosen to Be Our Savior,” Lesson 2 in Primary 6: Old Testa-
ment (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1996), 6–8. The
1999 Old Testament seminary manual is an exception to the pattern of privileging the
coercion theory; it notes that coercion is only one possibility among others for Satan’s
original plan to undo agency.
16. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 14:280–81 (July 3, 1870).
17. Pratt, Seer, 52.
18. W. W. Phelps, “The Answer,” Times and Seasons 5, no. 24 (January 1, 1845): 758.
 Satan and the Agency of Man   V121

their sins but from them (Alma 11:34; Hel. 5:10). Lurking antinomianism
was an ancient Christian concern, but expressed in just such phrases as
these (“in sins,” “from sins”), it thrived in the centuries prior to Joseph
Smith, who used similar language to render the Book of Mormon trans-
lation.19 Phelps, Young, Pratt, and others further demonized antinomi-
anism of any era: to argue that one could be saved “in their sins” was
akin to arguing Satan’s original preexistent cause.
The occasionally unpacked logic of this concern, when linked to
the War in Heaven, is that from the pre-earth era when Lucifer became
Satan, his stratagem has been to buffer actors from assuming responsi-
bility for their actions. This theme has periodically found expression in
general conference and other forums across the Church’s history and,
like the coercion theory, has been called on to target diverse perceived
maladies. In 1982, Elder Bruce R. McConkie offered a succinct summary
of this line of thought:
When the Eternal Father announced his plan of salvation—a plan that
called for a mortal probation for all his spirit children; a plan that required
a Redeemer to ransom men from the coming fall; a plan that could only
operate if mortal men had agency—when the Father announced his
plan, when he chose Christ as the Redeemer and rejected Lucifer, then
there was war in heaven. That war was a war of words; it was a conflict
of ideologies; it was a rebellion against God and his laws. Lucifer sought
to dethrone God, to sit himself on the divine throne, and to save all men
without reference to their works. He sought to deny men their agency so
they could not sin. He offered a mortal life of carnality and sensuality, of
evil and crime and murder, following which all men would be saved. His
offer was a philosophical impossibility. There must needs be an opposi-
tion in all things.20

Using analogous reasoning in his condemnation of intimate same-

sex relations, Elder Dallin H. Oaks raised the ante from traditional

19. The peril of antinomianism is as old as the biblical Paul, but the specific language
of being redeemed “in” or “from” one’s sins seems to be post-Reformation. For example,
in 1700, William Burkett wrote, “Though Christ be able to save to the uttermost, yet he
is not able to save them in their sins, but only from their sins.” Expository Notes, with
Practical Observations, upon the New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Wherein the Whole of the Sacred Text Is Recited, the Sense Explained, and the Instructive
Example of the Blessed Jesus and His Apostles to Our Imitation Recommended (London:
J. and G. Offor [orig. 1700]), notes, 10. Smith’s prophetic linguistic process is distinct
from our modern notions of plagiarism. For an explanation of the process, see note 6.
20. Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of
Man (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1982), 666–67.
122 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

judgments of error or sin to a charge of Satanic marketing: “Satan would

like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life.” “That is the
result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person
who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency
because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the
War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts
become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.”21
The insistence on personal responsibility for one’s actions is historically
ubiquitous in Latter-day Saint theology and practice, but the diluting or
obscuring of responsibility as an explanation for Satan’s pre-earth plan for
humanity remains a minority report among both leaders and followers.
However, when scholars or popular writers from within the tradition have
considered the matter at length, arguments against the illogic of the domi-
nant coercion theory and for the virtues and scriptural basis of the recessive
theory are not rare.22 Of these writers, the scholar best equipped to weigh
his arguments amid Christian, literary, and Latter-day Saint intellectual his-
tory is Terryl Givens, who notes that there are manifestly more s­ ubtle and
sophisticated ways to attempt to destroy agency than through force. Princi-
pal among these is “the simple tampering with the consequences of choice.

21. Dallin H. Oaks, “Free Agency and Freedom,” in The Book of Mormon: Second
Nephi, the Doctrinal Structure, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, Utah:
Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), 1–17, emphasis in original.
22. For example, Top, Life Before, 105, 113–15, especially 117 and 119ff; Gary C. Law-
rence, The War in in Heaven Continues (Santa Ana, Calif.: Parameter Publishing, 2014),
7, 8, 14, 117, and 192, among others; and Greg Wright, Satan’s War on Free Agency (Lindon,
Utah: Granite Publishing and Distribution, 2009), 15, 36, 47, 51, 52, 54, 62, and passim.
Joseph Fielding McConkie gives a particularly clear argument in this current: “In the
telling of the story of the Grand Council, it is sometimes said that Lucifer sought to
force all men to do good or to live right. Such a notion finds justification neither in the
scriptural text nor in logic. The only text that bears on the matter quotes Satan saying,
‘Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one
soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor’ (Moses 4:1).
“In that expression we find Lucifer promising to redeem, or save, all mankind, but
there is no mention of any need to have them live in any particular way. Indeed, if
people are forced to do something, the very fact that they have been forced to do it robs
the action of any meaning. What meaning could there be in an expression of love given
under duress? What meaning is there in the reelection of a tyrant when he runs unop-
posed on a ballot that has no place for a negative vote and everyone of voting age are
forced to vote? What purpose would be served in making a covenant to live a particular
standard when there was no choice to do otherwise?” Joseph Fielding McConkie, Under-
standing the Power God Gives Us: What Agency Really Means (Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book, 2004), 54–55.
 Satan and the Agency of Man   V123

If every choice a person made resulted in totally unforeseen and unpre-

dictable consequences, one would be inhabiting a realm of chaos. Agency
would be meaningless and freedom effectively non­exis­tent if no reliable
principles existed by which to make choices that were attached to the
particular ends desired. . . . By this logic, an undeserved punishment or
an unqualified reward is an equal threat to the idea of moral agency.”23
For Givens, the lure behind this forfeiture of agency among the pre-earth
heavenly hosts would have been escape from the high perils of mortality, a
mortality that would require the discipline of suffering.

Other Options
Comprehending that both of the predominant theories accounting for
Satan’s assault on agency are reasoned and expanded from cryptic strands
of scripture, as well as historical (shown to emerge and evolve over time),
makes room for one to notice other possible explanations, historical or
imagined, that have gained less public traction. Awareness of these alter-
nate conceptions may in turn broaden how believing Latter-day Saints or
their observers choose to conceive and protect their agency.
Might the core of the Satanic challenge to agency, for instance, lie
in valuing security more than freedom, as with Dostoevsky’s famous
Grand Inquisitor? Or might the challenge be grounded in fear, igno-
rance, deceit, or manipulation more than in force (Moses 4:4)? Might
such deceit take the form not only of delusion about responsibility, but
of confusion over sheer facts—a profound problem reflected in the
modern world’s discounting of a free, independent, and competent
press, for example, and of professional expertise generally? “What better
way has history taught us to control the actions of men and women than
to limit the information available to them so that the need to choose
never enters their minds, or in the event that it does, [proceeds] so as to
obscure all but the desired option?”24
Might well-meaning people in either secular or religious contexts
be complicit in eroding agency when their efforts toward coordination
devolve into micromanagement and censorship? Or when a culture

23. Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cos-
mos, God, Humanity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 132–33, emphasis in
original.
24. Jerald R. Izatt, “Lucifer’s Legacy,” Dialogue: A  Journal of Mormon Thought 27,
no. 4 (Winter 1994): 104.
124 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

spawns gratuitous complexity and an ongoing multiplication of rules

and laws rather than, as Joseph Smith preferred, a people who govern
themselves after embracing correct principles?25
Might the Satanic reach to destroy agency have included a design
to preempt full evolutionary development of life on earth—thereby
purchasing freedom from higher-order suffering, deliberate evil, and
existential angst at the expense of constricting to prehuman levels the
dimensions of intelligence, self-consciousness, reason, imagination,
agency, and growth?
Or might Lucifer have agitated for a world where the “veil” over
human consciousness and memory, to which Joseph Smith alluded, was
rendered indefinitely transparent?26 Perhaps with God and the divine
realm irrefutably before us, such a world would allow a constricted
“agency” analogous merely to that of a teenager out on the town with
friends and a date—with his or her parents in tow.27

Implications
This historicizing of the two dominant understandings of Satan’s attempt
to destroy agency, coupled with a sampling of alternatives to them, sug-
gests that a constellation of historical or potential strategies might be
proposed as candidates for the erosion of human agency. This mat-
ters because the ways in which believers conceive the mode of Satanic
opposition dictate the threats they envision for purposes of defense
and prevention. The popular Latter-day Saint deductive models of
Satan’s pre-existent plan often lack historical context, are scarcely aware
of being speculative, and may bring unintended consequences. This is
particularly true of the overwhelming focus on perceived coercion that
intensified in Western countries and among Church members during
the Second World War and the anticommunist rage that followed.28

25. John Taylor cited Joseph Smith to this effect. See Taylor, “The Organization of
the Church,” Millennial Star, November 15, 1851, 339.
26. For example, see Doctrine and Covenants 101:23–24; Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q.
Cannon, eds., The Teachings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 644.
27. First Presidency member George Q. Cannon put the problem more loftily in
1873: “If, when [God] sends forth his Prophets, he were to manifest his power, so that
all the earth would be compelled to receive their words, there would be no room then
for men to exercise their agency.” George Q. Cannon, in Journal of Discourses, 15:369
(March 23, 1873).
28. Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder Ezra Taft Benson
was the most influential voice preoccupied with the very real threat of Communism
 Satan and the Agency of Man   V125

In the twenty-first century, this legacy has evolved, prompting some

citizen-Saints, especially in the American West, to equate communism
with evil, to equate evil communism with socialism, and to construe any
governmental initiative for the public good as socialism—therefore as
coercive (Satanic). Many American Church members selectively retain
this mindset even as they cash their social security checks or send their
children to public schools. Resistance to some forms of compulsion
may be reasonable, necessary, and even noble in certain circumstances.
But exaggerating and demonizing one sort of threat (as did McCarthy-
ism and the John Birch Society, to choose examples at a safe historical
remove) risks transmogrifying right into wrong, while ignoring more
immediate and plausible threats. As the embodiment of evil, a Satan
imagined as obvious and hell-bent solely on tyranny presents a naïve
and dangerous image. It is wise to understand one’s enemies.

Philip L. Barlow is a scholar at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at
Brigham Young University. He expresses gratitude to Messrs. Stephen Betts and Ryder
Seamons for their diligent and insightful research assistance in preparation for this essay.

during the middle decades of the twentieth century. Like others, he linked this preoccu-
pation with Satan’s original designs in the pre-existence. His university-wide devotional
address at Brigham Young University (September 16, 1986) typified his perspective: “The
central issue in that pre-mortal council was: Shall the children of God have untram-
meled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they
be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed him stood for the
former proposition—freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force.
The war that began in heaven over this issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the
battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been to restrict our
agency through the power of earthly governments.” Ezra Taft Benson, “The Constitu-
tion—a Heavenly Banner,” BYU Devotional, September 16, 1986, 1, https://speeches.byu​
.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/constitution-heavenly-banner/.
How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?

Terryl L. Givens

O ne way of making sense of Latter-day Saint heterodoxy—its loca-

tion outside the spectrum of mainstream, historic Christianity—is
to envision it as the culmination of early Christian trends that were sup-
pressed or reconfigured in the early centuries of the new faith. In other
words, one could see the Restoration as a road of Christian development
not taken. After all, holds the great historian Walter Bauer, heresy is
merely the orthodoxy that lost out.1 One scholar of early Christianity
observes that the condemnation of Origen, church father of the third
century, ensured the supremacy in the Christian tradition of a “theology
whose central concerns were human sinfulness, not human potentiality;
divine determination, not human freedom and responsibility.”2
Few theologians would do more to celebrate human possibilities
and inherent worth than Origen. In significant ways, he espoused core
principles that would fall by the wayside along the highway of Christian
development, only to be restored by Joseph Smith more than a thousand
years later. Born in the late second century, this scholar from Alexandria
authored the very first treatise of Christian theology—On First Prin-
ciples. Several of his teachings have a familiar ring for Latter-day Saints.
In contrast to the God of the creeds, having neither body, parts, nor

1. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ed. Robert A. Kraft
and Gerhard Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), xxiii.
2. Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an
Early Christian Debate (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 250. She con-
sidered the condemnation of Pelagius, a fourth-century writer, to be part of the same
paradigm shift.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)127

128 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

passions, Origen proclaimed, “The Father himself is not impassible. If

he is besought he shows pity and compassion; he feels . . . the passion of
love, . . . and for us men he endures the passions of mankind.”3 Ponder-
ing the origin of the human soul, Origen held that we all existed as spirit
beings in a premortal world. He erred, from a Latter-day Saint per-
spective, in assuming that premortal error was the cause of our expul-
sion from heaven, but he correctly ascertained our habitation in those
celestial spheres long before birth. Seeing a destiny of endless progress
in store, he referred to the “souls of men [who] in consequence of their
progress, we see taken up into the order of angels.”4 He also taught a
doctrine of apokatastasis, or full restoration. By this he meant that God
would find a way to redeem and exalt the entire human family, bring-
ing them back into the presence of God. He saw mortality as the crucial
second stage in an ongoing saga of eternal progression.
The saints as they depart from this life will remain in some place situ-
ated on this earth which the divine scripture calls “paradise.” This will
be a place of instruction, and so to speak, a lecture room or school
of souls, in which they may be taught . . . and may also receive some
indications of what is to follow in the future, .  .  . which are revealed
more clearly and brightly to the saints in their proper times and places.
If anyone is “pure in heart,” and of unpolluted mind, . . . he will make
swifter progress and quickly ascend . . . until he reaches the kingdom of
the heavens. . . . And thus he will proceed in order through each stage,
following “him who has entered into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God”
and who has said, “I will that, where I am, they also may be with me.”5

Gregory of Nyssa taught the same doctrine: “[God’s] end is one, and
one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been
perfected from the first man to the last . . . to offer to every one of us
participation in the blessings which are in Him.”6
Indeed, Morwenna Ludlow has written that “in the early Christian
Church there were two important streams of eschatological thought:
a  universalist stream, which asserted that all people would be saved,

3. Origen, “Hom. in Ezechielem vi.6,” in The Early Christian Fathers: A  Selection

from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, ed. and trans.
Henry Bettenson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), 186–87.
4. Origen on First Principles, Being Koetschau’s Text of the De Principiis, trans. G. W.
Butterworth (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 72.
5. Origen on First Principles, 72, 152.
6. Morwenna Ludlow, Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of
Nyssa and Karl Rahner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 90.
 How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?   V129

and a dualistic stream, which stressed the two parallel fates of eternal
heaven and eternal hell.”7 The first tradition was represented by, besides
Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory’s sister Macrina, Maximus the
Confessor, and others.
By the advent of the Church of Jesus Christ in the nineteenth cen-
tury, a plan of salvation that encompassed the entirety of humanity
was barely a dim memory of the Christian past—except for a few small
circles of a burgeoning movement called Universalism. Meanwhile, as
Joseph Smith labored at his retranslation of the New Testament, he
paused to ponder John’s words about two resurrections only, one to life
and one to death. “It appeared self-evident from what truths were left,”
he recorded, “that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds
done in the body, the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal
home, must include more kingdoms than one. Accordingly, . . . while
translating St. John’s Gospel, myself and Elder Rigdon saw the follow-
ing vision.”8
The resulting section  76 turned Christian models upside down by
proposing a three-tiered heaven that accommodated virtually every
inhabitant of the planet, past and present. Two reactions registered
among Latter-day Saints. Some responded Jonah-like, resentful that
they would not enjoy the prestige of a salvation reserved for a few elect.
As Brigham Young’s shocked brother characterized the vision, “Why
the Lord was going to save everybody.”9 Some rebelled to the point that
Parley Pratt disfellowshipped a protesting member.10 Others, however,
rejoiced in a heaven far more commodious than contemporary versions.
The three-tiered heaven functioned effectively like the old system,
with only the uppermost kingdom constituting genuine salvation.
Rather like the Catholic soteriology, the restored gospel now had a
hell (outer darkness), a middle realm of the almost-saved (the teles-
tial and terrestrial kingdoms), and exaltation with God (the celestial
kingdom). Latter-day Saints have come to conceive of salvation in two
distinct ways: following a final judgment (though the term “final judg-
ment” nowhere appears in scripture), resurrected souls are assigned to
one of three kingdoms, where they will dwell eternally with no further

7. Ludlow, Universal Salvation, 1.

8. Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, introduction.
9. Joseph Young, “Discourse,” Deseret News, March 18, 1857, 11.
10. Both Orson Pratt and Warren Foote noted the episode in their journals. See Ter-
ryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow, Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 67.
130 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

change in their inheritance. Or following a postmortal judgment, they

will inherit a kingdom of glory; those in the telestial and terrestrial will
have the opportunity of further progression both within and between
the kingdoms.
It may simplify matters to state at the outset the official Church
position: progression through the kingdoms is not a matter of settled
doctrine.
As the First Presidency told an inquiring member in the 1950s:
Dear Brother,
The brethren direct me to say that the Church has never announced
a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held that
it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory
to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the
brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has
never announced a definite doctrine on this point.
Sincerely your brother,
Joseph L. Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency.11

To the present, that statement has never been superseded by any

other official declaration. Throughout Church history, some leaders
have emphatically opined in favor of continuing progression, and
some have opined emphatically against. Others have made comments
that are open to interpretation on the theme. In what follows, I include
a sampling of such views, along with my thoughts on what ratio-
nales may be relevant if not always explicitly addressed. Joseph Smith
learned, as recorded in section 76, that the terrestrial world comprised
those “who died without law; . . . who received not the testimony of
Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it” (D&C 76:72, 74). His
brother Alvin, who died in Joseph’s youth, would have been in that cat-
egory—or so Joseph likely assumed. Hence his happy shock when, in
1836, through spiritual eyes he saw his brother in the celestial kingdom:
“And [I] marveled how it was that [Alvin] had obtained an inheritance
in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord
had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been

11. Letter from the Office of The First Presidency, March 5, 1952, and again on
December 17, 1965, cited in George T. Boyd, “A Mormon Concept of Man,” Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 1 (Spring 1968): 72 n. 4. A typescript is in the BYU
library: Degrees of glory, 1952 March 5, MSS 3082, box 8, folder 19, L. Tom Perry Special
Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
 How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?   V131

baptized for the remission of sins” (D&C 137:6, emphasis added). The
reasonable explanation for Joseph’s surprise is that he expected Alvin
would indeed inherit a terrestrial kingdom as described in section 76.
Verse 8 of the new revelation offered an explanation. An exception to
the assignment that had been decreed in section 76 is apparently made
for the unbaptized “who would have received [the gospel] with all their
hearts.” It is therefore possible that the celestial kingdom may only be
reached by those of the unbaptized who comply with the necessary
vicarious ordinances and principles while in the spirit world.
However, it is also reasonable to infer that both section 76 and 137 are
accurate as written: that the unbaptized, even if “honorable men [and
women],” inherit the terrestrial kingdom but continue their progress
from the terrestrial kingdom to the celestial. Thus those who “would
have accepted” the gospel continue their progress indefinitely in the
future. We cannot tell which possibility Joseph inferred, but the temple
ritual he initiated, if read in the most literal way, recapitulates the eternal
journey of the soul through the degrees of glory. The individual thus
depicted advances from premortal life through mortality and into the
beyond, passing through the lower two kingdoms and culminating with
entry into a representation of the celestial kingdom itself. Excepting
only those few who will refuse Christ’s mercy till the end, Joseph later
taught, man “cannot be damned through all eternity, their [sic] is a pos-
sibility for his escape in a little time.”12
The likelihood of interpreting Joseph’s views as encompassing a post–
spirit world progression is enhanced by the fact that his two closest
associates, his brother Hyrum and Brigham Young, both interpreted
his teachings in just this way. Hyrum believed that salvific states in the
hereafter were not static: He taught that “those of the Terrestrial Glory
either advance to the Celestial or recede to the Telestial.”13 Brigham
Young was also in line with such a conception. He was teaching in
1855 that those who fail to secure exaltation by the conclusion of their
earthly probation “would eventually have the privilege of proveing [sic]

12. “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” [138], Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed August 18, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/
discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/6; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyn-
don W. Cook, comps. and eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts
of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 346.
13. Franklin D. Richards, “Words of the Prophets,” in the Church History Library.
This is a small thirty-page handwritten booklet produced by Richards from 1841 to 1844.
In it he recorded notes from a number of sermons given by Joseph Smith and others.
132 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

themselves worthy & advancing to a Celestial kingdom but it would be

a slow progress.”14
The Church of Jesus Christ’s eminent theologian and Seventy B. H.
Roberts acknowledged that scripture was vague but argued that the
ministry alluded to in each kingdom seemed meaningless “unless it be
for the purpose of advancing our Father’s children along the lines of
eternal progression.”15 However, whether “after education and advance-
ment within those spheres” all could “at last emerge from them and
make their way to the higher degrees of glory”16 was not revealed. The
Improvement Era, published under the direction of Church President
Joseph F. Smith, took a moderate position, holding that “the answer to
this question may not be absolutely clear.” In some cases at least, the
Era proposed, though not as a general rule, “passing from one [king-
dom] to the other . . . may be possible for especially gifted and faithful
characters.”17
James Talmage, virtually the only Apostle to produce a theologi-
cal treatise (two, actually) under official imprimatur, wrote in his first
edition of The Articles of Faith that the answer was implicit in the prin-
ciple of eternal progression itself: “Advancement from grade to grade
within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided
for. . . . Eternity is progressive.”18 He later elaborated that no man will
be detained in the lower regions “longer than is necessary to bring him
to a fitness for something better. When he reaches that stage the prison
doors will open and there will be rejoicing among the hosts who wel-
come him into a better state.”19
In subsequent editions of The Articles of Faith, the key words “from
kingdom to kingdom” were removed. According to the translator of his
work into German, Talmage clarified that in his earlier editions he had

14. Diary of Wilford Woodruff, August 5, 1856, in Waiting for World’s End: The Dia-
ries of Wilford Woodruff, ed. Susan Staker (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 167.
15. B. H. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History (Salt Lake City: George Q. Can-
non and Sons, 1895), 419.
16. Roberts, Ecclesiastical History, 419.
17. “About Passing from One Glory to Another,” in “Priesthood Quorums’ Table,”
Improvement Era 14, no. 1 (November 1910): 87.
18. James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the Principal Doc-
trines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News,
1899), 421.
19. James E. Talmage, in One Hundredth Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1930), 97.
 How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?   V133

declared for progression through the kingdoms at the explicit request of

the committee of Apostles reviewing his work. So at that time, an apos-
tolic majority (or a majority of the committee) believed that progression
through the kingdoms was consistent with Church doctrine and did not
approve of denying that possibility in a Church publication. Talmage
reportedly claimed that he had personally never favored the principle
and indicated as much in his revised twelfth edition.20
In the latter half of the twentieth century, other leaders explicitly
stated the view of kingdom-to-kingdom progression. President J. Reuben
Clark stated: “It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he
can; and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other
side in the same status, so to speak, as those who live righteously; never­
theless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the
eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which
they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed.”21
Some have found assurance in Joseph Smith’s comments about the
power of sealing to bind children unconditionally to their parents. (It is
perhaps arguable that such promises extend only to those who received
the fulness of the priesthood, his audience at the time). The significance
of those temple sealings was interpreted by Elder Orson F. Whitney and
has been reaffirmed with increasing frequency in recent years: “Joseph
Smith declared . . . that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the
divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth,
would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though
some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them,
and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence
reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in
this life or the life to come, they will return.”22 The extent of that return

20. LDS scholar Ben Spackman uncovered this fact in a 1949 letter authored by Max
Zimmer. He posted the letter on August 17, 2021, on his blog at http://benspackman​
.com/2021/08/james-e-talmage-the-articles-of-faith-and-progression-between-kingdoms/.
The letter is in UA 618, box 2, folder 5, Sidney B. Sperry Collection, Perry Special Collections.
21. J. Reuben Clark Jr., “Pres. Clark Delivers Easter Address in Ensign Stake,” Deseret
News, April 23, 1960, 3.
22. Orson F. Whitney, in Ninety-Ninth Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1929), 110. The quotation has been cited frequently in general conference
addresses. See Boyd K. Packer, “Our Moral Environment,” Ensign 22, no. 5 (May 1992):
68; Robert D. Hales, “Strengthening Families: Our Sacred Duty,” Ensign 29, no. 5 (May
1999): 34; James E. Faust, “Dear Are the Sheep That Have Wandered,” Ensign 33, no. 5
(May 2003): 62; Robert D. Hales, “With All the Feeling of a Tender Parent: A Message of
134 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

is, however, not clearly indicated, nor are the implications for potential
progression between kingdoms versus while in the spirit world.
Recently, leaders have reminded us that even sealing power cannot
contravene individual agency; President James E. Faust believed the two
principles—unlimited progression and personal accountability—could
be reconciled: “I  recognize that now is the time ‘to prepare to meet
God,’ ” he said, affirming the words of Alma, but then asked, “If the
repentance of the wayward children does not happen in this life, is it
still possible for the cords of the sealing to be strong enough for them
yet to work out their repentance? .  .  . Mercy will not rob justice, and
the sealing power of faithful parents will only claim wayward children
upon the condition of their repentance and Christ’s Atonement.” And
he concluded, “There are very few whose rebellion and evil deeds are
so great that they have ‘sinned away the power to repent.’ . . . Perhaps in
this life we are not given to fully understand how enduring the sealing
cords of righteous parents are to their children. It may very well be that
there are more helpful sources at work than we know. I believe there is a
strong familial pull as the influence of beloved ancestors continues with
us from the other side of the veil.”23
Opponents of progression have invoked difficult passages from
Alma: “Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis [like Kori-
hor], that I will repent” (Alma 34:34). This is because, as Amulek taught,
we will emerge on the other side of the veil with the very same disposi-
tion with which we left this one, and time is the necessary requirement
for change (Alma 34:34). Elder Charles W. Penrose felt that the book
of Alma’s focus on this-life-only repentance failed to accommodate
the diversity of life experiences and opportunities. He preached in a
general conference address that “there are hundreds of thousands who
have heard the Gospel in the flesh and through fear or folly have not
embraced it, having been afraid to come forward and join themselves
with this unpopular people, when they pass away from this stage of
being into the spirit world [they] will be prepared to receive it when it
is being preached among the spirits that are there.”24 Hence, he agrees

Hope to Families,” Ensign 34, no. 5 (May 2004): 91; and Richard H. Winkel, “The Temple
Is about Families,” Ensign 36, no. 11 (November 2006): 10.
23. Faust, “Dear Are the Sheep,” 62.
24. Charles W. Penrose, in Seventy-Sixth Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1906), 86.
 How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?   V135

with Elder Talmage that repentance—the changing of the heart—will

bring us to “a fitness for something better.” If the Book of Mormon also
teaches that “wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10) and that we
should “consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the
commandments” (Mosiah 2:41), then there is no doubt that “this life is
the time for men to prepare” (Alma 34:32).
Certainly, “repentance will be possible . . . even after death,” as Elder
James E. Talmage insisted (see D&C 138:57–59). To some, he continued,
“it may appear that to teach the possibility of repentance beyond the
grave may tend to weaken belief in the absolute necessity of repentance
and reformation in this life.” There is “no reason for such objection,”
he explains, when we consider that willful neglect here and now will
render the process that much more lengthy and difficult in the future.25
Whether such repentance can extend beyond the spirit world is not
resolved by such caveats, but such readings mitigate the finality of
Amulek’s timeframe.
The length and difficulty to which Elders Penrose and Talmage
allude are crucial elements in understanding the logic of progression
through the kingdoms. Any postmortal progress at all—within or
beyond the spirit world—would in no way suggest shortcuts, cheap
grace, or exemption from all salvational requirements. Progress would
in any case require conformity to all the principles and ordinances of
the gospel. This is why, as declared in Doctrine and Covenants 131 and
132:16–17, without accepting the law of celestial marriage, one does nec-
essarily “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, . . . to all eter-
nity.” Those choosing to persist in a state of wickedness undoubtedly
will find it their “final state” (Alma 34:32, 35).
Those who believe in eternal progression for all must deal with one
particularly challenging scriptural text in addition to those cited above:
“Where God and Christ are they cannot come, worlds without end,”
describes those who inherit the telestial kingdom (D&C 76:112). In his
reworking of Genesis, Joseph Smith learned that Eternal is one of God’s
names or titles: “Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man
of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name” (Moses
7:35). The Lord reiterated this point to Joseph in section  19: “eternal”
punishment is not endless punishment. “It is not written that there shall

25. James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord: A Study of Holy Sanctuaries Ancient
and Modern (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1968), 57, 59–60.
136 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is

written eternal damnation . . . that it might work upon the hearts of the
children of men” (D&C 19:6–7, italics in original). “Worlds without end”
is an expression virtually identical to “eternal” in both usage and effect;
why the Lord’s explanation of employing the first would not apply to his
using the second is a fair question to ask.
So Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, the apostolic com-
mittee supervising the Articles of Faith, and J. Reuben Clark believed that
God’s generosity would not preclude progression from a lower kingdom
to a higher. Their position may be implicit though not expressed in the
words of Robert D. Hales, who urged parents to “never, never shut the door
of your heart to any of your children.”26 Like the Savior’s admonition to
forgive “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22), Elder Hales’ directive poses the
question: Why would God impose limits to his own forgiveness when in
our quest for godliness we are told we should not?
On the other side of the question, we find a series of pronounce-
ments that clearly reject any possibility of progression between king-
doms. Those voices have become more prominent in our own day. One
early voice is Elder Melvin J. Ballard, who posed the question of pro-
gression through the kingdoms in 1922. In reply, he took Doctrine and
Covenants 76:112 in its plainest meaning as regards telestial kingdom
inhabitants: “Where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds
without end.” He then commented that “no provision has been made
for promotion from one glory to another.”27 President George Albert
Smith agreed. Quoting the same scripture, he doubted that heirs of
lower kingdoms “will continue to progress until we will find ourselves
in the celestial kingdom.”28
In 1980, Elder Bruce R. McConkie denounced the idea as one of
“seven deadly heresies.” In addition to citing Doctrine and Covenants
76:112, he added a rationale to resist such teachings: “This belief lulls
men into a state of carnal security. It causes them to say, ‘God is so mer-
ciful; surely he will save us all eventually; if we do not gain the celestial
kingdom now, eventually we will; so why worry?’ It lets people live a life

26. Robert D. Hales, in North America Northeast Area Broadcast, April 26, 2015.
27. Melvin J. Ballard, “The Three Degrees of Glory,” in Melvin J. Ballard: Crusader for
Righteousness, ed. Melvin R. Ballard (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 224.
28. George Albert Smith, in One Hundred Sixteenth Semi-annual Conference of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 1945), 172.
 How Limited Is Postmortal Progression?   V137

of sin here and now with the hope that they will be saved eventually.”29
Elder McConkie was following the lead of his father-in-law, President
Joseph Fielding Smith, who derived the same conclusion from the same
scripture: “The terrestrial and the telestial are limited in their powers of
advancement, worlds without end.”30 President Spencer W. Kimball was
of the same opinion: “After a person has been assigned to his place in
the kingdom, either in the telestial, the terrestrial, or the celestial, or to
his exaltation, he will never advance from his assigned glory to another
glory. That is eternal!”31 Elder Russell M. Nelson, in 1985, added his
weight to this view. After resurrection, he taught in a general conference,
quoting President Kimball, “the soul . . . will come before the great judge
to receive its final assignment.”32
Although the term “final judgment” does not occur in scripture,
Amulek did stipulate a “night of darkness wherein there can be no labor
performed” (Alma 34:33). Another scripture may also be interpreted
as assuming, if not teaching, that no progression through kingdoms is
possible. Doctrine and Covenants 88, elaborating on Paul’s language
about resurrection (1 Cor. 15), indicates that “your glory shall be that
glory by which your bodies are quickened” (D&C 88:28). One reason-
able inference from these lines is that our resurrected, immortalized
bodies are fixed in a condition that corresponds to a fixed kingdom of
glory (D&C 88:29).
Elder Boyd K. Packer and Elder Jeffrey R. Holland have both spoken
to the immense reach of the Atonement, without stipulating whether
that reach transcends resurrection and judgment. Elder Packer tes-
tified that “no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime [is]
exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness.”33 Elder Holland
affirmed that “however late you think you are, however many chances
you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have
made or talents you think you don’t have, or however far from home

29. Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Deadly Heresies,” Brigham Young University
devotional, June 1, 1980, accessed May 8, 2021, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r​
-mcconkie_seven-deadly-heresies/.
30. “The Degrees of Glory,” in Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph
Fielding Smith, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1955), 2:32.
31. Edward L. Kimball, ed., The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1982), 50.
32. Russell M. Nelson, “Self-Mastery,” Ensign 15, no. 11 (November 1985): 32, empha-
sis added, quoting Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 46.
33. Boyd K. Packer, “The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness,” Ensign 25, no. 11 (Novem-
ber 1995): 20.
138 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

and family and God you feel you have traveled, I testify that you have
not traveled beyond the reach of divine love. It is not possible for you to
sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines.”34
It is, of course, entirely possible that both are referring to a mercy
that pertains to this mortal probation only—or is manifest in assign-
ment to any of the kingdoms of glory. It is also likely, however, that such
expressions of hopefulness and mercy, balanced against the realities of
accountability and life as a “state of probation” (2 Ne. 2:21), factor into
the decision of the leadership as a body to leave indeterminate the pos-
sibilities of those who at their death fall short of a celestial glory. It is
also the case, as the historical record reveals, that a difference of opinion
on the subject has characterized the minds of apostles and prophets
throughout this dispensation.
What we can know is that the Church leadership decided not just
once, as cited at the beginning of this essay, but again in 1965 and yet
again in 1968 to declare that the question is officially open.35 Faithful
Latter-day Saints can believe in the possibility of progression for all or
believe the door is shut once assignment to a kingdom is made. We can-
not, however, proclaim with any validity that one or the other belief is
official Church teaching.

Terryl L. Givens did graduate work in intellectual history at Cornell and in comparative
literature at UNC Chapel Hill, where he received his PhD. He is Professor Emeritus
of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond and the Neal A. Maxwell
Senior Research Fellow at Brigham Young University. His several books include a his-
tory of Latter-day Saint theology, Wrestling the Angel and Feeding the Flock; biographies
of Parley Pratt (with Matthew Grow) and Eugene England; and several studies of LDS
scripture, culture, and history. With his wife, Fiona, he is the co-author of The God Who
Weeps, The Christ Who Heals, The Crucible of Doubt, and, most recently, All Things New:
Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between.

34. Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Laborers in the Vineyard,” Ensign 42, no. 5 (May 2012): 33.
35. Gary Bergera refers to the 1952 First Presidency statement cited in footnote 11 as
being reaffirmed in 1965. Gary James Bergera, “Grey Matters,” Dialogue 15, no. 1 (Spring
1982): 181–82. Yet a third statement was sent to an institute instructor in 1968. The
Church History Library did not grant access to the documents in question to the present
author. Photocopies of the latter two letters are in the author’s possession.
Each Atom an Agent?

Steven L. Peck

And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learn-
ing; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens
and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and
things to be acted upon. (2 Ne. 2:14)

What Is an Agent?
An agent, broadly conceived, references something causally efficacious.
More narrowly, the word agent is usually deployed in at least three senses.
The first is as brute causality. For example, to say that water is an agent
of erosion on vegetatively barren hillsides is to claim that water directly
causes the removal of the soil in particular drainage systems. The second
sense, used predominately in biology, recognizes an agent as an indi-
vidual autonomous system that constrains the flow of energy and mat-
ter such that its actions are performed for particular functions or goals.
For instance, a simple bacterium is drawn to move upward toward light
where food is more abundant. Typically, this is a much more compli-
cated agent, in which information is used to sense environmental condi-
tions and to respond to those conditions through metabolic functions,
such as when energy is used for things like movement, reproduction,
or energy capture.1 In these first two instances, we note that since the

1. See, for example, Alvaro Moreno and Matteo Mossio, Biological Autonomy:
A Philosophical and Theoretical Enquiry (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2015).

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)139

140 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

time of Isaac Newton, these simple kinds of agents were thought to be

part of the clockwork universe—a perspective that conceived of every-
thing in the universe as nothing but deterministic machines with no
freewheeling parts. The third sense of the word agent, the one most of
this paper engages, is that of intentional agents that have, at least in some
sense, volitional attributes based on information with which they make
choices, possibly free choices for some advanced animals (including most
vertebrates).2 These agents may be loosely described as having attributes
such as sentience, sensing, consciousness, qualia detection, the ability to
prehend,3 and other terms that suggest awareness of at least some aspects
of the universe. Examples include bees, cows, and humans, all of which
are suspected of harboring some kind of awareness. Even such simple
organisms as bacteria and earthworms may sense the world in certain
ways. Determining how far down the “chain of being” this awareness
exists may be an insoluble problem. Are individual atoms aware of any-
thing? What about electrons? Quarks? Photons? In a real sense, we can-
not even tell if our neighbor is conscious or whether a honeybee is aware
of its world in any way analogous to what we experience, so determining
which organisms share these experiential capabilities is tricky. And at
least since the early Greek pre-Socratic philosophers, some people have
speculated that these capacities might reach all the way down to the very
fundamental atoms of the universe—an idea often called panpsychism.

Panpsychism?
One concept related to agency is worth exploring further: What is the
nature of consciousness? Consciousness has been called the “Hard
Problem”4 because felt experience in the world seems detached from
the causality of matter in motion. As Owen Flanagan asks, How can we
explain “how mind is possible in a material world[?] How could the amaz-
ing private world of my consciousness emerge out of neuronal activity?”5

2. Helen Steward, A Metaphysics for Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
3. “Prehension” is a word used by Alfred N. Whitehead to describe the ability of
the individual components of matter or collections of such matter to sense God’s aims
and their place and relation to other components or collections of matter. See Franz G.
Riffert, Alfred North Whitehead on Learning and Education (Newcastle, U.K.: Cam-
bridge Scholars Press, 2005), 43.
4. David J. Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
5. Owen Flanagan, The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2009), xi.
 Each Atom an Agent?   V 141

Marilynne Robinson puts it nicely in her book Absence of Mind: “If the
brain at the level of complex and nuanced interaction with itself does
indeed become mind, then the reductionist approach insisted upon by
writers on the subject is not capable of yielding evidence of mind’s exis-
tence, let alone an account of its functioning.”6 There has been only a
little attention to the nature of consciousness itself in theological consid-
erations from thinkers within the Church;7 even so, the subject of con-
sciousness is relevant to panpsychism because it appears to be part of the
explanatory apparatus that panpsychism seeks to address—that is, How
does consciousness emerge in the world?
Another branch of thought we might explore is the relationship
between spirit and material body, with the idea that spirit matter is the
consciousness-bearing substance in the universe. University of Richmond
professor emeritus Terryl Givens points out that there are at least two
views on how spirit and intelligence are framed: (1)  before spirit-birth,
there is an eternal entity known as an “intelligence” that possesses identity,
agency, and individuality; and (2)  there is a primal spirit matter that is
eternal, from which the spirit body was organized. He points out that both
views have been held by Latter-day Saint leaders (for example, Elder B. H.
Roberts and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, respectively).8 Either view can be
marshaled to provide support for a panpsychic cosmology, so we do not
need to explore these speculations further except to note that these two
views exist and that neither has risen to the status of official doctrine.
I will follow David Skrbina and define panpsychism as coincident
with three main ideas: (1) objects have subjective experiences for them-
selves, (2) the experience is unified into one experience for each object,
and (3) every physical thing made of matter has the first two properties.9
Moreover, there are at least two ways that matter can be sentient or
be receptive to what might be called some sort of experience. Dualist
views suggest that matter is combined with some (perhaps nonmaterial)
aspect—for example, having a soul. Others include vitalistic views that
there is a pervading spirit or light or field that enlivens matter, as is found

6. Marilynne Robinson, Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the

Modern Myth of the Self (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2010), 120.
7. Steven L. Peck, “The Current Philosophy of Consciousness Landscape: Where
Does LDS Thought Fit?” in Evolving Faith: Wanderings of a Mormon Biologist (Provo,
Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship, 2015), 79–106.
8. Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel, vol. 1, The Foundations of Mormon Thought:
Cosmos, God, Humanity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 160–62.
9. David Skrbina, Panpsychism in the West (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005), 16.
142 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

in some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism and in animistic pagan reli-

gions. Still others hold monist views, in which there is ultimately one sub-
stance at some foundational level, and that thing is unitary; that is, at the
most basic level all matter shares the same basic substance. Panpsychism
would add that this foundational substance has some form of experience.
Latter-day Saint thought can be viewed as either dualist, cashing out on
our view that living things are composed of spirit and matter, or monist,
because spirit matter is a form of matter (D&C 131:7–8).

A Brief History of Panpsychism

Ancient thinkers had an organic sense that the world was alive and
that this gave a kind of animate aspect of indwelling powers that were
partaking in some ways of the powers of the gods. Before Socrates, early
philosophers had various views on which essential elements constituted
matter (fire, water, and so forth). Thales and Anaximander argued that
motion demanded a causative agent and must have a mind. There were
exceptions, such as those articulated by the physicalist pre-Socratic phi-
losophers Leucippus and Democritus, but by the time the great philoso-
phers Plato and Aristotle were teaching in the Lyceum, their complex
views that might be termed panpsychism can be controversially rec-
ognized. To tease these out fully would require much more detail, but
both Plato’s “world-soul” and Aristotle’s doctrine of the different kinds
of souls (his theory of hylomorphism) that inhabit the objects and living
things of the world can be read as relying on panpsychic articulations.10
As Carolyn Merchant has demonstrated, throughout much of antiquity
the world was held to be feminine, animate, and organic.11 For example, the
minerals of the earth, like gold and silver, were assumed to grow in veins
analogous to the way plants grow under the influence of the sun. The entire
world was alive. These views tend to a vital dualism. With the rise of the
Enlightenment, such views were replaced with a mechanistic ontology that
pervades much of current Western thought. This transition, however, did
not dispel panpsychism, as demonstrated by philosopher Gottfried Wil-
helm Leibniz’s monadology, the idea that the world was composed of blind
monads, perceptual atoms that had written in their inner image the whole
universe. Others who embraced a form of panpsychism include philoso-
phers Margaret Cavendish, Baruch Spinoza, and Immanuel Kant. By the

10. Skrbina, Panpsychism, 37–39, 52–58.

11. Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revo-
lution (New York: HarperCollins, 1990).
 Each Atom an Agent?   V 143

late nineteenth century, panpsychism was being discussed broadly in philo-

sophical and scientific circles with grounding from the German Romantics,
influencing American thinkers such as Charles Sanders Peirce and William
James, British process philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and
Bertrand Russell, and French thinkers such as Henri Bergson.
Parallel to these transitions, the Western esoteric movement’s views
on panpsychic themes seem to have been influenced by occult knowl-
edge such as that found in alchemy, Kabbalah, demonology, and magic.
However, these views tended to see the world dualistically, with matter
and spirit cleanly separated at its most basic level.12

Panpsychism in Latter-day Saint Thought

The clearest articulations, and perhaps the origin, of panpsychism in
Church thought comes through the writings of Orson Pratt and his brother,
Parley P. Pratt. Their influences appear to include a mix of eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century thinkers and ideas. As John L. Brooke points out,
“Building on [Joseph] Smith’s doctrine that ‘all spirit is matter’ and echo-
ing Andrew Michael Ramsay, mediated by Scottish Common Sense, Mes-
merism, and theories of electrical current, [Orson] Pratt argued that the
Holy Spirit was ‘a diffused fluid substance,’ simultaneously inhabiting every
particle of matter.”13 In addition, their reading of the book of Abraham
inclined them toward panpsychic thinking. The clearest dissection of this
concept is found in Terryl Given’s work Wrestling the Angel. Givens points
out that the Pratts’ reading of the statement in Abraham 4:18, that the Gods
“watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed,” indicated
that “those things” must have agential characteristics to have the capacity
to obey.14 Orson Pratt is explicit in The Seer that “intelligence” is a funda-
mental aspect of the universe’s constituents. After explicating the intel-
ligence of “man,” he explores the origin of conscious awareness: “Whence
originated these capacities? When we speak of capacities we mean the
original elementary capacities of the mind. . . . These . . . qualities, if ana-
lyzed, will be found in all instances to be the result of the combination of
simple, elementary, original capacities. The question is, whence originated

12. Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed (London:
Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013), 71.
13. John L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644–1844
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 275. Brooke is citing Orson Pratt, The
Seer 1:117 (August 1853).
14. Givens, Wrestling the Angel, 59.
144 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

these elementary qualities of the mind? We answer, they are eternal. The
capacities of all spiritual substance are eternal as the substance to which
they belong. There is no substance in the universe which feels and thinks
now, but what has eternally possessed that capacity.”15
Orson Pratt sees these fundamental units of consciousness as being
combined by God to form a spirit “infant” of which the individual parts
work together to grow eventually into what we are today: “Each indi-
vidual particle must consent, in the first place, to be organized with
other similar particles, and after the union has taken place, they must
learn, by experience, the necessity of being agreed in all their thoughts,
affections, desires, feelings, and acts, that the union may be preserved
from all contrary or contending forces, and that harmony may pervade
every department of the organized system.”16
Pratt goes further, coming into conflict with Brigham Young over
several matters of theology, stating not only that this is how God formed
his spirit children, but it is indeed how God likewise came into exis-
tence.17 Pratt had apparently formed his views years before his public
disagreement with Brigham Young. In his journal, Wilford Woodruff
summarized a conversation he had with Orson Pratt and Albert Car-
rington while walking in the initial 1847 pioneer company. Woodruff
recounts an explanation “given by Professor Pratt” that “was sum­
thing [sic] in the following language.” According to Woodruff, Pratt
believed that eternal particles of atoms, existing for all eternity, “might
have joined their interest together[,] exchanged ideas,” and eventually,
“joined by other particles . . . formed A [sic] . . . body . . . through a long
process.” Thus embodied, they gained power and influence over other
intelligences and became the race of Gods.18 Pratt continued to teach
this theory for many years.
Despite Young’s condemnation of Orson Pratt’s theology, Pratt’s ideas
spread among the Saints. Perhaps one of the most scientifically informed
expressions of this view was found in B.  H. Roberts’s work The Truth,

15. Orson Pratt, “The Pre-Existence of Man,” The Seer 1, no. 7 (July 1853): 102.
16. Pratt, “Pre-Existence of Man,” 103.
17. See Gary James Bergera, “The Orson Pratt–Brigham Young Controversies: Con-
flict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13, no. 2
(1980): 7–49.
18. Wilford Woodruff, journal, 3:216–17 (June 26, 1847), Wilford Woodruff Journals
and Papers, 1828–1898, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, https://catalog.church​of​
jesuschrist.org/assets/a5c827b5-938d-4a08-b80e-71570704e323/0/73.
 Each Atom an Agent?   V 145

the Way, the Life.19 Unpublished in his lifetime,20 the book opens with a
grand sweep through the best science of his day in an attempt to frame
a complete expression of the gospel’s power and scope. After explor-
ing aspects of truth, knowledge, and contemporaneous conceptions of
space and time (including references to Einstein), he argues that modern
physics supports the notion of agential atoms. “All the new knowledge,
however, respecting the atom and all that comes of it including resolving
it into electrons, leaves us with the fact that it has within it something
which ‘acts,’ and something which is ‘acted upon’; a  seemingly neces-
sary positive and negative substance in action and reaction out of which
things proceed, an atom; an aggregation of atoms, a world; or a universe
of worlds. . . . May they not be the ultimate factors, spirit and matter, act-
ing and re-acting upon each other by which the universe is up-builded
and sustained?”21
Spirit matter, he argues, has the potential to act. He then argues, in
ways reminiscent of Orson Pratt, that particles come together to create
something greater than their individual instantiations. Roberts argues
such particle-intelligences are bound together in unity of purpose man-
ifest as the oneness of the universe. He does not explicitly state that
atoms are conscious, but his hints make it clear that he sees them as
agential and the basis, if not the essence, of intelligent behavior.
Since Roberts’s time, one of the more interesting modern explora-
tions of sentient elements comes from Process Theology articulated by
early twentieth-century philosopher and mathematician Alfred North
Whitehead. While Whitehead’s ideas are too complex to explore in any
detail here, there has been significant interest in using him and his follow-
ers to explore aspects of Church theology.22 Whitehead saw the universe

19. B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology,
2nd ed., ed. John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1996), 85–90, for instance.
20. Roberts’s The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology was
considered as a manual for the Melchizedek Priesthood course of instruction and then
the Gospel Doctrine manual for the Sunday School. However, conflicts between Roberts
and Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith’s interpretation of scripture about contemporaneous
scientific findings kept it from being published in his lifetime. James B. Allen, “The Story
of The Truth, the Way, the Life,” in Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life, 680–720.
21. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life, 86.
22. Jacob T. Baker, “The Shadow of the Cathedral: On a Systematic Exposition of
Mormon Theology,” Element 4, no. 1 (2008); David Grandy, “Mormonism and Process
Cosmology: A General Introduction,” Element 6, no. 1 (2015); James McLachlan, “Frag-
ments for a Process Theology of Mormonism,” Element 1, no.  2 (2005); Max Nolan,
“Materialism and the Mormon Faith,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22, no. 4
146 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

as fundamentally made up of experiential units called “actual occasions,”

which God persuades to join him in bringing about particular aims.
These agents are free, individual, able to join in relational interactions,
and endowed with an innate capacity to make choices. Miles specifically
uses Whitehead’s thought to show how a process theology, joined with the
thinking of Pratt and Roberts, can be used to derive a coherent Restora-
tion theology.23
Panpsychism has also made an appearance in less official elabora-
tions of Church doctrine. Cleon Skousen, a popular (and controversial)
expounder on gospel topics, developed a theory of atonement based on
panpsychic elements. Strangely reversing the primacy of God and mat-
ter, he argued that the elements of the universe act freely to follow God
because he is worship-worthy. Christ’s suffering in the Atonement was
intended to appease these agents, who otherwise would cease to obey
God if he allowed violators of law to return to his presence.24
Panpsychic views have never been an official part of the received view
of conventional Church doctrine. For example, I could find not a single
reference to it in any general conference talk or any reference in Church
educational material. Currently, it appears that the notion of atoms as
agents is only a speculative venture that few members hold as part of
their religious convictions. However, there are some intriguing possibili-
ties that may be worth reconnoitering.

Steven L. Peck is an associate professor in the Biology Department of Brigham Young

University and has published over fifty scientific articles in evolutionary ecology, ecolog-
ical mathematics, and the philosophy of biology. He is currently a fellow of the Maxwell
Institute for Religious Scholarship, working on the interface between faith and science.
As a writer, he was awarded the 2021 Smith-Pettit Foundation Award for Outstanding
Contribution to Mormon Letters for his award-winning novels, short stories, and non-
fiction books on faith and science.

(1989): 62–75; Garland E. Tickemyer, “Joseph Smith and Process Theology,” Dialogue 17,
no.  3 (1984): 75–85; Dan Wotherspoon, “Process Theology and Mormonism: Connec-
tions and Challenges,” Element 6, no. 1 (2015).
23. Andrew Miles, “Toward a Mormon Metaphysics: Scripture, Process Theology,
and the Mechanics of Faith,” Element 4, no. 1 (2008).
24. W. C. Skousen, Gospel Trilogy (Salt Lake City: Ensign Publishing, 2012), 5–16.
The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Ancient Material Restored or Inspired Commentary?
Canonical or Optional? Finished or Unfinished?

Jared W. Ludlow

J oseph Smith began an ambitious program to revise the biblical text

in June 1830, not long after the organization of the Church of Christ
and the publication of the Book of Mormon. While the result came to
be known as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), it was not a literal
word-for-word translation of ancient biblical languages from a manu-
script but more of an inspired revision or paraphrase based on the
King James Version in English, carried out primarily between June 1830
and July 1833.1 Since Joseph Smith never specifically addressed how or
exactly why he made the particular changes he did, it is an open ques-
tion whether he felt he was restoring ancient material, making inspired
commentary, modernizing the language, a combination of things, or
something else.2 Another open question related to this project is its
status among Latter-day Saint scripture. Is the entire JST considered
canonical or not? Perhaps a further open question is whether the JST

1. Kathleen Flake described the process as more what Joseph saw than what he
read: “It appears that when he read he saw events, not words. What he saw, he verbal-
ized to a scribe.” From “Translating Time: The Nature and Function of Joseph Smith’s
Narrative Canon,” Journal of Religion 87, no. 4 (2007): 507. Flake also described the use
of “translation” as accurate since Joseph Smith remained bound to the text. “It can be
said that, notwithstanding its English source, the JST asks to be understood as a transla-
tion, because it does not arise out of the infinite variations available to fiction but, rather,
within the limits of an existing narrative of past events.” Flake, “Translating Time,” 508.
2. Philip L. Barlow categorizes Joseph Smith’s changes into six types. See Philip L.
Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 51–53.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)147

148 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

project was ever finished. This paper will address these issues by giving
an overview of statements and approaches toward the JST.
The JST differs from the King James Version in about 3,410 verses
(one-third in the Old Testament and two-thirds in the New Testament).
These differences include slight changes to a word, new phrases, dele-
tions, textual rearrangements, and entirely new chapters. A basic tenet
of Latter-day Saint faith, starting with Joseph Smith, is a qualified belief
in the Bible as most clearly stated in the eighth article of faith: “We
believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated cor-
rectly” (emphasis added). This statement shows both the importance of
the Bible as containing the word of God but also a disclaimer that its
transmission from source to reader needs to remain faithful to the orig-
inal. Perhaps this principle—and Joseph Smith’s belief that during the
ancient transmission process the original teachings of the Bible were
corrupted and important truths lost—is the impetus behind Joseph
Smith’s project and desire to present a version of the Bible that could
be fully accepted as the word of God. One internal explanation found
in the JST, now part of the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price,
alludes to the necessity of returning lost things to the text. The Lord
prophesies to Moses about what will happen to the text he is producing:
“And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught
and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold,
I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among
the children of men—among as many as shall believe” (Moses 1:41).

Restoring Original Text

A common early explanation for the JST is the restoration of lost, origi-
nal text. Building upon the teachings found in the Book of Mormon of
plain and precious things being removed from the Bible by the “great
and abominable church” (see 1 Ne. 13:26–29, 32, 34), many looked at
the JST as remedying this corruption. Robert Millet, emeritus dean of
religious education at BYU, is one proponent for the possibility of the
JST restoring ancient text (while also acknowledging that some changes
were commentary or harmonization).
I believe that as a divinely called translator and restorer, Joseph Smith
also (1) restored that which was once recorded but later removed inten-
tionally; or perhaps even (2) reconstituted that which occurred or was
said anciently but never recorded by the ancient arbiters. To doubt
either the Prophet’s intentions or abilities with regards to the Bible is
to open the door unnecessarily to other questions relative to the books
 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible   V149

in the canon of scripture, Joseph the translator of the Book of Mormon

and the recipient of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants was
the same man called and empowered as a translator of the Bible.3

However, skeptics of this perspective question why so much would

be taken away from ancient manuscripts when the usual scribal change
is the addition of new material. Furthermore, since the time of Joseph
Smith ancient manuscripts have been discovered, such as the Dead
Sea Scrolls, which show they are not that drastically different from
later transmitted manuscripts that became the basis for the traditional
received text (of course there is a significant chronological gap back-
ward from the Dead Sea Scrolls to an autograph copy, so we do not what
changes may have occurred then).
Robert Matthews, one of the first Latter-day Saint scholars to do
significant work with the JST, does not view every JST reading as a res-
toration of lost material but concurs with the restoration of at least some
ancient texts through the JST and other restoration scripture: “The plain
and precious missing parts have not yet been made known through
manuscripts and scholars, but are available only through the Book of
Mormon, the Joseph Smith Translation, and modern revelation through
the instrumentality of a prophet.”4
Kevin Barney studied the variants among ancient manuscripts and
compared them with the JST to see if there was any correlation among
them that could explain the restoration of ancient text.5 In the search for
possible candidates as sources of restoring ancient textual material, he
examined fifteen JST passages for which an ancient text offers a parallel
not reflected in the KJV. Barney concludes that the JST seems to har-
monize contradictions and rectify perceived doctrinal difficulties rather
than restore the original text, so in the sample he examined there are no
parallel ancient variants that we have for a majority of the JST readings.
For example, in the Lord’s Prayer, the JST follows the more doctrinally
palatable “let us not be led unto temptation,” rather than “lead us not

3. Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: A Historical Overview,”

in The Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, ed. Monte S.
Nyman and Robert L. Millet (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, 1985), 44.
4. Robert J. Matthews, “The Book of Mormon as a Co-Witness with the Bible and as
a Guide to Biblical Criticism,” in The Sixth Annual Church Educational System Religious
Educators’ Symposium on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 57.
5. Kevin L. Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,”
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 3 (1986): 85–102.
150 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

into temptation” (Luke 11:4), which can be read literally as God leading
us into temptation. Barney thus proposes “that this does not mean that
the JST cannot be regarded as an inspired ‘translation’ in the sense of a
paraphrase or interpretation of Joseph Smith’s exemplar, the King James
Version of the Bible. In fact, this may be the most promising approach to
understanding the JST from a believer’s perspective.”6

Inspired Commentary
Rather than specifically restoring original text, many view the JST as an
inspired commentary by Joseph Smith. This notion looks at examples
where there could be explanations, clarifications, and theological dis-
cussion about biblical passages without resorting to the claim that these
expansions were on original manuscripts.7 As Richard Lloyd Anderson
stated, “One may label this as ‘translation’ only in the broadest sense, for
his consistent amplifications imply that the Prophet felt that expansion
of a document was the best way to get at meaning. If unconventional
as history, the procedure may be a doctrinal gain if distinguished from
normal translation procedure, for paraphrase and restatement are prob-
ably the best way to communicate without ambiguity.”8 Jeffrey Bradshaw
and David Larsen propose, “We think it fruitless to rely on JST Genesis
as a means for uncovering a Moses Urtext. Even if certain revelatory
passages in the book of Moses were found to be direct translations of
ancient documents—as was, apparently, D&C 7—it is impossible to
establish whether or not they once existed as an actual part of some
sort of ‘original’ manuscript of Genesis. Mormons understand that the
primary intent of modern revelation is for divine guidance to latter-day
readers, not to provide precise matches to texts from other times.”9

6. Barney, “Joseph Smith Translation,” 100.

7. Even though the JST may have been an opportunity for Joseph Smith to give
prophetic commentary and explanation, it was not only in the JST that this happened.
During the process of preparing the JST, many separate, additional revelations were
received and later included within the Doctrine and Covenants. Thus, the JST was a
seedbed for further revelation, but not all these revelations were included as part of the
biblical revision per se.
8. Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Insights into the Olivet Prophecy:
Joseph Smith I and Matthew 24,” Pearl of Great Price Symposium: A Centennial Presenta-
tion (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1975), 50.
9. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, In God’s Image and Likeness 2: Enoch,
Noah, and the Tower of Babel (Salt Lake City: The Interpreter Foundation, 2014), 16.
 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible   V151

A recent claim is somewhat related: that some of the JST may be an

inspired commentary on a commentary. Thomas Wayment and Haley
Wilson-Lemmon examined contemporary biblical commentaries of
Joseph Smith’s day. They claim to have found two hundred to three hun-
dred examples of borrowing from Adam Clarke’s Holy Bible, Containing the
Old and New Testaments, a primary Methodist theological resource for two
centuries. They see this as reflecting an “academic interest” by Joseph Smith
to update the biblical text, using the “best books”10 available and relying on
the commentary “for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of
wording, and theological nuance. . . . Our preliminary impression is that
Smith was especially inclined to follow Clarke’s commentary in instances
where Clarke drew upon manuscript evidence or language expertise. . . .
This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s transla-
tion projects, particularly his Bible revision, and how he used a scholarly
source while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into
the resulting text.”11 Wayment elsewhere concludes that “there are no par-
allels to Clarke between Genesis 1 and Genesis 24. But when we start to
get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way
he changes the Bible.”12 These findings can also affect the issue of JST’s
canonical or nearly canonical status. “With some of the changes that Smith
introduced into the text of the Bible resulting from academic sources, albeit
modified and altered, the question arises as to whether the changes that
arose via Clarke would have the same claim to canonicity that the longer
revelatory insertions might have.”13

10. See Doctrine and Covenants 88:118 and 109:7.

11. Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The
Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in Produc-
ing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon
Christianity, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Haug-
lid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 263, 267, 283. For an opposing view
to the claim that Joseph Smith relied on Adam Clarke’s commentary for the JST, see
Kent P. Jackson, “Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke,” Interpreter: A Journal
of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40 (2020): 15–60.
12. Laura Harris Hales and Thomas Wayment, “Joseph Smith’s Use of Bible Com-
mentaries in His Translations—Thomas A. Wayment,” September 26, 2017, in Latter-day
Saint Perspectives, produced by Laura Harris Hales, podcast, MP3 audio, 27:12, https://
ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/.
13. Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking
Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” Journal of Undergraduate Research, Brigham Young
University, March 16, 2017, http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296.
152 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Was It Ever Finished?

Although the bulk of the work for the JST occurred in the early 1830s, that
was not the end of Joseph Smith working with the text. Since it was not
published at the time he first worked through the entire Bible, Joseph Smith
continued to make revisions to the manuscripts up until his death in 1844.14
We also have evidence that when Joseph Smith left the Old Testament to
work on the New Testament and then returned to the Old Testament, he
picked up a little before where he had left off so there was some overlap
in the material being revised for the JST. In the overlapping material, the
translation was not identical. However, “perhaps the most significant dis-
covery in the duplicate translations is the fact that in the majority of cases
in which substantive content was added to the text, similar information
was added in both of the new translations. . . . We see that in both transla-
tions the Prophet added the same thought, yet he rarely expressed that
thought in the same words, and sometimes it was not even inserted at the
same location in the text.”15
As another example of not having the exact wording given to Joseph
Smith, Robert Matthews described Joseph Smith’s process of working
through the text and then making revisions as follows:
In the face of the evidence it can hardly be maintained that the exact
words were given to the Prophet in the process of a revelatory experi-
ence. Exact words may have been given to the mind of the Prophet on
occasion, but the manuscript evidence suggests that generally he was
obliged to formulate the words himself to convey the message he desired.
Consequently, he might later have observed that sometimes the words
were not entirely satisfactory in the initial writings. They may have con-
veyed too much or too little. Or they may have been too specific or too
vague, or even ambiguous. Or the words may have implied meanings
not intended. Thus through (1) an error of recording, (2) an increase of
knowledge, or (3) an inadequate selection of words, any passage of the
New Translation might be subject to later revision.16

14. For a succinct summary of sources that deal with the issue of whether the JST
was ever finished, see Flake, “Translating Time,” 502 n. 19.
15. Kent P. Jackson and Peter M. Jasinski, “The Process of Inspired Translation: Two
Passages Translated Twice in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible,” BYU Studies 42,
no. 2 (2003): 59.
16. Robert J. Matthews, “A Plainer Translation”: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible,
a History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975), 86.
 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible   V153

Kent Jackson strongly feels that Joseph Smith did indeed finish his
JST project. “A misconception that survived among Latter-day Saints for
over a century and a half is that Joseph Smith never finished his Bible
translation. A more recent misconception is that he continued to make
modifications to it until the end of his life. Neither of these ideas is true.
The evidence is clear that in July 1833 Joseph Smith finished his revision
of the entire Bible, and he considered it ready to go to press either then
or shortly thereafter.”17 Joseph Smith wrote to Saints in Missouri that
they had finished translating the scriptures and from then on never
“talked or wrote of translating the Bible but of publishing it.”18

Canonical Status
When the major body of the Saints followed Brigham Young west, the
manuscripts stayed near Nauvoo with Emma Smith and later passed
down through her family until they became the property and stewardship
of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS,
now Community of Christ). There grew among the Saints in the West not
only a geographic distance from the JST but a theological or canonical
one as well. There arose uncertainty whether the RLDS publications of
the JST were accurate printings of Joseph Smith’s original manuscripts.
During this period of uncertainty toward the JST, it is noteworthy that
many major Latter-day Saint works, such as James E. Talmage’s Jesus the
Christ, ignored the JST outside of the Pearl of Great Price and any pos-
sible changes or insights this translation may have provided.
It was not until the efforts of Robert Matthews in the 1960s, about
one hundred years after the first publication of the JST by the RLDS
community, that access was granted to him, a scholar from The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to compare the RLDS publications
with the original manuscripts. It soon became evident that, by and large,
the publications had been accurate to the original manuscripts. Yet it
has still taken some time to overcome the stigma of the JST among the
Latter-day Saint community, who for over a century had looked upon
the JST with suspicion at best. That sentiment continued to change
with the Church’s publication of the scriptures in 1979, which includes

17. Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith Translating Genesis,” BYU Studies Quarterly 56,
no. 4 (2017): 24.
18. Jackson, “Joseph Smith Translating Genesis,” 24. Jackson goes on to argue that
later modifications to the text were primarily done by others. See 24 n. 34.
154 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

an appendix of changes the JST makes to the biblical text as well as

many footnotes throughout the biblical text of smaller changes. Yet
even with all these additions to the Latter-day Saint–published Bible,
not all the JST is included, and one has to go to separate publications to
find complete lists of JST changes. This omission of all JST changes of
course raises the question of why not all changes were included within
the new scriptures and who determined what should be included or
excluded.19 Are those changes published in the Latter-day Saint Bible
considered canonical? If so, what about those excerpts not published in
the Latter-day Saint Bible? The JST additions within the new scriptures
were never voted on or sustained by the Church membership as part of
the standard works, although the JST presence in this significant scrip-
ture publication not only aids in accessing the JST additions but points
toward an acceptance as scripture by the leadership of the Church, just
without addressing how far their authoritative nature goes.
One of the more recent semiofficial statements regarding the authori-
tative status of the JST is briefly laid out in the Guide to the Scriptures:
“Although it is not the official Bible of the Church, this translation does
offer many interesting insights and is very valuable in understanding the
Bible. It is also a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet
Joseph Smith.” The entry also addresses the lack of completion of the JST
project: “Although Joseph completed most of the translation by July 1833,
he continued until his death in 1844 to make modifications while prepar-
ing a manuscript for publication. Though he published some parts of the

19. A committee of Church leaders and scholars oversaw a seven-year project to

produce an edition of the King James Version with Latter-day Saint study aids and
notes, including excerpts from the JST. “The work was commissioned by the First Presi-
dency, who appointed a Bible Aids committee to oversee the project. This committee
(later called the Scriptures Publications Committee) consisted initially of Thomas S.
Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Marvin J. Ashton of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
Ashton was later given another assignment and Bruce R. McConkie was appointed. The
committee called scholars, editors, and publication specialists from Brigham Young
University, the Church Educational System, and Deseret Book Company to prepare
Latter-day Saint–oriented aids to help readers better understand the King James text.”
William James Mortimer, “LDS Publication of the Bible,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4  vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:110. While this general
description explains the Bible project as a whole, there is not specific information given
for why or who selected the six hundred passages of the JST. Presumably, they were
selected because the JST affected the reading or doctrinal understanding of some verses
more than others, where a word or two was simply modified without as much doctrinal
significance.
 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible   V155

translation during his lifetime, it is possible that he would have made

additional changes had he lived to publish the entire work.”20
It is generally recognized that the portions of the JST in the Pearl of
Great Price are considered officially canonized as part of the standard
works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But there is still
an open question as to why these particular passages found in the Pearl
of Great Price were selected and not others. Were they simply the earli-
est ones available to the missionaries in England who first published
them, or is their more expansive nature indicative of revelation more
so than later selections of the JST where often only a word here or there
was changed?21

20. “Joseph Smith Translation (JST),” Guide to the Scriptures, The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed January 16, 2018, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/
joseph-smith-translation-jst?lang=eng&letter=J.
21 Kent Jackson explained the process in the following manner: “In 1851, Elder
Franklin D. Richards of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was serving as president
of the British mission in Liverpool. Sensing a need to make available for the British
Saints some of Joseph Smith’s revelations that had been published already in America,
he compiled a mission pamphlet entitled The Pearl of Great Price. His intent was that his
‘little collection of precious truths’ would ‘increase [the Saints’] ability to maintain and
to defend the holy faith’ [from the preface]. In it he included, among other important
texts, excerpts from the Prophet’s New Translation of the Bible that had been published
already in Church periodicals and elsewhere: the first five and one-half chapters of Gen-
esis and Matthew 24. Elder Richards did not have access to the original manuscripts of
the New Translation, and the RLDS Inspired Version had not yet been published. For the
Genesis chapters, he took the text primarily from excerpts that had been published in
Church newspapers in the 1830s and 1840s. But those excerpts had come from OT1 and
did not include Joseph Smith’s final revisions that were recorded on OT2. . . .
“In the late 1870s, the decision was made to prepare the Pearl of Great Price for
Churchwide distribution at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City. Elder Orson Pratt
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was assigned to prepare the edition, which was
published in 1878. Knowing that Joseph Smith had made later corrections to the New
Translation, Elder Pratt drew the Genesis chapters not from the original Liverpool Pearl
of Great Price but from the printed RLDS Inspired Version, which he copied exactly for
the Book of Moses. Again, the material was in two sections, this time called ‘Visions of
Moses’ (Moses 1) and ‘Writings of Moses’ (Moses 2–8).
“The Genesis text in the 1867 Inspired Version, though more accurate than the Liv-
erpool version of 1851, was not always consistent with Joseph Smith’s intentions. The
RLDS publication committee apparently did not understand the relationship between
OT1 and OT2 and excluded a significant number of the Prophet’s corrections from the
Inspired Version. As a result, our Book of Moses today still lacks important corrections
that were made by Joseph Smith.
156 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Some Latter-day Saint scholars feel that since the JST was a project
undertaken by a prophet at the direction of the Lord, then all of it should
be treated as canonical. In one of the most significant projects covering
the manuscripts of the JST, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible:
Original Manuscripts, an appeal is repeatedly made to accept the JST
in its entirety because of its revealed nature and continual inspiration
under the direction of the Lord. Perhaps one of its strongest statements
invites members of the Church to accept it as they do other scriptures.
“Because the Lord revealed the Joseph Smith Translation for the salva-
tion of His elect, Latter-day Saints can embrace it as they do the Book of
Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.”22
Yet others advocate for a partial acceptance of the canonical status
of the JST. Royal Skousen, for example, points out that there are many
issues with the JST that need to be considered before one could accept it
in its entirety. In sum, Skousen states, “It is a mistake, I believe, to auto-
matically assume that every change in the JST is inspired or that the final
version is in its entirety a revealed text. I myself believe that the long non-
canonized additions to the biblical text are the most valuable and could
well be revelatory, while the minor changes that involve altering simply

“In the October 1880 general conference, the new Pearl of Great Price was presented
to the assembled membership for a sustaining vote and was canonized as scripture and
accepted as binding on the Church. Since then, the Pearl of Great Price has been one of
the standard works, and the few chapters of the Joseph Smith Translation in it (the book
of Moses and Joseph Smith—Matthew) have been recognized not only as divine revela-
tion—which they always were—but also as integral parts of our scripture and doctrine.”
Kent P. Jackson, “How We Got the Book of Moses,” in By Study and by Faith: Selections
from the “Religious Educator,” ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo,
Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 143–44.
22. Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds., Joseph Smith’s
New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center,
Brigham Young University, 2004), 11. See another statement supporting the JST’s com-
pletion and readiness to be used on page 7, and again with one disclaimer regarding later
editorial work on page 8: “Although the inspired work of translating had been completed
by Joseph Smith as far as was intended, the text was still in need of some editing when
he died.” For a more recent defense of the completion of the JST, specifically addressing
whether Joseph Smith considered it finished or whether he continued to work on it until
the end of his life, see Kent Jackson, “How We Got the Joseph Smith Translation, the
Book of Moses, and Joseph Smith—Matthew,” in Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book
of Moses: Inspired Origins, Temple Contexts, and Literary Qualities, Vol. 1, ed. Jeffrey M.
Bradshaw and others (Orem, Utah: The Interpreter Foundation, 2021): 84–85.
 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible   V157

a word or a phrase more often indicate a human reaction to perceived

problems in the biblical text.”23
The Community of Christ seems to have mostly now rejected the JST.
A statement by its former president, W. Grant McMurray, is illustrative:
“It is time to identify it [the JST] properly as a product of Joseph Smith’s
fertile and creative mind. I have not preached from it for decades. There
are many fine versions available based on current scholarship and with
poetic and literary power. The Inspired Version [JST] should have no
standing as an authoritative Biblical version for the church.”24

Conclusion
In reviewing statements about the JST from various perspectives, it
becomes evident that many questions still surround this significant proj-
ect. There are different views of the JST’s main purpose and its relation
to the biblical text. Were the changes Joseph Smith made in his transla-
tion (1) restored text from original manuscripts, (2) material reflective
of historical experiences, or (3) modern commentary and interpretation
for today? Some feel the JST was finished to the point it is worth using,
while others note its lack of publication during Joseph Smith’s life. Its
canonical status continues to be debated from accepting it in its entirety
to rejecting it as authoritative and rather as reflecting Joseph Smith’s
creativity and thought. While we may not have all the answers to these
questions, it is apparent that the JST has had and will likely continue to
have an important impact on Latter-day Saint theology and interaction
with the biblical texts.

Jared W. Ludlow is Professor of Ancient Scripture and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
at Brigham Young University, where he has taught since 2006. Previously, he spent six
years teaching religion and history at BYU–Hawaii. He has also taught for two years
at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Jared received his bachelor’s
degree from BYU in Near Eastern Studies, his master’s degree from the University of
California–Berkeley in Biblical Hebrew, and his PhD in Near Eastern Religions from
UC–Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union.

23. Royal Skousen, “The Earliest Textual Sources for Joseph Smith’s ‘New Transla-
tion’ of the King James Bible,” FARMS Review 17, no. 2 (2005): 469–70.
24. W. Grant McMurray, “‘Something Lost, Something Gained’: Restoration History
and Culture Seen from ‘Both Sides Now’: 2006 Sterling M. McMurrin Lecuture,” John
Whitmer Historical Association Journal 27 (2007): 53.
Is the Bible Reliable?
A Case Study: Were King Josiah’s Reforms
a Restoration from Apostasy or a Suppression of
Plain and Precious Truths?
(And What about Margaret Barker?)

Eric A. Eliason

The Bible’s Reliability for Latter-day Saints

The eighth article of faith proclaims, “We believe the Bible to be the word
of God as far as it is translated correctly.” This statement by itself suggests
that the Bible as we have it may or may not be fully and reliably the word
of God. In 1 Nephi 13:28, we read, “Many plain and precious things [were]
taken away.” This passage more expressly indicates that the Bible we have
now is indeed not as complete as originally intended. Joseph Smith elabo-
rated on this theme with his statement that “ignorant translators, care-
less transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many
errors.”1 Nevertheless, Elder M.  Russell Ballard reminded us that “we
believe, revere, and love the Holy Bible. We do have additional sacred
scripture, . . . but it supports the Bible, never substituting for it.”2
Latter-day Saints fully accept the Bible as scripture while acknowl-
edging that there may be problems within. Traditionally, few Latter-day
Saint authors have ventured to point to specific passages of the received
text that should be seen as corrupted or in error, even though the Book
of Mormon and Joseph Smith seem to clearly indicate that such sections
exist, somewhere. Over the last few decades, however, some Latter-day
Saints have believed they have identified a prime suspect for a corrupt
section of the Bible. Other Latter-day Saint scholars are by no means

1. “History, 1838–1856, Volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” 1755, Joseph Smith
Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume​
-e​-1​-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/127.
2. M. Russell Ballard, “The Miracle of the Holy Bible,” Ensign 37, no. 5 (May 2007): 81.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)159

160 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

convinced. The part of the Bible in question is 2 Kings 22 and 23, which

discuss King Josiah’s reforms. While not the most famous Old Testa-
ment story in Sunday School, this section is seen by Bible scholars as
highly relevant to understanding why and how much of the Old Testa-
ment took its shape, emphasis, and main themes. This essay considers
the case both for and against this part of the Bible’s reliability and con-
siders multiple ways Latter-day Saints have responded to it.

Josiah’s Reforms: What Is in Them for Latter-day Saints?

Once every four years, the Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Man-
ual drew our attention to King Josiah and the reforms he initiated after
temple priests showed him a scroll of forgotten scripture found during a
renovation of the Jerusalem temple.3 The lesson presents a mostly con-
ventional Christian reading of this episode that includes some elements
of particular interest to Latter-day Saints. The scroll adjured Israel to
worship YHWH alone and stamp out idolatry and any sacrificial practice
outside of Jerusalem. To avert the punishments the scroll promised those
who forgot the Lord, a highly anxious Josiah sprang into action, purg-
ing the Jerusalem temple of idols and shutting down all other sacrificial
high places around his kingdom. The Bible even records him stamping
out child sacrifice (see 2 Kgs. 22:13–20; 23:3–25). It is easy to see how
this seemingly straightforward story of a long-hidden work of scripture
emerging to clear away the detritus of apostasy and reinstate true religion
might have some special appeal for Latter-day Saints.
However, for many Bible scholars and some Latter-day Saints, this epi-
sode is hardly simple, straightforward, or of minor significance. Rather, it
is pure dynamite—an obfuscating one-sided account that raises tantaliz-
ing questions and requires an against-the-grain reading to uncover what
really happened. Is it not a little suspicious that the scroll commands
eliminating all potential rival worship sites and that all sacrifices and
donations now need to be brought to one place only—the Jerusalem
temple administered by, ahem, the same priests who just so happened to
find the scroll? And what to make of King Josiah’s counsel that the priests’
temple restoration work not be closely monitored,4 just before those same

3. Lesson 30, in Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (Salt Lake City:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2001), 144–50.
4. The New English Translation renders 22:7 as follows: “Do not audit the foremen
who disburse the silver, for they are honest.” In this translation, it is Josiah, not the Lord
or the Bible narrator, saying they are honest.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V161

priests produce their ostensibly forgotten scroll (2 Kgs. 22:7–8)? Was

Josiah’s anguished rending of his clothing genuine (2 Kgs. 22:11), or was
this just a showy diversion from his plot, in cahoots with corrupt priests,
to consolidate power and set in motion a long process of controlling the
writing and editing of scripture to suppress ancient beliefs and practices
by means of promoting a fraudulent scroll to justify his actions?5
And what exactly were those beliefs and practices to be purged from
the temple and Israelite worship? Archeology and scattered textual evi-
dence in the Bible—not fully expurgated by Josiah’s uncompromising
and long-enduring monotheistic movement—suggest a more plural,
even familial, divine conception of a high god accompanied by a con-
sort goddess (or wife), a son who was also a god, and a council of gods.6
Here, it begins to become clear how Latter-day Saints might also get
excited about this alternate view of Josiah, even though secular scholars
would likely emphasize the differences between these ancient Israel-
ite concepts and current Latter-day Saint understandings of Mother in
Heaven, Jesus Christ, and a divine council. But are these concepts close
enough to ancient understandings to be some of the “plain and precious
things” taken from the Bible that we read about in the Book of Mormon
(1 Ne. 13:28)? Joseph Smith famously claimed, “Designing and corrupt
priests have committed many errors.”7 Has modern Bible scholarship
now identified who some of those corrupt priests were? If so, the Sunday
School manual’s section on Josiah might need some updating.
In its broad strokes, and minus the interspersed Latter-day Saint
reactions, the power-play scenario laid out above is a mainstream schol-
arly understanding of Josiah and his reforms. Scholars think the “found
scroll’s” content is today known as the book of Deuteronomy and that
the monotheist spirit of Josiah’s reforms has colored large swaths of the
Hebrew Scriptures—retconning accounts of events from long before,

5. For an overview of this episode’s relevance to understanding the Old Testament in

the minds of Bible scholars see Richard Elliott Friedman, “In the Court of King Josiah,”
in Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2019), 85–99.
6. On archeological evidence of a goddess consort, see William G. Dever, Did God
Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd­
mans, 2005). On earlier and more personal, plural, and anthropomorphic conceptions of
God and their incomplete elision from the Bible, see James L. Kugel, The God of Old: Inside
the Lost World of the Bible (New York: Free Press, 2003); James L. Kugel, The Great Shift:
Encountering God in Biblical Times (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017); and
James L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was (Cambridge: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2001).
7. “History, 1838–1856, Volume E-1,” 1755, emphasis added.
162 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

and continuing long after, his reign.8 Josiah might not be the most well-
known Sunday School story, but for scholars of Hebrew scripture, his
is an important, if not the most important, story in understanding who
wrote the Old Testament, how its overarching editorial and narrative
goals were established, how it was compiled, who compiled it, and why.
But do Latter-day Saints really want to embrace this scholarly under-
standing? After all, secular scholars calling a long-hidden, but newly
revealed, scripture a self-serving fraud is an accusation with which we
are all too familiar. But on the other hand, might scholars have provided
an explanation for “God the Son’s” relative absence from the Old Testa-
ment when he is omnipresent in the pre–Christian era parts of the Book
of Mormon? It is easy to see how Latter-day Saints might see both things
to like and things to suspect in both the traditional and scholarly under-
standings of Josiah and his reforms.
Some Latter-day Saint scholars—mostly in disciplines other than
biblical studies—have gone even further than the mainstream under-
standing on Josiah by eagerly embracing the work of the prolific maver-
ick Methodist Bible scholar Margaret Barker. As a significant influence
on well-read Latter-day Saints’ reception of Josiah, she deserves some
special attention. Barker suggests that some Jews managed to preserve
the old understandings of God’s wife and son in hidden or underground
form for hundreds of years after Josiah’s attempts at suppression. She
further claims that before his reforms, a Melchizedekian priesthood was
better known and seen as legitimate alongside, and probably over, the
Josiah-favored temple priests’ lineage-based authority after the order of
Aaron. According to Barker, pre-Josiah concepts still swirled in under-
ground Jewish circles at the time of Christ—explaining how some Jews
were primed to receive and accept Jesus as the Son of God. Others, who
stood in the long also-vibrant tradition of Josiah’s reforms, were not.
It is easy to see how Barker’s books have found a considerable fan
base among educated, perhaps even especially religiously conservative
and educated, Latter-day Saints despite the books cutting directly, and
perhaps uncomfortably, against the grain of the Sunday School manual
and the idea that the Bible generally presents a reliable narrative. Unfor-
tunately, it is hard to tell whether the limited and ambiguous nature of
Barker’s evidence proves her point that ideas and practices were sup-
pressed or whether this lack of evidence is evidence that they were never

8. Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the
Five Books of Moses (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 5, 24–26.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V163

there in the first place. She is often dismissed as a fringe figure in the bib-
lical-studies field—including by professionally trained ancient scripture
professors at BYU, who tend not to be her acolytes and rarely find her
claims worth engaging. Even when what she says differs little from the
mainstream take on Josiah, she is still often dismissed out of hand. This
might not happen as much if she had a traditional academic appointment
or was willing to subject her books to the peer-review process. These are
baseline requirements to be taken seriously in academia, but should they
be for the pursuit of religious truth, especially in the Latter-day Saint
tradition? But neither does our Latter-day Saint faith tradition see reluc-
tance to fully follow scholarly practices, in and of itself, as praiseworthy
or evidence of reliability.9

Josiah, Margaret Barker, and Latter-day Saint Reception

To gain a fuller understanding of these divergent Latter-day Saint recep-
tions of Barker, a closer look at Josiah and his aftermath is in order—as
well as Barker’s take on it in particular. The religiopolitical action of
Judean king Josiah in 622 BC, often characterized as a comprehensive
religious reform, centralized power in the Jerusalem monarchy and
priesthood. The core of Barker’s argument, made in various ways in her
many books, is that Josiah’s reforms did irreparable damage to what she
calls a “temple theology.”10 This temple theology was a unified outlook
made up of a set of related themes that were, according to her, almost
entirely excised from the Hebrew Bible by Josiah’s court and their suc-
cessors. However, the core ideas were preserved in later noncanonical
writings and kept alive by Christians who saw Jesus in and through the
“ancient royal cult.”11 This theology is what Barker attempts to recon-
struct through attention to Second Temple–period texts such as 1 Enoch,
Jubilees, and Chronicles, and it includes other core ideas that attract
Latter-day Saint attention, such as a once-orthodox divine feminine
who was removed from the temple.

9. The discussion from here until the conclusory section was initially drafted by
Cory Crawford, who has agreed to the use of his edited draft in this essay.
10. Margaret Barker, Temple Theology (London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 2004). For a comprehensive list of Barker’s works, see “Publications History,”
Margaret Barker, accessed July 1, 2018, http://www.margaretbarker.com/Publications/
History.htm.
11. Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient
Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1987).
164 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

This is where Barker begins to go far beyond mainstream scholarship

that shares her suspicion of Josiah but does not see much evidence of
pre-Josianic religion persisting underground for centuries until Jesus’s
day. Barker’s hypothesis allows her both to explain the absence of themes
important to her and to create the space into which they can be inserted—
or re-inserted, as she would have it—into the narrative. Barker’s work
caught the attention of Latter-day Saint authors such as Noel Reynolds,
John W. Welch, Daniel Peterson, and Kevin Christiansen, who seized
on her notion of the alleged removal of temple ideas and motifs as evi-
dence of ancient apostasy—a particularly pronounced moment of the
removal of the “plain and precious things” alluded to in the Book of
Mormon. Because of this particular interest, Margaret Barker has been
a regular presence at Latter-day Saint scholars’ conferences and in their
edited volumes.12 Still other publications by Latter-day Saint acolytes
distill her work for a wider Church-member audience—generally with
little skepticism.13

Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History

To understand Barker’s work, one must first have a handle on both the
history of Josiah’s reform and the compositional history of Deuteronomy
and the historical narrative that follows it, which is known to scholars
as the Deuteronomistic history (Joshua through 2 Kings, minus Ruth in
the Protestant and Latter-day Saint canon). Literarily speaking, the book
of Deuteronomy presents itself as Moses’s speech on the plains of Moab
just before his death as the Israelites are poised to cross the Jordan River
to enter Canaan. It recounts some of the stories from the Exodus and

12. Among her many publications and public addresses, see, for example, her
remarks at BYU published as Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?” in
Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely
(Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2004), 523–42.
This volume also contains a chapter dedicated to her theory: Kevin Christensen, “The
Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret
Barker,” 449–522. For examples of the variety of her regular Latter-day Saint–organized
conference appearances, see, for example, Margaret Barker, “Joseph Smith and Pre­
exilic Israelite Religion,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the
Library of Congress, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2006), 69–82; see also
her various conference appearances at the Academy for Temple Studies conferences at
https://www.templestudies.org.
13. See, for example, Kevin Christensen, Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret
Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies (Provo, Utah: Foundation
for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2001).
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V165

wilderness wanderings, but at its core, and the apparent reason for its
existence, is the legal material comprising chapters 12–26, which repeats
much of the legislation given at Sinai in Exodus 20–23 but with some
important differences that reflect a different historical setting of author-
ship. Because of a variety of textual indicators and their resonance with
very particular historical situations, scholars argue that this legal mate-
rial (Deut. 12–26) was in fact created in the time of Josiah as the basis of
his religious reform.14
The Pentateuch did not then exist in its current form, and so the legal
material in Deuteronomy was likely meant as a standalone version of
Mosaic legislation—a recognizable but substantially modified version
of the earlier “Covenant Code” (Ex. 21–23) that may have been in circula-
tion before the Deuteronomic laws. According to 2 Kings 22:8–20, Josiah’s
officials discovered the “book of the law” in the course of temple renova-
tions and took it to the prophetess Huldah for verification of its authenticity.
Since at least the 1780s, careful Bible readers have noted that the affinity
between the specifically Deuteronomic laws—as opposed to the Covenant
Code or priestly material—suggests that the 2 Kings narrative recounts the
discovery of proto-Deuteronomy in the temple.15
The creation of Deuteronomy’s core of laws, which served as the
stated justification for Josiah’s reform, was likely a response to Assyr-
ian political and military intervention in the Iron Age Levant that had
ebbed and flowed since the ninth century BC. Following Assyria’s con-
quest and annexation of the northern state of Israel in the eighth century,
this empire had accepted Judah’s bid to become its vassal. In moments
of royal transition or perceived weakness, Judah often made successive
bids for independence. The most famous bid before Josiah’s time was
that of his grandfather Hezekiah in 701  BC—a move that resulted in
the destruction of Judean cities and very nearly Jerusalem itself. Assyria
routinely forced its opponents into vassal treaties, which were formal-
ized on tablets, some of which have been recovered archaeologically.
One of these, the so-called Vassal Treaty of (Assyrian king) Esarhaddon
(VTE) was even found on a podium in the “holy of holies” of a contem-
poraneous, though non-Israelite, temple at Tell Tayinat in modern-day

14. For an excellent political and literary overview of the origins and development
of Deuteronomy, see Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia
of the Books of the Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011),
192–209.
15. Eddie L. Ruddick, “Elohist,” in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, eds. Watson E.
Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1990): 373–77.
166 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

southeastern Turkey. This suggests that even the biblical narrative of

finding the law in the temple may have been intentionally evocative of an
international diplomatic practice of the time.16 Furthermore, the Deu-
teronomic legislation echoes the texts of such treaties, effectively creating
an alternative to the VTE, or what one scholar calls a “counter-history,”
whereby YHWH, not the Assyrian king, is the ­suzerain to whom the
Judeans owed their loyalty.17 The Deuteronomic laws were invoked to
lay out a comprehensive religious and civic overhaul that included most
aspects of public life, including civic and religious institutions.
Although the Deuteronomic project was disrupted by the early death
of Josiah in battle, it seems to have lived on during the Babylonian exile
and postexilic period, as its curators eventually added successive liter-
ary frameworks to make proto-Deuteronomy Moses’s recapitulation of
the Exodus and Sinai events just before his death on the east side of the
Jordan River. It was also probably at this point that the authors compiled
and edited the subsequent history of Judah and Israel (that is, Joshua
through 2  Kings) from sources available to them, weaving in stories
of the legendary judges, kings, and prophets and adding commentary
to evaluate these figures as obedient or disobedient to the injunctions
prescribed in Deuteronomy.18 These stories included the narrative of
Josiah finding the “book of the law” in the temple and his reformative
actions.19 As best we can guess, they placed Deuteronomy at the head

16. On the discovery of a VTE tablet at Tell Tayinat in Southeastern Turkey, see
Timothy P. Harrison and James F. Osborne, “Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred
Precinct at Tell Tayinat,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64 (2012): 125–43; Jacob Lau-
inger, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary,” Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 64 (2012): 87–123; Jacob Lauinger, “Some Preliminary Thoughts on
the Tablet Collection in Building XVI from Tell Tayinat,” Journal of the Canadian Society
for Mesopotamian Studies 6 (Fall 2011): 5–10.
17. For the term “counter-history,” see Thomas C. Römer, “The Current Discussion
on the So-Called Deuteronomistic History: Literary Criticism and Theological Conse-
quences,” Humanities: Christianity and Culture 46 (2015): 58.
18. Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza already observed in the seventeenth century that
Joshua through 2  Kings utilized Deuteronomy as the primary literary lens through
which to view the history of Israel. This eventually led to the twentieth-century theory
by Martin Noth that a school of elites compiled the history under the influence of Deu-
teronomy, eventually known as the Deuteronomistic Historian(s).
19. There is a wide variety of argumentation over how to date the beginnings of the
Deuteronomistic history. Some scholars see it as basically a continually updated narra-
tive managed by successive kings, and others argue that it did not begin to be formed as a
narrative until the exile or postexilic period. For an accessible presentation of these argu-
ments, see Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V167

of this history, and then at some later point a different group, possibly
exilic or postexilic priests, took this body of literature and attached it to
the newly compiled narratives that we now know as Genesis through
Numbers.

Margaret Barker on Josiah’s Reforms and Their Aftermath

Beginning largely with her 1987 monograph The Older Testament and
continuing in her many subsequent works, Barker lays out what she
sees as a dominant and coherent “temple theology” that went missing
in the wake of King Josiah’s reforms.20 For Barker, Josiah’s actions had
devastating consequences for “the” older religion of Israel. She argues
that Josiah’s court effectively removed a system of worship that included,
for example, apotheosis (humans becoming gods), the divine feminine
(Asherah, Lady Wisdom, and the tree of life), a robust heavenly popula-
tion of angels (or lesser gods), a veil theology, and YHWH as the son of
El Elyon, the high god among many others. This older theology went
mostly underground after the Exile, when she claims that the Deuter-
onomistic group returned from Babylon and came into conflict with
those that had stayed behind in Palestine, who, according to Barker, had
been keeping the older, and in her view better, traditions alive. At some
point, Deuteronomists in the tradition of Josiah were able not only to
purge Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history of this older the-
ology but also to redact the entire Hebrew Bible, leaving only traces of
the older religion in texts like Genesis 1:26–27, “Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness: .  .  . male and female” (succinctly suggesting
the plurality, bi-genderedness, and corporeality of gods), and Genesis
6:1–4, which speaks of the “sons of God” copulating with the “daughters
of [humans]” and, according to one traditional interpretation, having
superhuman male offspring. According to Barker, this older religion
would mostly resurface much later, largely in noncanonical literature
such as 1  Enoch, Jubilees, and Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) literature,
which Barker mines to reconstruct what she sees as lost temple con-
cepts. First Enoch is of particular importance to Barker. Even though it
postdates 1–2 Kings, she attempts to use its retelling of Kings to build the
case that the Deuteronomistic reform was a “disastrous apostasy” that

Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2000); see also Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A  Sociological,
Historical, and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2007).
20. See Barker’s bibliography in “Publications History.”
168 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

removed these ideas almost entirely from the textual record.21 Barker
claims the only way to reconstruct what was lost, then, is to extrapolate
backward from these later writings.
Barker marshals this argumentation to juxtapose it with her second
hypothetical reconstruction—namely, a temple-based Christianity, which
she finds to be in complete harmony with her own reconstruction of pre-
Deuteronomic Israelite religion. Note that this comparison deliberately
circumvents mainstream Judaism, which she identifies by and large with
the Deuteronomists. Among her arguments for why the temple is not
more obviously a part of Christian texts and practice, especially in the
New Testament, is one from silence. According to her, Christians only
wrote down what was controversial and not what was generally accepted,
and therefore she sees temple theology’s relative absence from the Chris-
tian canonical textual record as strong evidence of its presence in early
Christian thought and practice. At this point, one might be reminded
of the skeptical quip used to parody conspiracy theorists: “All of the evi-
dence we don’t have agrees with us.” Conversely, one might also think
of the orally transmitted nature of Latter-day Saint temple ceremonies
from Nauvoo until the 1877 dedication of the St. George temple. Here a
lack of available written records is indeed an indication of sacredness and
importance.
Barker finds hints of the old temple ritual in Christian liturgy, speak-
ing frequently, for example, of “the” Day of Atonement theology that is
hidden at the core of the Eucharist—a theology that she reconstructs
from an inventive reading of the letter to the Hebrews (particularly
Hebrews 7:11’s quotation of Psalm 110:4 about being a priest forever after
the order of Melchizedek) and not a little inference from Leviticus 16.22
She sees these connections not as Christians looking backward to Jew-
ish texts in search of meaning but as a heritage carried forward in frag-
ments by a reduced and marginalized tradition that left just enough
traces to be pieced together by later close readers.
On the other hand, recognizing early Christians as temple-goers is
not a Barker invention. Long before her work, Hugh Nibley synthesized

21. Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK,
1992), 14. Note that she says explicitly that 1 Enoch sees the Exile and Restoration as the
time in which “wisdom was despised and impurity installed in the temple,” but then
she concludes that the period 1 Enoch was commenting on was instead the pre-exilic
Deuteronomic reform.
22. Laid out in Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian
Liturgy (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 39, 44, 52, 82, 122, 268.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V169

evidence for early Christian temple worship. Terryl L. Givens wrote,

“Luke records matter-of-factly a time when ‘Peter and John were going
up to the temple’ to worship, and ‘there is an abundance of evidence,’ as
S. G. F. Brandon writes, ‘that the Jerusalem Christians continued faithful
in their reverence for the Temple and in their observance of its cultus.’ ”23
Marcus von Wellnitz notes, “It appears obvious that the early Christians
not only had their Sunday services, either in a Jewish synagogue or a
member’s domicile, but also that they still retained the periodic visit to
the temple and saw no conflict in the dual nature of their worship.”24
Though much of what transpired in the temple at Jerusalem involved sac-
rificial offerings, the Temple Scroll discovered at Qumran envisions an
eventual return to the temple’s ancient purpose: “the renewal of the cov-
enant made at Sinai, i.e., the temple ordinances that were present before;
from the beginning, the building was merely to accommodate them.”25
In another move that has delighted her Latter-day Saint fans, per-
haps the most important link Barker sees is the one between Yahweh
and Jesus, both being understood by her as the son of the Most High,
the anointed ruler-to-come lost in the rubble of Josiah’s apostasy.26
Thus, Barker’s intense focus on Josiah, Deuteronomy, and the Deu-
teronomistic history derives from her larger project that is thoroughly
and unabashedly a Christian enterprise.27 Her main objective is to con-
nect Christianity to a First Temple uncorrupted by what would become
the dominant strain of Judaism, and to do so she needs to be able to
point to the moment things changed, when those temple elements were

23. Terryl L. Givens, Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought; Church
and Praxis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 67, quoting Acts 3:1 and S. G. F.
Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the
Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity (London: SPCK, 1951), 263.
24. Marcus von Wellnitz, “The Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple,” BYU
Studies 21, no. 1 (1981): 5.
25. Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, ed. Don E.
Norton (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and
Mormon Studies, 1992), 52.
26. See Barker, Great Angel, for her fullest exposition of this argument.
27. This is not a criticism but an understanding of her work as less an attempt to
understand the Hebrew Bible we have now on its own terms and more as an attempt
to read between the lines to link it to early Christianity. Perhaps the most manifest
confirmation of the overt Christian valence of her project is in her introduction to
Barker, Older Testament—a work that suggests it might be about lost teachings of the
Hebrew Bible but which consists mostly of a discussion of New Testament scholarship,
because that is the background for understanding Jesus that she seems more interested
in explaining than the history of Israelite religion.
170 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

lost to the record of both Israel and early Christians. She sees Josiah’s
“reform” (she also calls it “alteration” and “apostasy”) as that moment,
one which had cascading effects for the Hebrew Bible. Her stated goal
is to root early Christian concepts about Jesus in a First Temple context,
but one that must be recovered in order to make the connection. It is
with that goal in view that she argues for a lost “temple theology” (hence
“older testament”) that originally resembled something that the earliest
Jewish Christians appealed to in order to understand Jesus, another
conception that must also be recovered and reconstructed.28 Thus it
bears keeping in mind that she is reconstructing not one but two theolo-
gies hundreds of years apart that she argues had once been dominant,
remarkably similar to each other, but different from both Judaism and
later Christianity.

Possible Reasons for Latter-day Saint Barker Enthusiasm

Before moving on to the reception of Barker’s work in the field of bibli-
cal studies, it is perhaps worth pointing out how the Latter-day Saint
ground in which Barker’s work flourishes (even garnering a mention
on her website) was primed to receive it. Many of the Latter-day Saint
champions of her work point to aspects of the restored gospel that dove-
tail quite readily with Barker’s work, especially on issues where we are
distinct from most Protestants: temple culture, apotheosis, the divine
feminine, and apostasy. Barker’s Latter-day Saint champions see in her
work a key to getting at hidden aspects of Israelite religion that Church
members understand as having been current during the lives of Lehi
and Nephi, the inaugural Book of Mormon prophets whose story is,
remarkably, contemporary with Josiah’s reforms in late seventh-century
Jerusalem.29
Barker’s methods also evoke those of Hugh Nibley (1910–2005), the
titan of Latter-day Saint apologetics and scholarship on the ancient
world, whose influence is still strongly felt in Church circles. In many
ways, Barker can be understood as filling the void left by Nibley (with
the added benefit of her presumably nonpartisan Methodist affiliation).
Her wide-ranging methods and prolific publications that resonate with

28. Barker, Older Testament, 5–6; see also Barker, Great Angel; and Barker, Great
High Priest, among many others.
29. See Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?” as well as Kevin Christensen, “The
Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret
Barker,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, 449–522.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V171

the Myth-and-Ritual school are similar to Nibley’s.30 Her assertion that

lost temple teachings can be recovered piecemeal through creative read-
ings of widely divergent texts and her skepticism of a discipline she
claims has not properly understood its object of study in centuries of
labor, may also remind readers of the late great Latter-day Saint scholar.31
Other affinities are worth pointing out. According to Kevin Chris-
tensen, Barker has remarked that she finds herself more comfortable out-
side academic institutions in order to “keep [her] academic freedom.”32
This may resonate with the demographic in which B ­ arker’s work is most
enthusiastically received—namely, among Latter-day Saint thinkers
without doctoral training in biblical studies. This point is intended as
an observation of patterns of correlation, not necessarily as a means of
discrediting her work. She activates and invigorates a Latter-day Saint
tradition of amateur scholarship (in the etymological sense of the word,
as something that derives from one’s untrained passion rather than
vocational expertise). Such thinking at the margins often yields produc-
tive conversations in a push-pull dialectic that can serve to refine and
sharpen ideas and epistemologies.
There has not yet been a full critical response within Latter-day Saint
circles that would take advantage of this dialectic.33 So far, Latter-day
Saint scholars with doctoral training in the Bible and ancient Near East-
ern religions seem to have mostly found it best to refrain from much
comment on her work, leaving positive, uncritical attention to enjoy a
heyday. This positive affinity is a double-edged sword, however, since

30. The “Myth-and-Ritual School” is a term for a now long-out-of-fashion approach

to ancient texts that posited a close connection between performance and narrative, and
even that scholars can reconstruct rituals underlying existing mythological and other
texts. For a brief orientation to the ideas and the main theorists, see Robert A. Segal,
Myth: A  Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 61–78;
and Robert A. Segal, ed., The Myth and Ritual Theory: An Anthology (Malden, Mass.:
Blackwell, 1998). Thanks to Taylor Petrey for pointing out this similarity between Nibley
and Barker.
31. See, for example, her claim in Older Testament, 1: “What I have done is select from
a wide range of material sufficient to formulate a theory which brings together many of
the problems of this field, and presents them as different aspects of a fundamental mis-
reading of the Old Testament.”
32. Christensen, Paradigms Regained, 4. He does not provide a citation for this quote,
instead calling in the footnote for the reader to “notice the simplicity of her solution.”
33. David Seely has challenged the uncritical absorption of Barker’s views in his con-
ference presentation, “The Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Mormon,” Annual
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, Georgia, November 23, 2015.
172 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

it leaves Latter-day Saint apologists open to the same critiques as those

leveled at Barker’s work, to which critiques we now turn.

Scholarly Critiques of Barker’s Work

Many of Barker’s main points are actually fairly uncontroversial in bib-
lical studies: that many Israelites were poly- or at least henotheistic;
that this very likely included worship of a goddess (often Asherah); that
Josiah’s reform cut against older, more decentralized traditions that were
more widely distributed geographically; that the temple was theologi-
cally generative and its influence felt in a variety of narratives; that Eno-
chic Judaism may have been a reaction to Zadokite Judaism; that some
early Christians found meaning and identity in texts about the temple
and still participated in its practices before its second destruction; and
generally that Bible sources are products of particular schools with
agendas and points of view and do not represent the full range of reli-
gious belief or activity in any given period.34 The Bible as it has come to
us often manifests the hallmarks of theological disagreement and bears
witness to struggles for priestly and prophetic authority. Where the dis-
cipline takes consistent and serious issue with Barker is in her methods,
or lack thereof, that lead her to propose overly ambitious reconstructive
scenarios, with the result that her distinctive conclusions have not made
significant inroads in the field.
Reception of Barker’s work among biblical scholars can be summa-
rized as appreciative of the general creativity of her readings but severely
critical of the soundness of the evidentiary foundations on which she
constructs her grand theological edifices, which are “undermined by
serious problems of fact and method.”35 As eminent Enoch scholar
George Nickelsburg puts it in his review of The Older Testament, Bark-
er’s work “is repeatedly marked by two basic methodological flaws: the
assertion that possibility is fact, and the assumption that a rhetorical

34. On these points, see the discussion, the bibliography, and especially the preface
in Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient
Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), xii–xxxviii; Othmar Keel and
Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans.
Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); Levinson, “Deuteronomy”; Gabriele
Boccaccini and John J. Collins, eds., The Early Enoch Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2007);
and Timothy J. Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
35. Michael C. Douglas, “Book Note: The Great Angel,” Journal of Religion 73, no. 4
(1993): 661.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V173

question will receive an answer that supports the author’s hypothesis.”36

Similarly, H. G. M. Williamson, Emeritus Regius Professor of Hebrew at
the University of Oxford, concluded that although Barker’s thesis in The
Older Testament was creative, for her “absent or contrary evidence is the
result of revision; fragmentary evidence testifies to what once was; mate-
rial that might fit becomes strong evidence in favor, etc.”37 More recently,
Mary Coloe found Temple Themes in Christian Worship dissatisfying
because “Barker’s process lacks solid argumentation, evidence, and a
clear methodology. The work progresses by inference and an accumula-
tion of text references without establishing the necessity that these texts
be read intertextually. Statements are simply made without providing
sufficient, and sometimes any, evidence in support. The accumulation
of texts certainly suggests what Barker is proposing, but suggestion is
not the same as evidence.”38 Reviews also commonly critique her emen-
dations of the Hebrew text to fit her objectives, her critically problem-
atic dating of sources, and her citing texts without attention to their
contexts.39
At some level, all efforts to get to an earlier, “pristine” stage of belief
are confronted with the same inherent problems and are open to the
same criticisms—namely, how to determine, from later sources, what is
a reemergence of a genuinely old tradition and what is the product of
later syncretism and creative re-imagining; whether it is ever necessary
to posit a hidden strand of theology that was not generated by other
needs and forces; and how to determine what counts as “genuine”—on
whose authority would this even be determined? And, finally, how to

36. George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Book Review: The Older Testament,” Journal of Bibli-
cal Literature 109, no. 2 (Summer 1990): 336–37. This is also acknowledged more recently
by Nicholas King in an otherwise glowing review: Nicholas King, “Book Review: King of
the Jews,” Heythrop Journal 58, no. 2 (2017): 328–29. Similarly, Jorunn Økland takes issue
with Barker’s unsophisticated “hermeneutical stance” in an otherwise positive review of
Barker, Temple Theology. Jorunn Økland, “Book Review: Temple Theology,” Theology 108,
no. 843 (May 2005): 213–14.
37. H. G. M. Williamson, “Book Review: The Older Testament,” Vetus Testamentum
38, no. 3 (1988): 381.
38. Mary Coloe, “Book Review: Temple Themes in Christian Worship,” Review of
Biblical Literature (January 2009). See Margaret Barker, Temple Themes in Christian
Worship (London: T&T Clark, 2008).
39. See William Adler, “Book Review: The Great Angel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
55, no.  4 (1993): 795–97; Paul Owen, “Monotheism, Mormonism, and the New Testa-
ment Witness,” in The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a
Fast-Growing Movement, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 271–314, especially 303–8.
174 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

prevent the anachronistic retrojection onto the past of one’s own out-
look and assumptions about historical development.
Even with these critiques in mind, it is still not entirely clear that the
rejection of Barker’s conclusions by her relevant scholarly community
can be attributed entirely to her problematic methods. Might some of
the reaction also stem from her own choice to stand apart from that
community by not participating in identity-defining practices such as
peer-review? And her conclusions are certainly strikingly revisionist in
ways that threaten fundamental conceptions regarding both Jewish past
and Christian beginnings. All these factors could well cause her to not
be given the same benefit of the doubt enjoyed by other biblical schol-
ars when they also sometimes propose broadly creative dot-connecting
speculations as the most likely historical scenarios—which is often the
case even in mainstream Bible scholarship when compared to other
fields. But these observations only suggest a stretched room for possi-
bility that there is space enough in our big complex world for her to be
onto something. They in no way make it more likely.

Implications for Latter-day Saints

Latter-day Saint writers who ground their theology in Margaret Barker’s
work open themselves to the charges of unsound reasoning leveled at
her.40 Further, the minimal Latter-day Saint criticism of Barker’s work
has also meant that many of her conclusions’ ramifications for our the-
ology that do not fit so nicely with current Church practice and belief
have gone unexplored.
For example, doing away with Deuteronomy and the Deuterono-
mistic history means understanding a major portion of the Hebrew
Bible as historically suspect or outright unreliable.41 Since the reforms
Josiah initiated are thought to have inspired generations of redactors
who widely shaped the received text as it has come to us in our day, any
suspicion of 2 Kings 22–23 is hard to limit to these two chapters alone
and may open a can of worms bringing large swaths of the Bible into
doubt. This possibility could be opened up by the eighth article of faith’s
declaration that the Bible is the word of God “as far as it is translated
correctly,” but it could also mean throwing out quite a few theological

40. As, for example, in Owen, “Monotheism, Mormonism, and the New Testament
Witness,” 301–8.
41. Owen also makes this point in “Monotheism, Mormonism, and the New Testa-
ment Witness,” 303.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V175

babies with the supposedly apostate bathwater. Are Church members

really ready to label as ahistorical, even fraudulently apostate, virtually
all of Deuteronomy and the major historical books of the Old Testa-
ment? Deuteronomy contains some of the fullest and most intricate
expressions of bedrock theological ideas in the restored gospel, such
as covenants and divine love, referenced approvingly by Jesus himself!
“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve”
(Jesus in Matt. 4:10, referencing Deut. 6:13).42 Following Deuteronomy,
the Deuteronomistic historians articulated what Latter-day Saints may
recognize as a “pride cycle” in Judges and identified faithful and unfaith-
ful monarchs throughout 1–2 Kings—an approach that may have given
rise to these themes’ prevalence in the Book of Mormon narrative.
A second point is that Barker’s interpretive practices require reading
against the grain of scripture—a kind of “hermeneutics of suspicion,”
which might splash over onto our reading of Restoration scripture. That
is, in order for Barker to discover the lost temple themes in Hebrew
texts, she must often adopt an antagonistic stance to the textual tradi-
tion she is examining. Must one also adopt such a contrary stance vis-
à-vis the Book of Mormon in order to make it sing with temple themes?
Does this mean that we should view suspiciously the prophet Mormon—
whose editorial voice we hear throughout the Book of Mormon—as
another Josiah who removed and suppressed such themes? Does the
nonappearance, or at best minimal and much subdued appearance, of
Barker’s “temple themes” (including Wisdom and the Goddess) in the
Book of Mormon suggest that its authors were also victims of a sup-
pressive editor’s hand, or that Joseph Smith as its translator inherited a
post-Josianic tainted set of theological ideas?43
Third, although Latter-day Saint leaders are sometimes enthusias-
tic about the existence of a Goddess—usually called Heavenly Mother
or Mother in Heaven—few, if any, would encourage her worship as

42. See Jon D. Levenson, The Love of God: Divine Gift, Human Gratitude, and Mutual
Faithfulness in Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016).
43. Daniel Peterson provides a Barker-esque reading of Nephi’s vision and proposes
that, in fact, the Goddess may be a hidden presence in the Book of Mormon. Daniel C.
Peterson, “Nephi and His Asherah,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000):
16–25, 80–81. Peterson readily admits that the references are deeply cryptic and allusive,
requiring much creative deciphering. His reading is by no means the plain and obvious
meaning of the text for a modern reader, at least. But why is it not? Barker provides an
answer for such subtle obfuscation—suppression and apostasy. Do we want to go there
with the Book of Mormon composition process?
176 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

permissible within the mainstream Church.44 But this is precisely what

Barker says was lost—not merely the knowledge of a Goddess but the
removal of both her presence and the prayers and ritual worship activ-
ities directed toward her in the temple. Thus, championing Barker’s
claim that the feminine divine was removed from the temple might be
somewhat of a headscratcher coming from members of a Church whose
temples are as bereft of Goddess worship as was, apparently, Jerusalem’s
in the aftermath of Josiah’s reforms.
Although these issues might challenge our enthusiasm for Barker’s
ideas, they also point to something more positive—Barker’s strong
vision and prolific and provocative output have drawn Latter-day Saint
scholars and laypeople a little bit deeper into engagement with the Bible,
biblical scholarship, the study of Second Temple interpretation, and
early Christianity. Reflecting on things overlooked in our reception of
Barker’s work is an occasion to reflect on key points of our theology. The
energy generated by her work among Latter-day Saints shows that, at
least in some circles, these texts and ideas are not mere relics salvaged
from the dustbin of history but remain vibrant sources of theological
creativity for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Since many, if not most, Bible scholars would also invite us to
counter-­read the 2 Kings account of Josiah’s reforms, our community’s
disproportionate focus on Barker still begs for further explanation. One
reason may be that the biblical-studies consensus offers relatively few
widely spread dots to connect and a few broad generalities of possible
resonance with the restored gospel’s overarching historical themes of
apostasy, restoration, plurality of gods, pre-Christian-era understand-
ings of a savior Son of God, and possible corruption of the Bible. Barker’s
work, in contrast, proposes vivid specific examples of details such as an
ancient belief in a Mother in Heaven, a Melchizedek priesthood, Christ
as part of pre-Christian era Hebrew religion, and a temple-focused ear-
liest Christianity. She even proposes a specific instance of the removal

44. David Paulsen and Martin Pulido counted hundreds of references in official
venues to counter the claim that no mention of Heavenly Mother is permitted. David L.
Paulsen and Martin Pulido, “‘A Mother There’: A Survey of Historical Teachings about
Mother in Heaven,” BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011): 71–97. But beyond the mention of her
existence, Latter-day Saints have by no means developed a robust theology of or set of
ritual practices directed toward her—apart from the oblique attention paid to her in the
occasional singing of the hymn “O My Father.” See Eliza R. Snow, “O My Father,” Hymns
(Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985), no. 292.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V177

of “plain and precious things” alluded to, but not identified by Bible
chapter and verse, in the Book of Mormon. Perhaps what she offers us is
too good not to be true. But, perhaps unfortunately, that does not mean
that it is.
Another reason for Margaret Barker’s enthusiastic reception may be
her personal story’s more-than-passing resemblance to Joseph Smith’s—
a solitary individual outside the scholarly establishment gathers together
scattered ancient remnants, revitalizes marginalized themes, and restores
them to their proper order to tell a coherent and compelling story of
true religion lost, then found again. It helps too that the story Barker
tells corresponds, on a number of key points, quite nicely with the one
revealed through Joseph Smith. But we have Joseph Smith for this. Do
we really also need Margaret Barker—especially if carrying water for her
work might discredit Restoration truth claims by association?45
Bible scholarship, even at its most sober, is a field characterized by
best guesses, tentative conclusions, and dot-connecting with far fewer
available data points than most scholars would want. Not usually, but
occasionally, the wildest guesses might jump up the plausibility scale
with the help of newfound evidence. Barker’s thesis may someday get a
boost of this variety. Or the truth may turn out to be something not best
represented by either Barker or her critics. With or without her role in
drawing our attention to it, the question of how to think about Josiah’s
reforms remains a compelling one for thoughtful Latter-day Saints
interested in the Bible as well as in its construction and reception.

45. The following story from the life of Elder Bruce R. McConkie provides an inter-
esting illustration: “While returning from a conference assignment, he was reading
[a book] while waiting for a plane and discovered some material by a sectarian scholar
that harmonized perfectly with the restored gospel. As he boarded his flight, he met
Marion G. Romney, then a member of the First Presidency, who was also returning
from an assignment. He said, ‘President Romney, I have got to read this to you. This is
really good stuff,’ and proceeded to share his newfound treasure. When he was finished,
President Romney said, ‘Bruce, I have to tell you a story. A few years ago I found some-
thing that I thought was remarkable confirmation of Mormonism written by one of the
world’s great scholars. I read it to J. Reuben Clark, and he said, “Look, Marion, when
you read things from the great scholars of the world and they don’t agree with us, so
what? And when you read something like that and you find they are right on the mark
and they agree with us, so what?”’” Joseph Fielding McConkie, The Bruce R. McConkie
Story: Reflections of a Son (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 252.
178 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Nonbinary Interpretations of Josiah and Conclusions

Some Latter-day Saint scholars have eschewed binary approaches to the
question of whether Josiah’s reforms were good or bad, seeing the many
themes of ancient Israelite religion, both before and after Josiah, as influ-
ences on the Book of Mormon. Grant Hardy sees, starting with Lehi and
Nephi, an “unorthodox Deuteronomist” editorial tone throughout the
Book of Mormon.46 On one hand, the text presents a straightforward
Proverbs-style worldview where the wicked are punished with plagues,
wars, and afflictions, while the righteous prosper—history being under-
stood to show a repetitive cycle of repentance, prosperity, backsliding,
punishment, and repentance. These understandings presumably con-
tinue from the time of Josiah and Huldah. In the Book of Mormon,
there is little if anything similar to the book of Job’s depiction of severe
afflictions besetting a righteous man (so God can win a wager with
Satan!) or Matthew 5:45’s observation that God sends rain on both the
just and the unjust.47 Second Nephi 28:8’s (along with Isa. 22:13’s) disap-
proving reference to the attitude of “eat, drink, and be merry” counters
Ecclesiastes 8:15—another non-Deuteronomist section of the Bible—
which seems to consider “to eat, and to drink, and to be merry” as one
of several possibly valid approaches to life.
On the other hand, despite these Deuteronomist resonances, what
makes the Book of Mormon’s editorial choices “unorthodox,” or even

46. “The [Book of Mormon] sees itself in continuity with the Bible—describing
the same God, the same covenants, the same prophetic impulse and hope of redemp-
tion—and the basic story can be regarded as a sequel to the Deuteronomistic History.”
Personal conversation with Grant Hardy, June 10, 2020. This theme also comes up in
Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2010) and in his essay, “The Book of Mormon and the Bible,” in American-
ist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ed. Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 107–35. “The book . . . adopts a Deuteronomistic
perspective with a divine injunction that is repeated some twenty times: ‘Inasmuch as
ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will
not keep my commandments, ye shall be cut off from my presence’ (2 Ne. 4:4).” Hardy,
“The Book of Mormon and the Bible,” 108.
47. The closest instance to something like this in the Book of Mormon may be the
burning alive of blameless believers that Alma and Amulek were forced to watch (Alma
14). But the in-text interpretation brings even this horrific episode into a Deuteronomis-
tic framework where the righteous are blessed and the wicked are punished. Alma 14:11
proclaims that the Lord ultimately received the faithful martyrs “up unto himself, in
glory” into an afterlife of eternal happiness, and that he gave the wicked enough rope so
that “the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just.”
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V179

counter-Deuteronomist, is the overwhelming presence of references

to Jesus Christ as God and the Son of God. This grates directly against
“orthodox” Deuteronomists’ militant monotheism. Lehi’s family seems
not to have fully shared this particular point of the worldview ascendant
in Judah in their day. This might explain some of Lehi’s persecution in
Jerusalem at the time and stem, in part, from the less than fully mono-
theistic traditions inherited from their tribe of Manasseh ancestors who
were, presumably, refugees from the Northern Kingdom’s fall to the
Assyrians many years before.
Likewise, Julie M. Smith sees the tumultuous and contemporaneous-
to-Lehi events of Josiah’s temple restoration and Huldah’s validation of the
ostensibly recovered scroll as perhaps the most important immediate socio-
religious context out of which the Book of Mormon narrative emerges.48
According to Smith, beginning with Lehi, the Book of Mormon seems in
various ways to follow, counter, and react to these formative events through-
out its many pages chronicling a long history. Smith wonders if Book of
Mormon authors’ concerns about not only the importance of records but
also of chronicling their chain of custody were set in motion by Lehi’s notic-
ing around him the results in Judah of both having forgotten about a sacred
record and the understandable suspicions that likely arose when a record
suddenly appeared, seemingly from nowhere, claiming legitimacy. Smith
proposes that “Huldah’s long shadow” may have influenced the portrayal
of the Mulekites’ ignorance of the law and their own history and identity
because they failed to preserve and remember scripture.49
Perhaps Huldah’s shadow can also be seen in the book of Omni’s nar-
rative devolution to reporting virtually nothing but the record’s chain of
custody. As a response to suspicions about the provenance of Josiah’s
“found” temple scroll, had “If you forget everything else, at least remember
to record this record’s chain of custody!” possibly been drilled into record
custodians’ minds since Lehi’s time? Smith also wonders if Josiah’s temple
restoration events may have impressed sacred records’ importance so
much on Nephi that he was primed to believe the command that “it is
better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and
perish in unbelief ” in the case of Laban’s withholding of the brass plates.50

48. Julie M. Smith, “Huldah’s Long Shadow,” in A Dream, a Rock, a Pillar of Fire:
Reading 1 Nephi 1, ed. Adam S. Miller (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Reli-
gious Scholarship, 2017), 16.
49. Smith, “Huldah’s Long Shadow,” 7–8.
50. Smith, “Huldah’s Long Shadow,” 7–8; 1 Nephi 4:15.
180 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Smith also makes the case that the Book of Mormon’s lack of pro-
phetic female voices can more reasonably be seen as evidence of a form
of Nephite apostasy in the light of Huldah’s apparently well-established
and highly respected role as a prophetess. The king came to her and
not vice versa, apparently as she was the obvious person to authorita-
tively pronounce the scroll’s legitimacy and what to do about it.51 Smith
wonders if Daniel Peterson might be onto something in interpreting
Lehi’s vision as containing a restorative reference to a divine mother.
And Smith proposes that, in Lehi’s mind, perhaps Josiah’s reforms were
“fundamentally sound but slightly excessive” and that Lehi’s tree of life
vision may have been a subtle “recorrection of Josiah’s overcorrection.”52
Such nonbinary understandings may be a way out of the “what
to think of Josiah” conundrum. A number of times in scripture, the
Lord seems to command something that was not his first choice, or he
institutes an order of things for humans that does not conform to an
expressed ideal as closely as it might. For example, the Lord did not
want Israel to have a king, for good reasons that Samuel explains (1 Sam.
8:10–18), but then he later not only allowed a monarchy but gave it his
divine sanction—calling even troubled King Saul “the Lord’s anointed”
(1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 26:11). Doctrine and Covenants  19 suggests that the
Lord may be countenancing an overreading of how the word “eternal”
actually applies to afterlife punishment, since this understanding has
proved useful in prodding people to repentance: “Wherefore it is more
express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the
children of men” (D&C 19:7). Perhaps most famously, the law of Moses
was reinterpreted in Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible as an ad hoc
substitution for a higher, originally intended gospel fullness.
What all these scenarios have in common is the Lord responding to
human weakness and imperfection. Might something similar have been
at work with Josiah’s reforms? Perhaps God commanded (or just toler-
ated) them because they corrected some heinous aspects of the preced-
ing situation. Yes, God has a wife. Yes, he has a son. Yes, in the heavens,
gods are plural and familial as Joseph Smith later taught. But maybe
these truths were just too easy for ancient Judah to confuse with the
idolatrous religious beliefs of the surrounding societies that they were
supposed to avoid. Maybe the Jerusalem temple practices in Josiah’s
time were indeed too influenced by the pagan practices of other nations.

51. Smith, “Huldah’s Long Shadow,” 6–7.

52. Smith, “Huldah’s Long Shadow,” 6.
 Is the Bible Reliable? Josiah’s Reforms   V181

Maybe what Judah needed, for a time, was to make a clean, even extreme,
break to purify its practices. Maybe Josiah and his priests’ militant and
uncompromising monotheism, “overcorrecting” as it might have been,
was just the ticket. Yes, this monotheism might have made it harder to
accept Christ as part of the Godhead later on, but at the time, Josiah’s
reforms may have been solving a more immediate problem—like stamp-
ing out child sacrifice. Might this worthy goal have warranted the use of
any ideology that could get the job done, even if the cost was oversim-
plifying more multifaceted truths for a time?
Whether or not anything like this scenario was the case, the under-
standings above are worth considering along with the traditional
understanding of Josiah as righteous reformer; the prevalent scholarly
view of him as an agenda-driven power consolidator/narrative reshaper
worried about the Assyrians; and Margaret Barker’s view of him as a
suppressor of a religion that was better, more beautiful, and more richly
populated with divine beings. These various understandings are all full
of wonderous ideas and potential resonances with the restored gospel.
These possibilities are all worth pondering to our greater appreciation of
how a multitude of possible Bible meanings might edify us and to revel
in the mysterious ways of the Lord.

Eric A. Eliason is a professor in the English Department at Brigham Young Univer-

sity where he teaches folklore and the Bible as literature. With various co-authors, his
books include Latter-day Saints and Bible Scholarship (in press) as well as, previously,
Latter-day Lore: Mormon Folklore Studies and This Is the Plate: Utah Food Traditions. His
Special Forces chaplain work in Afghanistan is featured in Hammerhead Six. He and his
wife have four children and a grandchild.
Is the Song of Solomon Scripture?

Dana M. Pike and Eric A. Eliason

M any Latter-day Saint youth may have had their first exposure to
the Song of Solomon in seminary or on a mission. “Tear it out of
your Bible,” “Staple the pages together,” or “Write ‘DO NOT READ’ on
the title page with your red scripture marker!” are variants of stories
passed on about what seminary teachers or mission presidents have
advised. Since such sensational admonitions are almost guaranteed to
pique teenagers’ curiosity, they are presumably more alive in student
rumors than in the actual practice of seminary and institute instructors
or mission leaders. Such stories may be reactions to Bruce R. McCon­
kie’s oft-quoted evaluation of the Song of Solomon as “biblical trash,”
akin to verbal pornography.1 Yet nearly twenty years earlier Spencer W.
Kimball had approvingly cited a verse from the Song of Solomon in an
address entitled “Love vs. Lust”: “For love is strong as death; jealousy is
cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire” (Song 8:6).2 With
such variant considerations of the Song, it is easy to see how Latter-day

1. Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated in a 1984 address to Latter-day Saint religious

educators that “the Song of Solomon is biblical trash—it is not inspired writing.” Bruce R.
McConkie, “The Bible, a Sealed Book,” in Supplement: Symposium on the New Testament
1984 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984), 3; also avail-
able as Bruce R. McConkie, “The Bible: A Sealed Book,” in Teaching Seminary: Preservice
Readings (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 127.
Although McConkie was a Church Apostle at the time, his pronouncement is short of an
official Church statement on the status of the Song.
2. Spencer W. Kimball, “Love vs. Lust,” Brigham Young University devotional, January 5,
1965, accessed May 20, 2021, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/love-vs-lust/.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)183

184 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Saints might wonder about the Song’s proper place in the canon of the
restored Church.
To sort this out, it may helpful to look at the Song’s origin, content,
and reception history. The Song of Solomon, now commonly called
the Song of Songs (based on the opening phrase of the book), has been
part of Jewish and Christian Bibles for about two thousand years. It
primarily consists of words expressed between a male and female lover,
metaphorically and suggestively describing and delighting in the joys of
nature, each other’s bodies, and their physical attraction to each other.
Although traditionally attributed to Solomon, most scholars reject Solo-
monic authorship, and even the Bible Dictionary of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints calls this “doubtful.”3 In reality, we do not
know who composed this text, nor when it was produced. Suggested
dates for the Song’s composition range from the tenth to the third cen-
turies BC, but most scholars favor the later end of that span. Nor has
there been unity of opinion on whether the Song originated as one
composition or is a compilation of originally independent songs.4 Cur-
rently, most scholars view the Song as ancient Israelite love poetry that
did not originate as sacred literature. This is because it lacks a religious
focus, does not clearly contain the name of God, and shares several
characteristics with other ancient Near Eastern love poetry, especially
examples from Egypt.5
Although at the time of Jesus there was a core of Israelite/Jewish
books that were considered authoritative for all Jews (the Law and the
Prophets, and some of the Writings; compare with Luke 24:44), unifor-
mity had not yet been attained regarding all the books that eventually
came to be viewed as canonical (authoritative for and binding upon
all believers). The limited available evidence suggests that widespread
acceptance of the Song as scripture was not achieved until the early sec-
ond century AD, with Christian acceptance coming after that.

3. Bible Dictionary, in The Holy Bible (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 2013), s.v. “Song of Solomon,” 730.
4. For a somewhat expanded treatment of the content of this essay, with references
to other secondary literature, see Dana M. Pike, “Reading the Song of Solomon as a
Latter-day Saint,” Religious Educator 15, no. 2 (2014): 91–113, https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/
re-15-no-2-2014/reading-song-solomon-latter-day-saint.
5. Antonio Loprieno, “Searching for a Common Background: Egyptian Love Poetry
and the Biblical Song of Songs,” in Perspectives on the Song of Songs, ed. Anselm C. Hage-
dorn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 105–35.
 Is the Song of Solomon Scripture?   V185

Historically, most Jews and Christians have interpreted this book as

an allegory in which the male lover was understood to represent Yahweh/
Jehovah or Jesus Christ, with the female representing Israel, the Chris-
tian church, or the individual human soul. The Song thus represented
their love and reciprocal desire for each other. It is not clear whether
this allegorical approach with its spiritual focus preceded and allowed
for the Song’s inclusion in the biblical canon (probably) or whether the
allegorical-spiritual approach to the book arose later to justify its place
in the canon (it certainly provided ongoing justification). James Kugel
claims that anciently—when allegorical responses were taken much
more seriously than they are today—the Song was drawn into the canon
not because it was inspired, but by the force of its interpretation coming
to be seen as inspired by God.6 One factor that likely influenced this
interpretation is the husband-wife motif utilized in several prophetic
books in the Old Testament, in which Yahweh/Jehovah (the husband) is
bound by covenant to Israel (his wife). This motif continues in modified
form in the New Testament, with Jesus as the bridegroom and Chris-
tians collectively as his bride.7
However, not everyone in the past two millennia has been persuaded
by this allegorical approach to the Song. So, in at least a limited way,
Latter-day Saints stand in a long tradition of wondering about the Song
of Solomon’s scriptural status. And if the question is reframed from “Is
it scripture?” to “Is it appropriate for young unmarried people to read?”
then Bruce R. McConkie would find himself in good ancient company—
not only on the Song of Songs, but other scriptural books as well, espe-
cially Ezekiel.8 The canonical form of the Song itself may anticipate the

6. James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now (New
York: Free Press, 2007), 493–518.
7. See, for example, Isaiah 54:5–6; Jeremiah 6–14; Hosea 2:19–20; Matthew 25:1–13;
Ephesians 5:25–32; Revelation 19:7–9; 21:2, 9 (in Revelation 21, the future holy Jerusalem
and its inhabitants are depicted as the bride).
8. In a similar vein, the early Church father Origen reported that Jewish tradi-
tions warn against reading too early in one’s spiritual development the first few chap-
ters of Genesis and Ezekiel’s florid, seemingly idolatrously anthropomorphization
(Ezek. 1:4–28) and lewd metaphors for Israel’s unfaithfulness (Ezek. 16 and 23). But it is
not entirely clear whether this rabbinic hesitancy has to do with concerns about youths’
general maturity or, specifically, fear of exposing them too early to sexuality. Jerome
also believed this to be the case among Jews; however Jewish sources on this are lacking.
For an examination of early Christian understandings of ostensibly Hebrew maturity-
based Bible reading taboos, see Ed Gallagher, “You Can’t Read That Till You’re 30!” Our
Beans: Biblical and Patristic Studies, Especially Dealing with the Reception of the Hebrew
186 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

dangers of its own reading when it twice counsels not to “awaken or

arouse love before its proper time!” (Song 2:7, 8:4 ISV).9 Texts can be
restricted because they are holy rather than profane; sexual intimacy is a
sin outside of marriage but sacred within. Perhaps the first-century AD
Mishnah contributor Rabbi Akiva had something like this in mind when,
according to the Mishnah, he sought to refute those who questioned the
Song’s value and canonicity with, “Heaven forbid that any man in Israel
ever disputed that the Song of Songs is holy. For the whole world is not
worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the
Writings are holy and the Song of Songs is the holy of holies.”10
Despite occasional questions about the Song’s canonical status and
value, its place in scripture was generally stable until the 1700s, when
some Western Bible scholars began to claim that it was not, at least
originally, a spiritual representation of the mutual love between God
and his people. However, most American religious leaders well into the
1800s still taught that it was. In July 1832, during his divinely directed
efforts to provide inspired revisions to the biblical text (now called the
Joseph Smith Translation, JST), Joseph Smith claimed, “The Songs of
Solomon are not Inspired writings [sic].”11 What is lacking from Joseph
Smith and from his contemporaries is any indication of the reason for
this pronouncement.12 There has never been any official Church expla-
nation of Joseph Smith’s comment or of the Church’s continuing view of

Bible in Early Christianity (blog), February 5, 2015, http://sanctushieronymus.blogspot​

.com/2015/02/you-cant-read-that-till-youre-30.html.
9. We have admittedly cherry-picked the translation here. Many translations now
read essentially like this International Standard Version (ISV) quote, but a few others,
including the King James Version (KJV), render the abstract Hebrew form h’hbh as sug-
gesting letting the lover, rather than love itself, sleep until he or she is done sleeping. For
a concise review of the translation issues involved here, see, for example, NET Notes, s.v.
Song 2:7, n. 29.
10. Mishnah Yadayim 3:5; Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew
with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2012).
11. Scott H. Fahlring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, eds., Joseph Smith’s
New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Cen-
ter, Brigham Young University, 2004), 785. See 70–72 for the dating of the various por-
tions of JST OT Manuscript 2. Note that previous printings of the Latter-day Saint Bible
Dictionary contained an incorrect variation of this quotation. However, this is corrected
in the current (2013) edition. See Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Song of Solomon.”
12. The purpose of the plural “Songs of Solomon” in this JST statement is not known,
if indeed it was intended to convey something specific. Perhaps Joseph Smith believed
this song to be a composite of several songs, hence his use of the plural.
 Is the Song of Solomon Scripture?   V187

the Song, although one could postulate it has something to do with the
sensual tone of the composition.
Deciphering the possible significances of Joseph’s JST notation is com-
plicated by the fact that Latter-day Saints have made various references to,
and uses of, the Song over the following 140 years. In fact, variations of
this phrase from Song 6:10, “fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible
as an army with banners,” occur three times in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants (5:14; 105:31; 109:73), with the latter two passages dating after the 1832
statement about the Song being “not inspired.” Baffled by this, Hyrum M.
Smith and Janne M. Sjödahl, in one of the earliest Doctrine and Covenants
commentaries, speculated that the uninspired Song was drawing upon
some other now lost but truly inspired writing. This speculation resonates
nicely with the Restoration theme of lost scripture and neatly preserves
both the Song’s uninspired status and the legitimacy of its wording being
in the Doctrine and Covenants.13 However, Smith and Sjödahl correctly
admit this might be a notion too good to be true and alternately point out
that there “is no reason why the Lord could not use [this language from the
Song] in a revelation given to the Church in our own day.”14
The Song of Solomon may also obliquely show up in Joseph Smith’s
own exegesis as a student of Hebrew under Jewish professor Joshua Seixas
(1802–74). Reading the latter’s Manual Hebrew Grammar for the Use of
the Beginner15 may have encouraged Joseph to name his people’s place
of gathering in Illinois Nauvoo from the Hebrew word navu (beautiful),
occurring in the Bible only in Songs of Solomon 1:10 and Isaiah 52:7.16
Furthermore, there were sporadic but ongoing mentions of the Song
in official Latter-day Saint publications, including Young Women’s Jour-
nal (1897–1929), Improvement Era (1897–1970), and Relief Society Maga-
zine (1915–70). References to and brief quotations from the Song occur
in these periodicals in the context of comments on the Joseph Smith

13. Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjödahl, eds., The Doctrine and Covenants Con-
taining Revelations Given to Joseph Smith, Jr., the Prophet, with an Introduction and His-
torical and Exegetical Notes, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1965), 27–28.
14. Smith and Sjödahl, Doctrine and Covenants, 28.
15. Joshua Seixas, Manual Hebrew Grammar for the Use of the Beginner (Andover:
Flagg, Gould, and Newman, 1833).
16. Val Sederholm, “Joseph Smith’s New Translation and the Rejection of the Song
of Solomon as ‘Inspired Writings,’ ” I Began to Reflect (blog), July 13, 2010, http://val​seder​
holm​.blogspot.com/2010/07/joseph-smiths-new-translation-and.html. For further com-
ments on this point, see Pike, “Reading the Song of Solomon,” 110 n. 41.
188 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Translation, on nature and the beauty of the earth, on literature, on self-

improvement, and on the Bible and its books. For example, the Febru-
ary 22, 1934, edition of the Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star (published
in England) under the heading “Auxiliary Guide for March” instructs
that during the third week of March, the “Opening exercises” of Relief
Society should include “selections from Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
and the Songs of Solomon read to the class.”17 In the April 1959 general
conference, Elder Henry D. Taylor observed in his address, entitled
“Gratitude,”
Springtime is a glorious time of the year as new life begins to stir and
the earth seems to awaken from its long winter nap. An ancient biblical
prophet [the author of the Song!] has exclaimed:
“For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;
“The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is
come, and the voice of the turtle [meaning the turtle dove] is heard in
our land.” (Song of Sol. 2:11–12.)
This awakening is reminiscent of the death and the resurrection of
the Savior and we can appropriately dwell on the great debt of gratitude
that we owe him for his atoning sacrifice.18

Beginning in 1972, the Church undertook a major initiative to cor-

relate all lesson materials and Church publications.19 This effort paral-
leled new access in the 1960s–1970s to the Joseph Smith Translation
manuscripts in Independence, Missouri, which are owned by the Com-
munity of Christ (then the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-
ter Day Saints). This led to the inclusion of notes with certain Joseph
Smith Translation readings in the Church’s 1979 edition of the Bible.
The development of Church correlation and increased official use of the
Joseph Smith Translation appear to be major causes for the recent insti-
tutional ignoring of the Song of Solomon in official Latter-day Saint
publications. Since the 1970s, references to the Song in Church publi-
cations and sermons have been very minimal and almost consistently

17. “Auxiliary Guide for March,” Millennial Star 96 (February 22, 1934): 118.
18. Henry D. Taylor, “Gratitude,” in One Hundred Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1959), 56, second bracked phrase in original. This address
was later published as “Gratitude,” Improvement Era 62 (June 1959): 446–47.
19. See Frank O. May Jr., “Correlation of the Church, Administration,” in Encyclope-
dia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:323–25.
 Is the Song of Solomon Scripture?   V189

impart the Joseph Smith Translation claim that it is “not inspired.”20

(Notably, the Spencer W. Kimball quote in our first paragraph is from
before this time.)
However, Latter-day Saints’ interest in the Song has not entirely
waned. For example, both authors of this essay have published on it
elsewhere.21 And some Latter-day Saints still read and enjoy the Song.
For example, Ellis Rasmussen called it “worthwhile to enjoy [for] its
beauty as romantic literature, complementary to the other great types of
the literature of Israel.” He asserts that the Song’s identification “as ‘not
inspired writings’ . . . does not negate or depreciate its value as romantic
prose and poetry from a very literate people.”22
Ironically, the Song’s dubious status for Latter-day Saints has led
to it enjoying a minor but special place among some Latter-day Saints
for the curious issues it invites us to ponder. In a religion famous for
additions to scripture, how does the institutional marginalization and
folk-decanonization23 of a biblical book also help define what we mean
by an open canon? What do we make of Joseph Smith’s short, cryptic
notation in the JST, mentioned above, and its seeming similarities to the
current scholarly consensus? If the Song was uninspired to begin with,
why does its distinctive wording show up in several places in modern
revelation and preaching? What of James Kugel’s contention that it is
community acceptance into a canonical context and seeing a text’s use
(as much as its creation) as inspired that can make a work of another
genre into scripture? Might this enlighten our understanding of the

20. Consider the witty observation from Boyd Petersen, “Landscapes of Seduction:
Terry Tempest Williams’s Desert Quartet and the Biblical Songs of Songs,” Interdisciplin-
ary Studies in Literature and Environment 9, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 92: “that the Song of
Songs is erotic love poetry probably would not have concerned [Joseph] Smith since he
was not a prude, and, in fact, his teachings imply that sexual love is a divine gift. What-
ever his motive was, Smith’s short notation has rendered the Song of Songs an impotent
text within Mormonism.”
21. See Pike, “Reading the Song of Solomon,” 91–113; Eric A. Eliason, “Biblical Recep-
tion in Mormon Folklore,” in Handbook of Biblical Reception in the World’s Folklores, ed.
Eric Ziolkowski (Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming).
22. Ellis T. Rasmussen, A Latter-day Saint Commentary on the Old Testament (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 1993), 497.
23. Our evidence here is anecdotal rather than systematic, but by “folk-decanonization”
we mean that virtually every fellow Latter-day Saint with whom we have discussed this
chapter is surprised that anyone in our faith tradition regards the Song as a scripture at all.
In their minds it is simply not a legitimate part of the Bible.
190 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Doctrine and Covenants, which contains many “thus sayeth the Lord”–
style revelations but also high council meeting minutes (D&C 102), a
follow-up letter on a doctrinal matter (D&C  128), a proclamation on
rights and government probably penned by Oliver Cowdrey (D&C 134),
and an editorial epitaph traditionally but unsurely attributed to John
Taylor (D&C 135).24 Canonization seems to homogenize whatever previ-
ous genres a work might have been part of and invites readers to treat all
sections equally as revelations, or at least as “scripture.”
With the special place of marriage in Latter-day Saint theology and
the sacredness of sexual intimacy as underscored by talks like Elder
Holland’s “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments,”25 the content of the
Song of Solomon may be ready for a transformation in Latter-day Saint
reception from “scriptural pornography” to an appreciation of the Song,
its beauty, and its value in its own right. (Emma Smith’s transformation
from villain to hero in popular historical consciousness over a few short
decades in the mid- to late twentieth century shows such things have
happened.)
An avenue for such a reconsideration may have recently opened up.
From 1979 to 2012, the Bible Dictionary in the official Latter-day Saint
edition of the Bible described the Song of Solomon as “not inspired
scripture.”26 This paraphrase was an overstatement of Joseph Smith’s
actual notation and has been quoted frequently over the years, building
an inaccurate impression that the Prophet directly claimed the Song
was not scripture.27 Drawing on the critical work done by Joseph Smith
Papers scholars, the 2013 scripture revisions restore the Prophet’s actual

24. For the historical backgrounds of the sections referenced, see “Revelations in
Context: The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants,” The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://history.lds.org/section/revelations?lang=eng.
25. Jeffrey R. Holland, “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments,” Brigham Young Univer-
sity devotional, January 12, 1988, accessed May 20, 2021, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/
jeffrey-r-holland_souls-symbols-sacraments/. This address was delivered when Holland
was president of Brigham Young University.
26. Bible Dictionary, in The Holy Bible (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 1978), s.v. “Song of Solomon,” 776, emphasis added. Interestingly, in
the same edition, a note accompanying the first verse of Song of Solomon reads, “The
Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings,” as found in the actual JST manuscript.
27. See, for example, “Enrichment Section G: Hebrew Literary Styles,” in Old Testa-
ment Student Manual: Genesis–2 Samuel (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1980), 303; Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith’s inspired
translation of the Bible,” Ensign 2, no. 12 (December 1972): 60–63.
 Is the Song of Solomon Scripture?   V191

wording of “not inspired writings.”28 This wording does not touch on

canonical status directly but leaves open the possibility that the Song
might nonetheless be scriptural—by inclusion in the traditional biblical
canon and possibly by inspired interpretation, as James Kugel suggests.
Given this complex reception history as a whole, do Latter-day
Saints consider the Song of Solomon scripture? This answer is based
in part on the corollary question, What is scripture? The English word
“scripture” derives from the Latin form scriptūra, “something written,”
from the verb scrībere, “to write.” When referring to the scriptures, it
designates the authoritative writings containing divine words and will,
as well as lessons and principles for a faithful life, produced by humans
under the direction of the Holy Spirit (see, for example, 2 Pet. 1:20–21).
Thus, believing Jews and Christians have historically referred to their
written Bible as “scripture” or “the Scriptures.” For Latter-day Saints, the
canon of “scripture” is larger: the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and
Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.29 The Song of Solomon is thus in
Latter-day Saint scripture.
However, Latter-day Saints bring an additional and different per-
spective to this issue. In 1842, Joseph Smith wrote, “We believe the Bible
to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (A of F 1:8).
This qualification—“translated correctly”—seems to apply to transmis-
sion as well as to strictly translation matters. This provides a basis for
understanding Joseph Smith’s decade-earlier Joseph Smith Translation
claim. “Not inspired” indicates the Song does not contain the Spirit-
communicated divine word, nor is it divinely intended allegory. It is not
holy writ. Articles of Faith 1:8 has been used to support the Latter-day
Saint belief that some things have been lost from, and corrupted in, the
Bible. And this belief has, in turn, been employed to support the conten-
tion that the Song does not belong in the Bible, that its canonical status
can be rejected. Thus, the spiritual intent of the allegorical interpreta-
tions of the Song can be (and have been) institutionally dismissed as
authoritative even though they may have some value for some readers.

28. Bible Dictionary (2013), s.v. “Song of Solomon,” 730, emphasis added.
29. Compared to traditional Judaism and Christianity, Latter-day Saints have a
larger canon, and one that is open to further additions. Additionally, Latter-day Saints
have a further, less explicit concept of scripture. As stated in Doctrine and Covenants
68:4, whatever authorized missionaries, and presumably Church leaders by extension,
teach “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will . . . the
mind . . . the word . . . [and] the voice of the Lord.” This allows for a nonwritten or non-
canonical dimension of “scripture.”
192 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Even though there has never been a formal Church pronouncement

on the status of the Song, the Joseph Smith Translation claim became
de facto the official Church position, especially from the 1970s onward.
Viewed from this perspective, it is fair to say that for current Latter-day
Saints, the Song of Solomon is in the traditional collection of scripture,
the biblical canon, but it is not institutionally regarded as scripture. Yet,
as is fitting for an open topic, it should not be surprising if we cannot
sum up the issue so neatly. It is after all the institutional Church that has
never published an edition of the Bible without the Song of Songs and
whose canonical Doctrine and Covenants significantly quotes it. And,
by contrast, it is informally among some of the Church’s membership
where the notion seems to exist that the Song should be literally torn
from the Bible.

Dana M. Pike is an emeritus professor of Ancient Scripture and Ancient Near Eastern
Studies at Brigham Young University. His publications deal primarily with the Old
Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls. With co-authors and co-editors, his books include
Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament (Deseret Book); Discoveries in the Judean
Desert, XXXIII, Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford); and LDS Perspectives on the Dead Sea Scrolls
(FARMS). He and his wife have three children and eight grandchildren.

Eric A. Eliason is a professor in the English Department at Brigham Young Univer-

sity where he teaches folklore and the Bible as literature. With various co-authors, his
books include Latter-day Saints and Bible Scholarship (in press) as well as, previously,
Latter-day Lore: Mormon Folklore Studies and This Is the Plate: Utah Food Traditions. His
Special Forces chaplain work in Afghanistan is featured in Hammerhead Six. He and his
wife have four children and a grandchild.
Book of Mormon Geographies

Andrew H. Hedges

O f the many unresolved issues facing members of The Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today, perhaps none has generated
as much speculation and controversy as the question regarding where,
exactly, the events recorded in the Book of Mormon took place. Begin-
ning in Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continuing to the present, scholars
and interested members alike have offered a variety of possible locations
for the more prominent places mentioned in the text, including the city
of Zarahemla, the “narrow neck of land” (Ether 10:20), the river Sidon,
and the site of the last battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites.
Scores of books, articles, and presentations have taken up the topic,
with adherents of different viewpoints pushing the limits of decorum
at times in their interactions with one another. In recent years, many
have turned to websites, blogs, and YouTube videos to make their cases,
thereby eliminating the need to subject their ideas to scholarly peer
review in order to gain an audience.
Rather than leading toward some sort of consensus on the topic, how-
ever, this free exchange of ideas and evidence has accompanied a virtual
flowering of new and different propositions regarding the real-world
lands of the Book of Mormon. Variations of the once-­popular “Hemi-
spheric” model, which envisioned the whole of North and South Amer-
ica as the setting for the book’s events, have been joined in recent decades
by more “limited” geographic models that see the book telling the story
of a relatively small geographical area. Most prominent among the latter
are the “Limited Mesoamerican” model, which places the book’s nar-
rative in southern Mexico and Guatemala, and the “Heartland” model,

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)193

194 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

which situates it in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys of the United
States. Other suggestions include the west coast of South America, the
Baja Peninsula, and even the Malay Peninsula or parts of Africa. Still
others have suggested that the entire endeavor is a fool’s errand, as the
destruction that reportedly accompanied Christ’s crucifixion so altered
the book’s described geography as to make it unrecognizable today (see
3 Ne. 8). Remarkably, after years of research, discussion, and debate, the
question of where the Book of Mormon played itself out is more wide
open than it has ever been, with individuals from all walks of life and
educational backgrounds weighing in on the topic.1
Like many other questions Latter-day Saints grapple with, this one
has its basis in taking both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon at
their word. Both claim that the book is, in fact, a real history of real
people who lived somewhere in the Americas hundreds of years before
its European discovery in the fifteenth century. Smith’s account of find-
ing the plates, protecting them from harm, translating them by means of
a special instrument that had been buried with them, and finally show-
ing them and other tangible artifacts to some of his close associates all
underscore the physical existence of the record and, by extension, the
people who created it. So, too, does the language of the book itself, much
of which is written in the first-person voice of the ancient prophets who
reportedly wrote and compiled it. In addition, hundreds of passages—at
least 550 of them by one count2—discuss physical features like cities, vil-
lages, rivers, mountains, plains, forests, and seas, all of which fit into a
remarkably internally consistent geography that serves as the backdrop
for the movements, preaching, and warfare that make up the contents
of the book. Neither Smith’s account nor the book’s internal claims, of
course, can be seen as irrefutable “proof ” that the Book of Mormon is
real history, but they do bring its readers face-to-face with the question
of the record’s authenticity. And for those who answer in the affirmative,
the follow-up question of where, exactly, all these things took place is
not an easy one to answer.
The essence of the problem is the simple fact that, with a handful of
notable exceptions—all of them, such as Jerusalem and the Red Sea, in

1. For a brief review of proposed Book of Mormon geographies over the years, see
Brandon S. Plewe, “Book of Mormon Geographies: 1842–Present,” in Mapping Mormon-
ism: An Atlas of Latter-day Saint History, 2nd ed., ed. Brandon S. Plewe, S. Kent Brown,
Donald Q. Cannon, and Richard H. Jackson (Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2014), 190–91.
2. John L. Sorenson, “Mormon’s Map,” Maxwell Institute Publications 54 (2000): 6.
 Book of Mormon Geographies   V195

the Middle East—none of the places mentioned in the Book of Mor-

mon can reasonably be identified with real-world locations today at the
exclusion of other possible locations. The exceptions are the “valley of
Lemuel” (1 Ne. 2:14), “Nahom” (1 Ne. 16:34), and “Bountiful” (1 Ne. 17:5),
all three of which are mentioned in the book’s opening chapters in a
context that would place them in the northwest, southwest, and south-
east reaches, respectively, of the Arabian Peninsula. Recent surveys of
the area, combined with careful archaeological work and newly found
inscriptions, have identified good candidates for each of these places,
all of which are arguably consistent with the directions, distances, and
descriptions given in the text itself.3
The situation is very different in the Americas, however. Here, a
whole host of places have been identified for each of the major geo-
graphical features that made up the Nephites’, Lamanites’, and Jaredites’
home in the “promised land.” The difference between the two areas is
a result of knowing where, precisely, the story begins in the Middle
East and not knowing where it begins (or ends) in the Americas. With
Jerusalem as a starting point (1 Ne. 1:4, 7; 2:4), and the Red Sea as a
frequent point of reference (1 Ne. 2:5, 8, 9; 16:14), it is a relatively easy
task to follow the early action in a general way through Arabia, even
without the benefit of the recent finds. In contrast, we have no idea
where in the Americas Lehi and his family landed after leaving the
Middle East. Whether it was in North America or South America, on
the Atlantic shore or the Pacific, is completely unknown.4 The only
firm link between a specific location on the ground today and the Book
of Mormon is the stack of plates Joseph Smith obtained from the Hill
Cumorah in upstate New York. At best, such a link tells us only where
Moroni, the ancient Nephite prophet who buried the plates, spent some
time at some point after his people had been destroyed. It tells us very

3. See S. Kent Brown, “‘The Place Which Was Called Nahom’: New Light from
Ancient Yemen,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 1 (1999): 66–68; Warren P.
Aston, “Newly Found Altars From Nahom,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 2
(2001): 57–61; and articles by Lynn M. Hilton, Warren P. Aston, George D. Potter and
Richard Wellington, S. Kent Brown, Dave LeFevre, and Jeffrey R. Chadwick in Journal
of Book of Mormon Studies 15, no. 2 (2006): 4–76.
4. While some have taken a short note in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams
as a prophetic pronouncement indicating that Lehi’s family landed in Chile, careful
analysis of the document has shown that it cannot be linked with any certainty to Joseph
Smith. See Frederick G. Williams, “Did Lehi Land in Chile?” in Reexploring the Book of
Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book;
Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 57–61.
196 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

little, however, about where he or his people had been prior to that.
With places on two entire continents available to pick from—rather
than a relatively limited area like the Arabian Peninsula—and with
ambiguities in the text giving free reign to creative interpretations,
it is little wonder that arguments can be made for a variety of areas
throughout North and South America having served as the Book of
Mormon’s setting.
While many researchers have overlooked it, the earliest effort to
identify a specific real-world location with the events mentioned in the
Book of Mormon appears to be a June 4, 1834, letter to Joseph Smith’s
wife, Emma, written from Pike County, Illinois, “on the banks of the
Mississippi,” as Smith was traveling to Missouri with Zion’s Camp. Pur-
porting to be a letter “dictate[d]” by Smith himself, the letter recounts
how he and his companions had been “wandering over the plains of the
Nephites, recounting occasionaly [sic] the history of the Book of Mor-
mon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord,
picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity.”5
A letter written the same year by Oliver Cowdery to William W. Phelps
similarly identifies a North American setting for at least some of what
happened in the Book of Mormon—in this case, New York’s Hill Cumo-
rah, where Smith reportedly found the gold plates, as the site of the final
battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites.6 Following the 1841 publication
of John L. Stephens’s Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas,
and Yucatan,7 wherein Stephens vividly described pre-Columbian ruins
of an ancient American civilization as advanced as that portrayed in
the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints close to Smith, and perhaps
Smith himself, began linking places mentioned in the book with Cen-
tral American sites as well. These and other sources suggests that Smith
and his contemporaries eventually came to see Central America as the

5. The letter survives today as a copy in Joseph Smith Letterbook  2, written in

the handwriting of James Mulholland. It is written in first person and signed “Joseph
Smith Jr” in Mulholland’s hand. “To Emma Smith, 4 June 1834,” in Personal Writings of
Joseph Smith, rev. ed., comp. and ed. Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002),
344–46.
6. Oliver Cowdery, “Letter VII: To W. W. Phelps, Esq.,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger
and Advocate 1, no. 10 (July 1834): 158–59. Cowdery also identified this same hill as the
site of the Jaredites’ final battles, as well as the place where other Nephite records, in
addition to the Book of Mormon, had been buried (see Morm. 6:6).
7. John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1841).
 Book of Mormon Geographies   V197

center of Book of Mormon civilization, with sites in the Midwest and

eastern United States coming into the picture toward the end of the
narrative.8
Following the lead of Orson Pratt, a more fully hemispheric Book
of Mormon geography came into vogue in the latter half of the nine-
teenth century. According to this model, the southernmost reaches of
ancient Book of Mormon lands—especially the “land of Nephi” and the
city Zarahemla—were in northern South America, while the Isthmus
of Darien was the book’s “narrow neck of land” that led into the land
northward. New York’s Hill Cumorah, several thousand miles to the
northeast, continued to be the Hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon
where the last battles were fought. While some researchers continued
to propound this model well into the twentieth century, others began to
suggest the possibility that Book of Mormon lands were much more
limited in extent. Although differing in the details of their respective
models, proponents of the latter view believed that the events of the
entire book, including the last battles at Cumorah, took place in a Cen-
tral American context. By the mid- to late twentieth century, research-
ers favoring some variation of this “Limited Mesoamerican” model of
Book of Mormon geography far outnumbered those adhering to the
more expansive, hemispheric model that Orson Pratt had proposed a
hundred years earlier.9 The fact that so few Native Americans had joined
the Church in North America when compared to the numbers begin-
ning to accept its teachings in Central America during the latter half of
the twentieth century may have contributed to the increasing popularity
of this model during this time. So, too, did the growing realization that
the pre-Columbian Americas were home to a tremendous diversity of
peoples, cultures, and languages and that the traditional assumption
that the Book of Mormon was “the” history of “the” Native Americans
failed to take into account the complexity of the cultural landscape. See-
ing the Book of Mormon as an expanded and extensive “family history”
of sorts, rather than as the history of an entire hemisphere, seemed a
better fit for the evidence.

8. See Andrew H. Hedges, “Book of Mormon Geography in the World of Joseph

Smith,” Mormon Historical Studies 8, nos. 1 and 2 (2007): 77–89.
9. John L. Sorenson, “The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Sourcebook,”
Maxwell Institute Publications 38 (1990): 13–35. See also Matthew Roper, “Limited Geog-
raphy and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,”
FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 225–75.
198 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

By the 1980s and 1990s, David A. Palmer and John L. Sorenson had
emerged as the new Limited Mesoamerican model’s most articulate sup-
porters. Careful analysis of their research shows that their arguments
hinged on two main points. First was their belief that the geographi-
cal descriptions in the text of the Book of Mormon itself absolutely
require that the final battles of the Nephites and Jaredites took place
relatively close to each civilization’s center near the “narrow neck of
land” mentioned in the text. Second was their contention that the hill
where Joseph Smith found the gold plates does not match the text’s
description of the hill where the final battles took place.10 Building on
this foundation, Palmer, Sorenson, and others have argued that only in
Central America do we find all of the geographical features mentioned
in the Book of Mormon occurring in a more-or-less limited area whose
archaeological remains are consistent with the sophisticated level of
civilization described in the text.11 The argument has perhaps found its
ultimate expression in Sorenson’s Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient Ameri-
can Book, published in 2013.12
For all its popularity, the Limited Mesoamerican model is not with-
out its critics. Even without having an alternative location in mind, some
have questioned the argument that the Book of Mormon text requires
a limited geography in the first place or a hill vastly different from New
York’s Hill Cumorah as the setting for the final battles.13 Others have
accepted the idea of a limited geography but have placed it in a North
American rather than Central American setting. As with the Limited
Mesoamerican model in its early phase, early proponents of this idea—
first proposed by Delbert W. Curtis in 1988—varied in where, precisely,
they believed individual geographical features mentioned in the Book
of Mormon were located, but all agreed that the book’s narrative ran its
course in a relatively limited area that included upstate New York. All
agreed, too, that Joseph Smith’s Hill Cumorah was the hill of the Book

10. See David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidence for the Book of Mor-
mon from Ancient Mexico (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1981); John L. Sorenson, An
Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo,
Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985).
11. For examples other than Palmer and Sorenson, see Joseph L. Allen, Exploring the
Lands of the Book of Mormon (Orem, Utah: S. A. Publishers, 1989); F. Richard Hauck,
Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988).
12. John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 2013).
13. For example, see Andrew H. Hedges, “Cumorah and the Limited Mesoamerican
Theory,” Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 10, no. 2 (2009): 111–34.
 Book of Mormon Geographies   V199

of Mormon’s final battles, while the Great Lakes served as the various
“seas” mentioned in the text, and constrictions between the Great Lakes
or the Finger Lakes answered to the book’s “narrow neck of land.” Each
author also had the Nephites reaching the continent’s eastern seaboard
by crossing the Atlantic, though they differed on where, precisely, the
group had debarked.14
Given the momentum the Limited Mesoamerican model had at the
time, several supporters of the North American model included reasons
for rejecting a more southerly location for the Book of Mormon’s setting.
For most, early Church publications by Joseph Smith’s close associates
that identify the Hill Cumorah in New York with the Hill Cumorah of
the book’s final battles have been key. If the two were one and the same,
as people like Oliver Cowdery clearly believed they were, and a lim-
ited geography fits the textual and cultural evidence better than a more
expansive one does, then a relatively limited area that includes upstate
New York must be the setting for the book. For many, too, the prophecy
that that the Nephites’ “promised land” would be a “land of liberty unto
the Gentiles,” free from kings, bondage, captivity, “and from all other
nations under heaven” (2 Ne. 10:11; Ether 2:12), is an important consider-
ation because the United States seems to fit that description better than
more politically unstable countries to the south.
Not surprisingly, the North American model has drawn a strong
response from the Limited Mesoamerican camp. Questioning the
underlying assumptions about the location of the hill Cumorah and
the identification of the Book of Mormon’s “promised land” with the
United States, supporters of a Mesoamerican location have argued that
the region is a poor fit for the Book of Mormon’s internal geography
and directions. They have also objected to it on archaeological grounds,
contending that the archaeological record in the upper Midwest and
Northeast simply doesn’t attest to a pre-Columbian civilization anything
like that portrayed in the Book of Mormon, with its extensive agricul-
ture, written language, and large population centers housing hundreds
of thousands of individuals. Nowhere in the eastern half of the United

14. See Delbert W. Curtis, The Land of the Nephites (American Fork, Utah: D. W.
Curtis, 1988); Paul Hedengren, The Land of Lehi: A Book of Mormon Geography (Provo,
Utah: Bradford and Wilson, 1995); Duane R. Aston, Return to Cumorah: Piecing Together
the Puzzle Where the Nephites Lived (Sacramento, Calif.: American River, 1998); Paul
Hedengren, The Land of Lehi: Further Evidence for the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah:
Tepran, 1999); and Phyllis Carol Olive, The Lost Lands of the Book of Mormon (Spring-
ville, Utah: Bonneville Books, 2000).
200 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

States, they concluded, do the book, the geography, and the archeology
come together as well as they do in Central America.15
As strongly worded as the criticisms against this North American
model have been, they have done little to dissuade its supporters. Led
by Rod L. Meldrum, proponents of the “Heartland” model, as it has
come to be called, have responded to the critics’ objections by willingly
and creatively adjusting their proposed geography to better match the
descriptions in the text. Where the Mesoamerican model understands
the text’s narrow neck of land to be an isthmus, for example, propo-
nents of the Heartland model, noting that the text fails to explicitly
mention a “sea” as the neck’s eastern border (see Alma 22:32), under-
stand it to be a short stretch of ground between Lake Michigan—the
text’s “west sea”—and some not-too-far-distant point to the east. Other
adjustments include having Lehi’s party first landing in the vicinity of
today’s New Orleans before moving north and east up the Mississippi
and Ohio River valleys, and identifying the Book of Mormon peoples
with the relatively advanced, agricultural, mound-building Adena and
Hopewell cultures that lived in those areas during Book of Mormon
times. Less scrupulous about evidence than trained historians, scientists,
and archaeologists might be, Meldrum draws on a variety of sources to
offer real-world, visually compelling locations and remains for a variety
of phenomena described in the Book of Mormon, including such tradi-
tional conundrums as elephants, horses, and Hebrew writing.16
Sorenson, Palmer, and other proponents of a Mesoamerican geog-
raphy have generally made their case in peer-reviewed journals and
academic presentations, where they have directed their research toward
university-trained specialists in history, archaeology, and anthropology.
Through derivative publications, they have also reached a significant
number of other Latter-day Saints, some of whom have helped develop
a small tourism industry for various archaeological sites in Central
America that seem to correspond to places mentioned in the Book of

15. See, for example, David A. Palmer, Review of Delbert W. Curtis, The Land of the
Nephites, in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 2, no. 1 (1990): 67–73; John E. Clark,
“Evaluating the Case for a Limited Great Lakes Setting,” FARMS Review of Books 14, no. 1
(2002): 9–77.
16. For example, see Meldrum’s use of Cahokia—site of the largest pre-Columbian
earthworks in North America, but they date to several hundred years after the Book of
Mormon’s Nephites and Lamanites. Rod L. Meldrum, Exploring the Book of Mormon
in America’s Heartland: A Visual Journey of Discovery (New York: Digital Legend, 2011),
114–17.
 Book of Mormon Geographies   V201

Mormon. A similar industry has developed around proposed Book

of Mormon sites in the Heartland model, with the internet, image-­
oriented publications, and convention-style conferences and presen-
tations serving to spread the word in place of more academic venues.
The result has been the development of two worldviews, essentially,
whose ties to one of Mormonism’s foundational texts on the one hand
and tourism industries on the other have moved the study of Book of
Mormon geography into realms of faith, orthodoxy, and finances that
transcend the mere differences of opinion or interpretation that char-
acterize more abstract academic questions. One need only attend a con-
ference put on by either camp or search the internet for “Tours of Book
of Mormon Lands” to see how serious a business, both emotionally and
financially, the whole thing has become for some.
While most interested Latter-day Saints appear to support either
the Limited Mesoamerican or Heartland models, other explanations
of Book of Mormon geography, offering very different locations as the
book’s setting, are still being actively developed and defended today.
One, for example, drawing on a variety of geographical and archaeo-
logical evidence, argues for Chile, Peru, and Bolivia as the land of the
Book of Mormon.17 Another, arguing from an almost purely geographi-
cal position (since any supporting archaeology appears to be almost
entirely lacking) suggests Baja California.18 Still others reject the Ameri-
cas entirely and posit a location on the Malay Peninsula in Southeast
Asia or in Africa—possibilities which handily account for the Book of
Mormon’s elephants, perhaps, but run afoul of Joseph Smith’s report that
the book is a history of people who lived somewhere in the Americas.19
Whatever their strengths and weaknesses, none of these more recent
propositions has, at least so far, garnered the attention and support cur-
rently enjoyed by the Heartland and Mesoamerican models.
Popular or not, the very fact that new ideas on the question are
still being propounded underscores the basic problem that plagues
all proposed Book of Mormon geographies, including those that can
count hundreds or even thousands of supporters. For all the evidence

17. See George Potter, Nephi in the Promised Land: More Evidences That the Book of
Mormon Is a True History (Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, 2009).
18. See “Home,” A  Choice Land, accessed May 26, 2021, http://www.achoiceland​
.com/home.
19. See Ralph A. Olsen, A More Promising Land of Promise for the Book of Mormon
(Logan, Utah: Vivid Volumes, 2006); Embaye Melekin, The African Bible: The Record of
the Abyssinian Prophets (Bloomington, Ind: AuthorHouse, 2011).
202 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

that each may be able to marshal in support of its position, no one has
yet found any remains outside the Middle East that can be definitively
linked to the Book of Mormon. Such remains could take any number of
forms, although at this point it seems that they would have to include
some sort of textual component—some inscription or record found in
situ, dating to Book of Mormon times, that makes an unambiguous
allusion to a person, event, or location (and preferably all three) dis-
cussed in the book itself. Until such a “Welcome to Zarahemla” sign-
post is found, the geography of the Book of Mormon seems destined to
remain more a topic for discussion and debate than a real-world loca-
tion on the ground.

Andrew H. Hedges is a professor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young

University. His research interests include nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint Church
history, Book of Mormon geography, and environmental history.
The Book of Mormon Translation Process

Grant Hardy

J oseph Smith did not offer many details about the translation pro-
cess for the Book of Mormon, other than affirming that it was done
through “the gift and power of God.”1 In 1831, at a Church conference
where he was invited to share more information, he declined, saying
that “it was not expedient for him to relate these things.”2 Along with the
golden plates, he had been given a set of Nephite “interpreters” (Mosiah
8:13; Ether 4:5), which he described as “two stones in silver bows” (JS–H
1:35), apparently looking something like a pair of glasses or spectacles.
According to eyewitnesses, however, after the loss of the 116 pages, he
primarily used a seer stone that had been in his possession for several
years, which he would place in the crown of his hat, and then, putting
his face in the hat, he would dictate the text of the Book of Mormon to
scribes.3 (Somewhat confusingly, after 1833 he referred to both devices

1. Preface and “The Testimony of Three Witnesses,” in The Book of Mormon (Pal-
myra, N.Y.: Joseph Smith Jr., 1830), [iii], [589]; “Letter to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833,”
in Documents, Volume  2: July 1831–January 1833, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey and others,
Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 354; Joseph Smith
to John Wentworth, “Church History,” Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842, 707.
2. “Minutes, 25–26 October 1831,” in Godfrey and others, Documents, Volume 2, 84
(minutes from a Church conference in Orange, Ohio).
3. Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, “Joseph Smith: The Gift of See-
ing,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 2 (1982): 48–68; Michael Hubbard
MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation
and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham
Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 61–140; John W. Welch, “The
Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens:

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)203

204 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

by the biblical term “Urim and Thummim.”) The open question in this
case is what happened when Joseph looked at the seer stone.
He obviously did not know the language of the plates—reformed
Egyptian (Morm. 9:32). His own education was limited, and the first
rudimentary decipherment of any form of ancient Egyptian by scholars
had happened just a few years earlier.4 So when Joseph spoke of “trans-
lating,” he was not using the word in its ordinary sense, whereby some-
one who knows the source language perceives the meaning and then
formulates corresponding expressions in the target language. Some
Latter-day Saints believe that the seer stone allowed Joseph to bypass
the first step in such a way that the meaning of the golden plates’ text
was revealed to him in a nonverbal or preverbal form, which he then put
into his own words. Other Latter-day Saints think that when he looked
at the seer stone, he could see English letters and words, which he read
aloud to his scribes. This means that there was a pre-existing translation,
which he could access through the stone. (John Gilbert, the non-LDS
typesetter for the first edition, put it this way: “The question might be
asked here whether Jo or the spectacles was the translator?”)5
Either way, when Joseph “translated,” he was rarely looking at the
characters on the plates, which were usually either on the table covered
in cloth or hidden elsewhere in the house or vicinity. At the same time,
however, the process was not as straightforward as ordinary reading,
since David Whitmer reported that if Joseph was not spiritually in tune
(as when he had some sort of argument with his wife Emma), the device
did not work.6 In addition, Oliver Cowdery once attempted to translate

Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 79–227. Images of
the seer stone can be found in Royal Skousen and Robin Scott Jensen, eds., Revelations
and Translations, Volume 3, Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, vol. 1, Joseph
Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2015), xx–xxi. See also the Gos-
pel Topics Essay “Book of Mormon Translation” at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/
study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng.
4. Lesley and Roy Adkins, The Keys of Egypt: The Obsession to Decipher Egyptian
Hieroglyphs (New York: HarperCollins, 2000); Andrew Robinson, Cracking the Egyp-
tian Code: The Revolutionary Life of Jean-François Champollion (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2012). Champollion published his groundbreaking monograph on
Egyptian hieroglyphics, based in part on the Rosetta Stone, in 1824 in French.
5. “John H. Gilbert Memorandum, 8 September 1892,” in Early Mormon Documents,
ed. Dan Vogel, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996–2003), 2:546.
6. Welch, “Miraculous Timing,” 173, 176.
 Book of Mormon Translation Process   V205

and failed—though it is uncertain whether he had tried to use the seer

stone (D&C 9).
Eyewitnesses to the translation process believed that Joseph was
reading a pre-existing text. According to Martin Harris, “By aid of the
seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet . . . ,
and when finished he would say, ‘Written,’ and if correctly written, that
sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not
written correctly it remained until corrected,” with Joseph occasion-
ally spelling out difficult words or names.7 Other witnesses, including
Emma Smith, Joseph Knight  Sr., David Whitmer, and John Whitmer,
gave similar reports.8 These witnesses did not look into the seer stone
themselves, and there is no record of Joseph ever explaining the transla-
tion process, so their descriptions are presumably based on their own
observations of Joseph at work. Nevertheless, an examination of the
text of the Book of Mormon, particularly the original manuscript, may
provide additional evidence.
In comparing these accounts to the original manuscript (of which
28 percent is extant), linguist Royal Skousen proposed three theories of
translation: “loose control,” in which ideas were revealed to Joseph and
then put into his own language; “tight control,” where he saw specific
words and read them to his scribes; and “iron-clad control,” in which
his reading from the stone could not move forward if a scribe had made
an uncorrected mistake.9 Most of the witnesses appear to have believed
the last theory, though the presence of spelling and transcription errors
in the original manuscript appears to disprove it. Clearly the dictation
moved forward even when a few words were missed by the transcriber
or when names were misspelled. (It is important to note that the three
theories refer only to the translation process, not to the translation itself.
The English Book of Mormon may be a rather free translation that was
nevertheless revealed word for word. In fact, the presence of so many
phrases from the King James Version, particularly from biblical texts
written after 600 BC, argues strongly for it being a translation character-
ized by functional rather than formal equivalence.)

7. Welch, “Miraculous Timing,” 149, 153.

8. Welch, “Miraculous Timing,” 142, 166, 170, 173–75, 179, 189.
9. Royal Skousen, “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence
from the Original Manuscript,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 22–31.
Joseph Smith’s oft-quoted comment that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct
of any book on earth” (1981 Introduction) may have a more limited scope than some
Latter-day Saints have assumed.
206 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

But the question at hand is, roughly, How much of Joseph Smith can
we see in the Book of Mormon? Did he produce a translation, through
miraculous means, that bears traces of his own words, concepts, and
understanding? Or was a pre-existing text given to him by revelation,
a text that would in turn reflect the mind of its celestial translator (or
translators)? Many Church leaders and scholars have opted for the for-
mer scenario—which seems similar to how Joseph produced the revela-
tions in the Doctrine and Covenants—including Brigham Young, who
asserted that “when God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner
to suit their circumstances and capacities. . . . I will even venture to say
that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances
it would materially differ from the present translation.”10 B. H. Roberts,
John Widtsoe, Richard Anderson, Blake Ostler, Stephen Ricks, Kathleen
Flake, Samuel Brown, and Terryl Givens have expressed similar ideas.11
In general, these commentators seem to share a sense that revelation
is always modulated by its human recipients. The kinds of evidence that
might support viewing the English Book of Mormon as a translation jointly
produced by divine revelation and Joseph’s personal capacities include:
• The nonstandard grammar, repetitions, and awkwardness of the
original dictation. In many ways, the Book of Mormon seems like
the sort of work that a young, religiously enthusiastic but poorly
educated New York farmer might produce.
• The limited vocabulary of about 5,600 words (2,225 root words in
English).

10. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 26  vols. (Liverpool: F.  D. Richards,
1855–86), 9:311 (July 13, 1862).
11. B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909),
2:110–21, 3:407–25; John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith: Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God (1924;
reprint, Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1951), 42; Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift
and Power of God,” Ensign 7, no. 9 (September 1977): 79–85; Blake T. Ostler, “The Book of
Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source,” Dialogue 20, no. 1 (1987): 66–123;
Stephen D. Ricks, “Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence,” Jour-
nal of Book of Mormon Studies 2, no. 2 (1993): 201–6; Kathleen Flake, “Translating Time:
The Nature and Function of Joseph Smith’s Narrative Canon,” Journal of Religion 87, no. 4
(2007): 497–527; Samuel Morris Brown, “The Language of Heaven: Prolegomenon to the
Study of Smithian Translation,” Journal of Mormon History 38, no. 3 (2012): 51–71, and
“‘To Read the Round of Eternity’: Speech, Text, and Scripture in The Book of Mormon,” in
Americanist Approaches to “The Book of Mormon,” ed. Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hick-
man (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 159–83; Terryl Givens’s general under-
standing of revelatory translation is spelled out in his Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s
Most Controversial Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 188–202.
 Book of Mormon Translation Process   V207

• Phrases and concepts, including religious concepts, that were

common in early nineteenth-century America.
• Anachronisms. References to things that would have been out of
place in the ancient Americas—such as horses, cattle, steel, chari-
ots, and silk—might be attributed to a translator’s inattention, mis-
apprehension, or use of loanwords.
• Biblical phrases, from both the Old and New Testament, that are
scattered throughout the text. Whoever translated the Book of
Mormon was very familiar with the King James Bible.
• The entire chapters that are reproduced from Isaiah, Micah, Mala-
chi, and Matthew with only slight variations from the KJV, even
when that 1611 translation was in error. Of particular note are the
changes made to the italicized words, which indicated transla-
tors’ additions to the Hebrew or Greek in order to round out or
clarify the English rendition. When the Book of Mormon quotes
lengthy biblical passages, nearly 40 percent of the italicized words
in the KJV are changed, sometimes resulting in nongrammatical
sentences, though such changes account for only one-fifth of the
total variations. It is easy to imagine Joseph opening a Bible when
he realized he had come to a long quotation and making such
changes as he went along; it is harder to understand why a heav-
enly translator would have cared about KJV italics.12
• The Lord’s response in Doctrine and Covenants 9:5–10 to Oliver
Cowdery’s failure to translate may reflect Joseph’s own practice:
“You have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took
no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that
you must study it out in your mind” (though it is also possible
that this instruction applied only to Oliver, or that “it” referred to
the gift of translation rather than the words themselves).
• Joseph’s willingness to correct the style and grammar in the 1837
and 1840 editions. It does not appear that he regarded the original
dictation as sacrosanct.

12. In 1879, Emma Smith said that when translating, Joseph “had neither manuscript nor
book to read from” (Welch, “Miraculous Timing,” 143), but she was referring to the Book
of Mormon as a whole, and perhaps had in mind accusations of plagiarizing the Spaulding
manuscript. Her statement does not rule out the possibility that Joseph consulted a Bible
occasionally for a few chapters of overlapping material. See also Roberts, New Witnesses for
God, 3:425–40.
208 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Many readers might wonder whether the Book of Mormon, as a

reve­la­tion from God, should have been more eloquent, literary, and pre-
cise in its portrayal of a Christianized Israelite civilization in the ancient
Americas. It can be helpful to think of Joseph Smith as the translator,
transmuting distinct spiritual impressions into his own language.
Other Latter-day Saints have called attention to features of the text
that would be difficult to explain if the book had been extemporane-
ously translated in Joseph’s mind. As a result, they posit a Nephite record
that was carefully composed, meticulously translated in the heavens
(perhaps being updated to appeal to the sensibilities of King James
Bible–reading Christians in the modern era), and then communicated
to Joseph in fairly exact words, which he read from the seer stone. This
second theory of translation has received significant support in recent
years from Royal Skousen’s work with the earliest manuscripts of the
Book of Mormon, and it comports well with the detailed literary pat-
terns explored by John Welch, Hugh Pinnock, Donald Parry, and Grant
Hardy.13 Scholars who believe that Joseph read a pre-existing transla-
tion, besides Skousen, include Daniel Peterson, Stanford Carmack, and
John Welch. In addition, both Richard Bushman and Dieter Uchtdorf

13. John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies 10, no.  1
(1970): 69–84; John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies,
1992); Hugh W. Pinnock, Finding Biblical Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms
in the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon
Studies, 1999); Donald W. Parry, Poetic Parallelisms in the Book of Mormon: The Com-
plete Text Reformatted (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholar-
ship, 2007) and Preserved in Translation: Hebrew and Other Ancient Literary Forms
in the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young Uni-
versity, 2020); Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010). Skousen’s initial findings in “How Joseph Smith Translated”
have been amply confirmed by the multiple volumes of his Book of Mormon Critical
Text Project; see also his “Systematic Text of the Book of Mormon,” in Uncovering the
Original Text of the Book of Mormon, ed. M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts
(Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), 45–66.
Many of the essays in Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, eds.,
Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient
Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), touch on the precision and consistency of the
text, and its complex narrative structure can most easily be seen in Grant Hardy, ed.,
The Book of Mormon: Maxwell Institute Study Edition (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell
Institute for Religious Scholarship; Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young Univer-
sity; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018).
 Book of Mormon Translation Process   V209

have suggested that in some ways Joseph’s seer stone was analogous to a
modern iPad or smartphone.14
Evidences suggesting that Joseph was reading from a pre-existing
translation include the following:
• The extreme care taken in the dictation/transcription process to
get the words exactly right. The original manuscript shows that
Joseph dictated in blocks of twenty to thirty words, with the scribe
then reading the words back to him and making immediate cor-
rections as Joseph detected errors. There are many such correc-
tions, often involving distinctions that are difficult to hear without
close attention (plurals, verb endings, and so forth) and that make
little difference to the overall meaning of a sentence.
• Joseph’s spelling out difficult names at their first occurrence. Quite
regularly unfamiliar names were first spelled phonetically by the
scribe and then immediately corrected when Joseph apparently
spelled them letter by letter.
• Emma Smith’s testimony that Joseph could dictate for hours on
end and would start each dictation session without reviewing
where he had last left off.
• Intratextual allusions, in which distinct phrases from earlier sto-
ries are quoted in later episodes. One famous example is Alma’s
exact, attributed quotation of twenty-one words spoken by Lehi
(Alma 36:22; 1 Ne. 1:8), which is especially interesting because
Joseph dictated the quotation before the original source (after
the loss of the 116 pages, Joseph continued dictating the books of
Mosiah through Moroni before turning to 1  Nephi through the
Words of Mormon).

14. Daniel C. Peterson, “A Response: What the Manuscripts and the Eyewitnesses
Tell Us about the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Bradford and Coutts, Uncov-
ering the Original Text, 67–71; Stanford Carmack, “Joseph Smith Read the Words,”
Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 18 (January 1, 2016): 41–64, https://jour​nal​
.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-read-the-words/; John W. Welch, “‘Hours
Never to Be Forgotten’: Timing the Book of Mormon Translation,” Laura F. Willes
Book of Mormon Lecture, Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, November 8,
2017; Richard Bushman, “On Seerstones,” By Common Consent, August 5, 2015, https://
bycommon​consent​.com/2015/08/05/on-seerstones; Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Not long ago,
the Church published photos and background information on seer stones,” Facebook,
June 21, 2016, https://m.facebook.com/dieterf.uchtdorf/photos/a.120510344786318/400
421293461887/?type=3.
210 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

• Intricate literary patterns or rhetorical devices such as chiasmus,

poetic parallelism, inclusios, and so forth. For instance, the com-
plex chiasmus of Alma 36 appears to have been worked out before-
hand in written form, and the inclusio that frames Alma’s career is
characterized by the repetition of distinctive phrases: “The num-
ber of their slain/dead was not numbered, because of the greatness
of their number,” with bodies “cast into the waters of Sidon and . . .
in the depths of the sea” (at both Alma 3:1–3 and 44:21–22).
• The presence of Early Modern English grammar and vocabulary
usages that were obsolete by the early nineteenth century and
did not appear in the KJV. Some of the nonstandard grammar
in the Book of Mormon—much of which was updated in later
editions—would have been acceptable in the sixteenth and sev-
enteenth centuries, though the overall syntax of the book does
not match any particular time or place in the development of the
English language, including Joseph’s native linguistic environment
of nineteenth-­century New York. Many of the particularities of
Book of Mormon diction would have been foreign to Joseph.15
• The presumption in the 1830 preface and D&C 10:6–19 that Joseph
could have retranslated the lost 116  pages and produced exactly
the same words. He was forbidden to do so because those who had
stolen the manuscript would have changed the words so that the
original and retranslated versions did not match.
• The Book of Mormon itself suggesting that its future translator
would “read the words” (2 Ne. 27:19–26).
This list does not negate the previous one, but it complicates it, and
so far neither translation theory has proven entirely satisfactory—both
explain some features of the text while passing over others, or introduce
new conundrums. While a pre-existing translation may have been either
free or literal, it is unlikely that Joseph’s own improvised language would
have yielded such precise literary patterns. On the other hand, if the
translation came fully formed as a word-for-word revelation from God,
why wasn’t it lovelier, more elevated, or a better fit for modern English?

15. For a comprehensive analysis of Book of Mormon syntax and vocabulary, see
Royal Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Parts 1 and 2: Grammati-
cal Variation (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2016), and The History of the Text of the Book of
Mormon, Parts 3 and 4: Nature of the Original Language (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2018).
 Book of Mormon Translation Process   V211

In conclusion, the two sides will probably remain in tension for

some time. Book of Mormon researcher Brant Gardner has attempted
to split the difference with a hypothesis that the text was somehow sub-
consciously translated by Joseph and then projected by his mind onto
the stone, but such an unparalleled psychological and revelatory process
does not seem to solve all the difficulties.16 Moreover, we should be
cautious about assuming that Joseph used the same process for all his
“translation” projects, including the book of Abraham and the Joseph
Smith Translation of the Bible, neither of which involved the use of a
seer stone. Without being able to compare the original reformed Egyp-
tian with the English version, it is impossible to know just what sort of
translation the Book of Mormon is. And without observing a seer stone
in use, we cannot know for certain what Joseph experienced. Perhaps
new evidence will someday be uncovered, or further studies may refine
our understanding of the data currently available, but in the meantime,
we might well agree with Emma Smith, who said that, even as an eye­
witness to the process, “it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as
much so as to any one else.”17

Grant Hardy is Professor of History and Religious Studies at the University of North
Carolina Asheville. He has written or edited several books on Chinese history, histo-
riography, and the Book of Mormon, including Understanding the Book of Mormon:
A Reader’s Guide, The Maxwell Institute Study Edition Book of Mormon, and The Anno-
tated Book of Mormon (forthcoming from Oxford University Press).

16. Brant A. Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt
Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011). Gardner helpfully analyzes many of the evidences
that have been advanced to support both theories of translation (137–247). Alternatively,
Roger Terry, observing the grammatical inconsistencies in the text, has suggested that
the translation may not have been made by Joseph Smith but instead by an immortal
being with an incomplete grasp of English grammar—perhaps someone like the post-
mortal Moroni (which would still count as a pre-existing translation); see his “Archaic
Pronouns and Verbs in the Book of Mormon: What Inconsistent Usage Tells Us about
Translation Theories,” Dialogue 47, no. 3 (2014): 53–80. For an attempt by a non-LDS
scholar to make sense of the translation process, in naturalistic terms with comparative
examples, see Ann Taves, Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies of the Emergence of New
Spiritual Paths (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2016).
17. Welch, “Miraculous Timing,” 144.
Narrating Religious Heritage
Apostasy and Restoration

Miranda Wilcox

L atter-day Saints have a paradoxical relationship to the past. Even

as Latter-day Saints invest their own history with sacred mean-
ing—as the restoration of ancient truths and the fulfillment of biblical
prophecies—they have traditionally repudiated the eighteen centuries
preceding the founding of the Church as a period of apostasy. They
believe that Christ’s original church fell into spiritual darkness that
persisted until Joseph Smith restored Christ’s gospel and priesthood
authority on the earth. Since the founding of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, however, there has been a “spectrum of under-
standings” regarding the religious heritage of the Latter-day Saints,
a spectrum that has included perceiving some continuity between the
restored Church and traditional Christianity.1 However, the story of
radical temporal and spiritual rupture known as the Great Apostasy
narrative has so dominated the last century of Latter-day Saint dis-
course that few members are aware of other precedents and possibilities
for narrating their religious heritage.
Religious communities perform theological work when they tell
historical narratives. Memorializing their divine origins is crucial
for communities to maintain distinctive self-identities and to realize
their divine mandate. When these stories become enshrined with the

1. Christopher C. Jones and Stephen J. Fleming, “‘Except among That Portion of

Mankind’: Early Mormon Conceptions of the Apostasy,” in Standing Apart: Mormon
Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy, ed. Miranda Wilcox and John D.
Young (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 56.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)213

214 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

authority of tradition, it is difficult to remember how much the cultural

context and personal motivations of the initial narrators impacted the
trajectories of the stories. For example, in the Hebrew Bible, Israelite
narrators could recount the story of their ancestors’ deliverance from
captivity in Egypt in their sacred scriptures to affirm their collective
identity as Yahweh’s chosen people and as separate from gentile nations.2
The division between Jews and Gentiles was called into question when
Jewish Christians were commanded to preach the gospel of Christ to the
Gentiles from whom they had been taught to keep themselves separate
(see Acts 10; 13). Latter-day Saints have likewise employed and revised
historical narratives as paradigms of self-definition, particularly during
periods of institutional transformation.
Early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, framed their rela-
tion to historical Christianity and other religious denominations in a
variety of ways. As missionaries, early Latter-day Saints competed with
and were persecuted by Protestant evangelists in the public sphere, so
they denounced these denominations as false, drawing on Protestant
histories that traced the corruption of Christian doctrines, practices,
and leaders in need of reformation. As converts, however, many felt
that their former religious experiences prepared them to embrace the
fulness of the gospel, and they perceived a degree of continuity with
their new church. In the wake of renouncing polygamy and political
sovereignty in the 1890s, Latter-day Saint leaders began to recalibrate
the Church’s identity by simultaneously assimilating it with and dis-
tinguishing it from mainstream American Protestantism. One aspect
of this process was the systematic formulation of a salvation narrative
that featured a period of universal apostasy preceding the founding of
the Church in 1830. Adopting and modifying the Protestant histories
of Catholic apostasy in need of reform offered the Latter-day Saints
ways to construct a coherent narrative that framed the necessity of
the Restoration and the restored Church’s claims of exclusive access
to divine truth and authority. This narrative proved so useful in this
period of definition and transition that it was distilled into Church
curriculum materials in the mid-twentieth century as “the Great Apos-
tasy” and became embedded in the Latter-day Saint worldview during
the era of correlation. The dismissive attitude toward other religious
traditions sanctioned in the Great Apostasy narrative aligned less well

2. See Thomas B. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1996).
 Narrating Religious Heritage   V215

with the Church’s increasingly international membership and ecumeni-

cal humanitarian partnerships in the late twentieth and early twenty-
first centuries. Latter-day Saint leaders began to celebrate some earlier
Christian and non-Christian figures, while Latter-day Saint scholars
questioned the historical assumptions underpinning the Great Apos-
tasy narrative. In 2009, the press release for the dedication of the
Church History Library stated the following:
The Mormon worldview compels a historical consciousness. Upon
joining the Church, each member becomes a participant in the great
unfolding of God’s redemptive plan. Since the beginning, individu-
als and societies have sought their place within the larger network of
human relations and tried to make sense of divine interventions. . . .
An active engagement in historical processes eliminates barriers
imposed by time and space and enables Latter-day Saints to situate
themselves within the grand sweep of history. The Mormon historical
consciousness impels one to step outside the comfortable confines of
the present, develop empathy to understand the past, and in turn, lay the
spiritual groundwork for future generations.3

The degree to which Latter-day Saints revise their historical narra-

tives to align with these goals remains to be seen.

Nineteenth-Century Attitudes
Latter-day Saints did not invent the concept of a Christian apostasy. The
term itself has been around for centuries. In ancient Greek, apostasia
was the composite of apo, “away from,” and stasis, “standing.” The word
initially referred to forms of physical separation and expanded over
time to include the severing of social, moral, and religious allegiance. In
the sixteenth century, Protestant reformers and followers believed that
Christianity had fallen into apostasy and needed reformation. The con-
cept of a Christian apostasy was ubiquitous in Protestant discourse. For
example, Jonathan Edwards, a Puritan preacher whose attitudes shaped
American Protestant discourse, wrote in 1757,
And the Apostles in their Days foretold a grand Apostacy of the Chris-
tian World, which should continue many Ages; and observed, that
there appeared a Disposition to such an Apostasy, among professing

3. “‘A Record Kept’: Constructing Collective Memory,” Newsroom, The Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, June 11, 2009, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist​
.org/article/a-record-kept-constructing-collective-memory.
216 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Christians, even in that Day. 2 Thess. ii. 7. And the greater Part of the
Ages which have now elapsed, have been spent in the Duration of that
grand and general Apostacy, under which the Christian World, as it
is called, has been transformed into that which has been vastly more
deformed, more dishonourable & hateful to God.4

These Protestant attitudes and rhetoric would have been part of the
religious landscape with which early Latter-day Saint converts were inti-
mately familiar. Echoing Protestants, many early Latter-day Saints wrote
about the abhorrent state of apostate Christianity, while at the same
time praising and borrowing religious models from other Christian
denominations, particularly their former faiths.
Christopher Jones and Stephen Fleming traced early Latter-day Saint
conceptions of Christian apostasy in sermons, articles, tracts, pamphlets,
conversion narratives, and autobiographical memoirs. They concluded
that, while Latter-day Saints believed that “a restoration of ecclesiastical
authority and a new divinely mandated church were necessary,” there
existed a spectrum of co-existing individual articulations ranging from
“harsh and blanket condemnations to more conciliatory and nuanced
views of Christian history.”5
In the public sphere, early Church leaders and missionaries “mar-
shaled their understanding of Christian history to demonstrate the
fallen condition and apostate character of their Protestant opponents
and the churches to which they belonged” as they waged verbal attacks
to defend themselves and to win converts in newspapers, doctrinal
tracts, and sermons.6 In 1834, the leaders of the Church in Kirtland
(including Joseph Smith) wrote a letter to missionaries abroad advising
them about what to preach. One paragraph begins by contrasting the
spiritual darkness dispelled by the light of the gospel.
Some may presume to say, that the world in this age is fast increasing
in righteousness; that the dark ages of superstition and blindness have
passed over, when the faith of Christ was known and practiced only by
a few, when ecclesiastic power held an almost universal control over
christendom, and when the consciences of men were held bound by the
strong chains of priestly power; but now, the gloomy cloud is burst, and
the gospel is shining with all the resplendent glory of an apostolic day;

4. Jonathan Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended; Evi-
dences of It’s [sic] Truth Produced, and Arguments to the Contrary Answered (Boston:
S. Kneeland, 1758), 93.
5. Jones and Fleming, “Early Mormon Conceptions,” 56.
6. Jones and Fleming, “Early Mormon Conceptions,” 56.
 Narrating Religious Heritage   V217

and that the kingdom of the Messiah is greatly spreading, that the gos-
pel of our Lord is carried to divers nations of the earth, the scriptures
translating into different tongues, the ministers of truth crossing the
vast deep to proclaim to men in darkness a risen Savior.7

Missionaries employed this framework. For example, Orson Hyde

preached in 1838 that “a great apostacy, from the true apostolic order of
Worship” had befallen Christianity and that it was their “duty to show
the awful consequences of this apostacy.”8 Richard Bennett and Amber
Seidel compiled preaching by Samuel H. Smith, Oliver Cowdery, W. W.
Phelps, Orson Pratt, and other missionaries in the early 1830s who like-
wise condemned Christianity before the advent of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints as corrupt and therefore inauthentic.9
Matthew Bowman explains that the most sustained discussions of
Christian apostasy among early Latter-day Saints emerged when a few
apologists began attempting to “bend the grand narrative of Christian
history toward themselves” in an American print culture dominated by
Protestant publishing societies.10 Latter-day Saint apologists, including
Benjamin Winchester, Parley P. Pratt, John H. Donnellon, and William
Appleby, surveyed popular Protestant church histories circulating in
antebellum America. Then they published periodicals, tracts, and even
books validating Latter-day Saint theological claims and historical legit-
imacy by pairing biblical prophecies with ecclesial changes identified in
Protestant church histories.11 These sharply worded denunciations of
Catholic and Protestant beliefs and practices set the precedent for later
Latter-day Saint salvation histories, histories that traced the unfolding
divine plan through dispensations of human history.

7. “Letter to the Church, circa February 1834,” 135, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed
October 4, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-the​-church​
-circa-february-1834/1.
8. Orson Hyde, broadside announcement, “A  Timely Warning to the People of
England, of Every Sect and Denomination, and to Every Individual into Whose Hands
It May Fall,” August 19, 1837, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP​
1820​-1846/id/293/rec/121.
9. Richard E. Bennett and Amber J. Seidel, “‘A World in Darkness’: Early Latter-day
Saint Understanding of the Apostasy, 1830–1834,” in Early Christians in Disarray: Con-
temporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo,
Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 67–99.
10. Matthew Bowman, “The Spectrum of Apostasy: Mormonism, Early Christianity,
and the Quest for True Religion in Antebellum America,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph
Smith and the Ancient World, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H.
Hedges (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 236.
11. Bowman, “Spectrum of Apostasy,” 241–42.
218 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

In private genres, Latter-day Saints told conciliatory narratives about

their Christian heritage. Many early Latter-day Saints described their
previous religious experiences in autobiographies and conversion nar-
ratives as preparing them to embrace the restored gospel; they perceived
their new faith as “not so much a rejection of the contemporary Chris-
tian world as an expansion of its doctrines and gathering of its disparate
parts.”12 For example, Lucy Mack Smith distinguished in her history
between her personal religious practice and denominational affiliation.13
She did not perceive her life or the lives of her family members before
her son’s theophany as characterized by spiritual apostasy; she describes
miraculous healings, heavenly visions, and spiritual revelation flowing
from their deep faith in Jesus Christ. Early Latter-day Saint attitudes,
public and private, toward their religious heritage were “multifaceted,
complex, and at times, contradictory.”14
Joseph Smith’s attitudes were likewise complex. While the term
“apostasy” occasionally appears in Joseph Smith’s papers in relation to
Christian history, Joseph focuses on his divine mission of restoration.
Like his parents and many Protestant Americans, Joseph was a primitiv-
ist who believed that Christianity had strayed from the pattern of the
New Testament.15 In his earliest account of the First Vision made in 1832,
Joseph describes reaching the conclusion while studying the scriptures
as a young boy before his visions that humanity had “apostatised from
the true and liveing faith.”16 Anxiety about this belief was a factor that
motivated the prayer precipitating his vision in 1820 and the subsequent
founding of the Church of Christ in 1830.
According to Terryl Givens, Joseph “conceived of apostasy as pri-
marily the corruption of ordinances, and the loss of priesthood author-
ity to perform them.”17 For example, Joseph wrote to newspaper editor

12. Jones and Fleming, “Early Mormon Conceptions,” 67, see also 66–71; and Janiece
Johnson and Jennifer Reeder, The Witness of Women: Firsthand Experiences and Testi-
monies from the Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016).
13. “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845,” book  2, pages  [2–6], Joseph Smith Papers,
accessed October 8, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy​
-mack​-smith-history-1844-1845/20.
14. Jones and Fleming, “Early Mormon Conceptions,” 71.
15. See Theodore Dwight Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension
in Puritanism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 355.
16. “History, circa Summer 1832,” 2, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 30, 2019,
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/2.
17. Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cos-
mos, God, and Humanity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 28. See also Terryl
 Narrating Religious Heritage   V219

Noah Saxton in 1833, “We may look at the Christian world and see the
apostacy there has been from the Apostolic platform, and who can look
at this, and not exclaim in the language of Isaiah, ‘the earth is defiled
under the inhabitants thereof because they have transgressed the Laws;
changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant’ [Isaiah
24:5].”18 Joseph’s project of restoring authority and ordinances to real-
ize ancient covenants between God and humanity differed from his
contemporary American Restorationists whose focus was to expunge
false accretions from Christian worship to realize the original primitive
purity of Christ’s church.19
According to Philip Barlow, Joseph focused on mending, not entrench-
ing, fractured relationships.20 His project of restoration “included more
than the return of principles, powers, doctrines, ordinances, and author-
ity once allegedly lost through long-ago apostasies. . . . It included ren-
dering things ‘as they should be,’ whether or not they once had been.”21
Joseph’s religion-making generated “doctrines, policies, priesthoods,
keys, revelations, and ordinances . . . in the service of restoring proper
relations and order in time and eternity.”22
For example, Joseph rewound time when he instituted baptisms for
the dead in 1840; no longer were the living and dead estranged.23 A news-
paper editorial in 1842, most likely by Joseph Smith, offers proxy ordi-
nances as the key to understanding divine justice. This plan of human
salvation “exhibits the greatness of divine compassion and benevolence”
and renders moot the exclusive systems of belief religious communities
jealously guard.24
But while one portion of the human race are judging and condemn-
ing the other without mercy, the great parent of the universe looks

Givens, “Epilogue: ‘We Have Only the Old Thing’: Rethinking Mormon Restoration,” in
Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart, 335–42.
18. “Letter to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833,” 15–16, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed
June 9, 2018, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-noah-c-saxton​
-4-january-1833/3.
19. See Givens, Wrestling the Angel, 23–41.
20. Philip L. Barlow, “To Mend a Fractured Reality: Joseph Smith’s Project,” Journal
of Mormon History 38, no. 3 (2012): 28–50.
21. Barlow, “To Mend a Fractured Reality,” 49; see also 33–34.
22. Barlow, “To Mend a Fractured Reality,” 48, emphasis in original.
23. Ryan G. Tobler, “‘Saviors on Mount Zion’: Mormon Sacramentalism, Mortality,
and the Baptism for the Dead,” Journal of Mormon History 39, no. 4 (2013): 182–238.
24. “Minutes of a Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Held
in Nauvoo, Ill., Commencing Oct. 1st, 1841,” Times and Seasons 3 (October 1, 1841): 578.
220 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care, and paternal
regard; he views them as his offspring; and without any of those con-
tracted feelings that influence the children of men. . . . He . . . is a wise
lawgiver . . . ; he will judge them ‘not according to what they have not,
but what they have;’ those who have lived without law, will be judged
without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law; we
need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the great Jehovah, he
will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several
deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they
are governed; the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct informa-
tion; and his inscrutable designs in relation to the human family: and
when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of
futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess, that
the Judge of all the Earth has done right.25

Here Joseph offers new perspectives about divine justice and reli-
gious pluralism.26 Every person remains capable of receiving revelation
and performing righteous deeds; they will be judged fairly on their own
terms, and they remain heirs to God’s promises and to the covenants
made by their ancestors regardless of whether they were privy to God’s
revelations and priesthood ordinances in mortality.
The Book of Mormon and other restoration scripture likewise testify
that “peoples who live under conditions of apostasy remain partici-
pants in the covenants made by their ancestors, with the promise that
the ancient covenant relationship eventually will be restored in full.”27
Joseph’s project of restoration involved healing and welding together the
human family.
And now as the great purposes of God are hastening to their accom-
plishment and the things spoken of in the prophets are fulfilling, as the
kingdom of God is established on the earth, and the ancient order of
things restored, the Lord has manifested to us this duty and privilege,
and we are commanded to be baptized for our dead. . . . A view of these
things reconciles the scriptures of truth, justifies the ways of God to

25. “Baptism for the Dead,” Times and Seasons 3 (April 15, 1842): 759. Thomas Bull-
ock copied this editorial into Joseph Smith’s History: “History, 1838–1856, Volume C-1
[2  November 1838–31 July 1842],” 1321 (April 14, 1841), Joseph Smith Papers, accessed
May 28, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history​-1838​-1856​
-volume​-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/495.
26. David D. Peck, “Covenantal Pluralism in Mormonism and Islam: Alternatives to
the Binary Logic of Apostasy,” in Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart, 280–308.
27. John D. Young, “Long Narratives: Toward a New Mormon Understanding of
Apostasy,” in Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart, 314.
 Narrating Religious Heritage   V221

man; places the human family upon an equal footing, and harmonizes
with every principle of righteousness, justice, and truth.28

Joseph reiterated his expansive vision in a letter to the Church in

September 1842 clarifying how to perform baptisms for the dead: “For it
is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times,
which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and com-
plete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys,
and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days
of Adam even to the present time” (D&C 128:18). Instead of parsing out
blame for past apostasy, Joseph Smith here conceives of the restoration
not as filling a void or healing a rupture but as gathering, linking, and
building upon truths manifest throughout human histories and cultures.
For Joseph, the Restoration was a process of revision and renewal.
After Joseph’s death, the Latter-day Saints survived expulsion from
Nauvoo, weathered their exodus west, and solidified their distinctive
domestic, political, and economic practices in their frontier settle-
ments. In the 1890s, Latter-day Saints had to abandon some of these
practices to integrate with the United States. Latter-day Saint leaders
composed historical narratives to recalibrate their identity in ways that
would simultaneously distinguish the Church from and assimilate it
with mainstream American Protestantism. Formulating the doctrine
of apostasy and its historical implications played a significant role in
crafting a distinct Latter-day Saint identity as the Church moved into
the twentieth century.

Twentieth-Century Attitudes
The Great Apostasy narrative became a historical paradigm of self-
definition during two significant phases of institutional transition: the
Church’s redefinition after the 1890 Manifesto and Utah statehood, and
the Church’s global expansion after World War  II. In the fertile era of
theological definition and interaction with secular learning at the turn
of the twentieth century, a group of scholarly Latter-day Saint l­eaders
composed lengthy salvation histories to strengthen the coherence of the
doctrine and the organizing principles of the Church after it abandoned
cherished polygamy, political sovereignty, and economic communalism.29

28. “Baptism for the Dead,” 761.

29. Miranda Wilcox, “Narrating Apostasy and the LDS Quest for Identity,” in Wil-
cox and Young, Standing Apart, 96–98.
222 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

According to Eric Dursteler, the chief narrators of the Great Apos-

tasy and Restoration narrative institutionalized in the twentieth century
were B. H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, and Joseph Fielding Smith.30 These
Latter-day Saint leader-historians turned to Joseph Smith’s revelations
and to “secular history” to replace the “nineteenth-century emphasis
on theocratic and familial kingdom-building” with theological “claims
regarding restoration of the primitive church, divine sponsorship, and
living prophets.”31 In doing so, they applied the methodology of the
earlier Latter-day Saint tracts; that is, they linked “biblical prophecy and
Protestant church histories together to validate Mormons’ own theolog-
ical claims,” but they also aspired to write objective Progressive-era his-
tories.32 They were confident that Latter-day Saint truth claims “could
be proved through the arguments of historical method.”33
For example, B.  H. Roberts lays out this methodology in the pref-
ace to his Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, published in 1893 as a study
manual for the Seventies. He proposes “to sustain the position taken by
the church of Christ in the last days,” and this position “may be read-
ily discerned by the very first revelation the Lord gave to Joseph Smith”
when he was told that “all the sects of religion . . . were all wrong; that
their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were
all corrupt.”34 Quoting Joseph’s 1838 account of his First Vision printed in
the Pearl of Great Price in 1851, Roberts explains that “it has been to bring
together the historical evidences of the truth of this divine announcement

30. Eric R. Dursteler, “Historical Periodization in the LDS Great Apostasy Nar-
rative,” in Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart, 23–54. B.  H. Roberts edited or wrote
Outlines of Ecclesiastical History (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons, 1893); The
Falling Away, or the World’s Loss of the Christian Religion and Church (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1931); A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Century One, 6 vols. (Provo, Utah: Corporation of the President, The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1965); and The History of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, 1st ed., 7  vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1902–32). James E.
Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy: Considered in Light of Scriptural and Secular History
(Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote Essentials in Church
History (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1922); and The Progress of Man (Salt Lake City:
Genealogical Society of Utah, 1936).
31. Kathleen Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator
Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004),
115; see also 120–22.
32. Matthew Bowman, “Spectrum of Apostasy,” 241.
33. Matthew Bowman, “James Talmage, B. H. Roberts, and Confessional History in
a Secular Age,” in Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart, 86.
34. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, v.
 Narrating Religious Heritage   V223

that, in part, this work has been written.”35 After compiling historical
evidence from a number of eighteenth- and nineteenth-­century histo-
ries to corroborate Joseph Smith’s account, Roberts concludes that “the
whole stream of evidence proves that there has been a universal apostasy
from the religion taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles.”36
Following Roberts’s work, subsequent salvation histories plotted a
period of universal Christian apostasy as a prelude to Joseph Smith’s First
Vision. Latter-day Saint salvation histories described the loss of priest-
hood authority in the early Christian centuries followed by the Dark Ages
of apostasy from which the dawning light of the Renaissance and Ref-
ormation prepared the way for the Restoration. In 1909, James Talmage
explained the doctrinal logic underpinning the Great Apostasy narra-
tive: “The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed dur-
ing and after the apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its
power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into
an earthly organization only. The significance and importance of the great
apostasy, as a condition precedent to the re-establishment of the Church in
modern times, is obvious. If the alleged apostasy of the primitive Church
was not a reality, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the
divine institution its name proclaims.”37
Talmage’s binary logic was distilled over a century to this stark state-
ment in Preach My Gospel, the Church’s missionary manual published
in 2004: “If there had been no apostasy, there would have been no need
of a Restoration.”38 Indeed, Roberts, Talmage, and Smith institutional-
ized a powerful narrative of Latter-day Saint self-definition that became
deeply embedded in their communal historical consciousness through
the twentieth century.
In the second half of the twentieth century, Latter-day Saint leaders
responded to the Church’s international expansion by centralizing insti-
tutional authority and by standardizing its instructional resources.39 The

35. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, v. Compare with Roberts, “An Intro-
duction,” in History of the Church, 1:xl; and Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:xliv–
xlv. See also Talmage, Great Apostasy, 163; and Smith, Essentials in Church History, 44,
48–49.
36. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, v–vi.
37. Talmage, Great Apostasy, iii.
38. Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service (Salt Lake City: The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 36.
39. Philip L. Barlow, “Shifting Ground and the Third Transformation of Mormon-
ism,” in Perspectives on American Religion and Culture, ed. Peter W. Williams (Malden,
Mass.: Blackwell, 1999), 140–53.
224 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

lengthy salvation histories written in the early twentieth century were

distilled to a few paragraphs about the Great Apostasy in Church manu-
als.40 Latter-day Saint apologists, especially influential Apostle Bruce R.
McConkie and scholar Hugh Nibley, reaffirmed the authority of the Great
Apostasy narrative during the age of Church correlation. McConkie
preached, “With the loss of the gospel, the nations of the earth went into
a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages. Apostasy was universal. . . . And this
darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowl-
edge of the restored gospel.”41 Hugh Nibley collected primary sources
to argue that the apostolic Church did not survive intact; he concluded
that “as ‘the great lights went out’ the most devoted Christians engaged in
a wistful ‘Operation Salvage’ to rescue what might still be saved of ‘those
things which came by the living voices that yet remained.’ ”42 The binary
logic of Great Apostasy and Restoration became a self-evident tradition
in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even as academic
historians challenged and largely rejected the assumptions underpinning
the historical periodization as inadequate to understand the complexity
and richness of the medieval and early modern periods.
The simplified, standardized narrative of the Great Apostasy was eas-
ily communicated to members and converts. It promoted institutional
unity by differentiating Latter-day Saints from other denominations
competing for converts and by fostering a shared historical conscious-
ness among members separated by geography, nationality, and ethnicity.
Nevertheless, the narrative discouraged Latter-day Saints from seriously
engaging with history before 1820, and it hampered friendships with
people of faith whose religious histories and traditions were dismissed
as “gross darkness” prophesied in Isaiah 60:2.
Such a stark narrative chafed as The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints grew from a regional American church into a world-
wide faith with diverse congregations and ecumenical humanitarian proj-
ects across the globe. Months before the priesthood ban was revoked in

40. See Wilcox, “Narrating Apostasy,” 100–102; Ryan G. Christensen, “Appendix D:

Bibliographic Note on LDS Writings,” in Reynolds, Early Christians in Disarray, 375.
41. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 44.
42. Hugh Nibley, “The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular
Theme,” in Church History 30, no. 2 (1961): 140. Reprinted as Hugh Nibley, “The Passing
of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme,” in When the Lights
Went Out: Three Studies on the Ancient Apostasy (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970),
1–32. See also Hugh Nibley, “The Passing of the Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopu-
lar Theme,” BYU Studies 16, no. 1 (1975): 139–64.
 Narrating Religious Heritage   V225

1978, the First Presidency issued a statement “regarding God’s love for
all mankind,” affirming that the founders of the world’s major religious
and philosophical systems were inspired of God and that their teachings
provide “moral truths” that “enlighten whole nations.” Echoing Joseph
Smith’s cosmology, they confirmed that “God has given and will give
to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal
salvation.”43 This inclusive affirmation anticipated redirections in the ways
that some Latter-day Saints narrated their religious heritage in the twenty-
first century.

Twenty-First-Century Attitudes
In the early twenty-first century, Latter-day Saint leaders and scholars
reexamined and expanded the Great Apostasy narrative, a narrative that
had been pared down to a doctrinal tenet by the end of the twentieth
century.
In the years leading up to the four hundredth anniversary of the
publication of the King James Version of the Bible in 2011, there was a
surge of interest among Latter-day Saint leaders and scholars about the
history of biblical translation, particularly in England and Germany
during the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. General con-
ference talks, symposia, devotional books, and a television documen-
tary praised some late medieval and Protestant reformers for promoting
religious freedom and vernacular scriptural translations, two issues
important to contemporary Latter-day Saints.44 For example, Elder
M.  Russell Ballard preached that “devoted people were prompted to
protect and preserve” the scriptures; “we owe much to the many brave
martyrs and reformers .  .  . who demanded freedom to worship and
common access to the holy books.”45 This interest led to a slight expan-
sion of the Great Apostasy narrative—the dawn of the Restoration was
a bit longer and brighter—but the binary logic remained intact as did
misunderstandings about the Middle Ages.
Brigham Young University faculty addressed some of the historical
misconceptions fostered by the Great Apostasy narrative while defend-
ing its essential integrity. In 1996, Kent P. Jackson attributed internal

43. Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, “Statement of the
First Presidency regarding God’s Love for All Mankind,” February 15, 1978, in appendix
of Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart, 343.
44. Wilcox, “Narrating Apostasy,” 111–12.
45. M. Russell Ballard, “The Miracle of the Holy Bible,” Ensign 37, no. 5 (May 2007): 80.
226 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

intellectualism among early Christians as a major cause of apostasy.46 In

2001, Noel Reynolds organized a faculty study group to read early Chris-
tian texts in translation. The participating faculty produced a collection
of essays that reevaluated Latter-day Saint assumptions about the pro-
cess of apostasy in early Christianity, even calling some of these assump-
tions myths.47 In 2004, Brigham Young University’s annual Sidney B.
Sperry Symposium, that year entitled “Prelude to the Restoration: From
Apostasy to Restored Church,” featured speakers celebrating Christian
reformers, including John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, who had been
less familiar to Latter-day Saints.48 In addition, two General Authorities,
Elders Alexander Morrison and Tad Callister, published books in 2005
and 2006 tracing the Great Apostasy and affirming the Restoration.49
Although historian Richard L. Bushman had observed in the 1960s
that the Latter-day Saint narrative of apostasy was too dependent on
Protestant and anti-Catholic sources,50 this observation remained
unexamined until Eric Dursteler’s landmark essay “Inheriting the
‘Great Apostasy.’ ”51 Building on Dursteler’s work, John D. Young and
I organized a five-year collaborative research project in which fifteen
Latter-day Saint disciplinary experts traced the development of and
changes in Latter-day Saint narratives of apostasy within the context
of Latter-day Saint history and American Protestant historiography.52
The project culminated in the publication of Standing Apart: Mormon
Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy in 2014.53 Contrib-
utors invited readers to consider their faith as deeply rooted in Judeo-
Christian traditions and not antithetical to other forms of Christianity.

46. Kent P. Jackson, From Apostasy to Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996).
47. Reynolds, Early Christians in Disarray.
48. Prelude to the Restoration: From Apostasy to Restored Church: The 33rd Annual
Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004).
49. See Alexander B. Morrison, Turning from Truth: A New Look at the Great Apos-
tasy (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005); and Tad R. Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy
and the Promised Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006).
50. Richard L. Bushman, “Faithful History,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
4, no. 4 (1969): 11–25; see also his review of American Religions and the Rise of Mormon-
ism, by Milton V. Backman, BYU Studies 7, no. 2 (1966): 161–64.
51. Eric Dursteler, “Inheriting the ‘Great Apostasy’: The Evolution of Mormon Views
on the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” Journal of Mormon History 28 (2002): 23–59.
52. See also Bowman, “Spectrum of Apostasy,” and Miranda Wilcox, “Sacralizing
the Secular in Latter-day Saint Salvation Histories (1890–1930),” Journal of Mormon His-
tory 46, no. 3 (2020): 23–59.
53. Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart.
 Narrating Religious Heritage   V227

They suggested alternate ways Latter-day Saints might narrate their reli-
gious heritage that would engage with the past in generous and chari-
table conversation as well as recognize mutual concerns stemming from
shared divine inheritance and humanity. Such narratives, they hoped,
might offer new models of engaging with the past and building inter-
faith relations.
Joseph Spencer and Nicholas Frederick answered the call in Standing
Apart to construct a new apostasy narrative “that is both intellectually
defensible and pastorally productive.”54 Turning to 1 Nephi 11–14, they
argued that Nephi prophesied a fundamental flaw in early Christian
self-understanding, the perception that Christianity replaced or super-
seded Judaism, and that “the Book of Mormon and other aspects of the
Restoration correct the prevalent anti-Jewish replacement theology in
Christianity by recentering the Christian message on covenantal Israel-
ite foundations through the rehabilitation of a remnant theology.”55
In the years leading up to the two hundredth anniversary of Joseph
Smith’s First Vision, Church leaders invited members to recognize the
unfolding of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In April 2014,
then President Dieter F. Uchtdorf reminded Latter-day Saints, “Some-
times we think of the Restoration of the gospel as something that is
complete, already behind us—Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mor-
mon, he received priesthood keys, the Church was organized. In reality,
the Restoration is an ongoing process; we are living in it right now.”56 In
April 2020, President Russell M. Nelson presented a proclamation in
honor of the anniversary of the First Vision titled “The Restoration of
the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation
to the World.”57 Without mentioning the word “apostasy,” the procla-
mation outlines the unique mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints to prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and
the ongoing nature of the Restoration that began with Joseph Smith’s
sacred prayer in 1820. This reframing invites Latter-day Saints to narrate

54. Nicholas J. Frederick and Joseph M. Spencer, “Remnant or Replacement? Outlin-

ing a Possible Apostasy Narrative,” BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 1 (2021): 107, emphasis
in original. See Wilcox and Young, Standing Apart, 1–17.
55. Frederick and Spencer, “Remnant or Replacement,” 107.
56. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Are You Sleeping Through the Restoration?” Ensign 44, no. 5
(May 2014): 59.
57. The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World,” Ensign 50, no. 5 (May 2020): inside front cover.
228 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

processes of restoration extending across human history and culture

rather than dismissing whole eras as apostate. Elaborating the themes
of the Bicentennial Proclamation, Patrick Mason described the pur-
pose of the ongoing Restoration as “nothing less than to restore God’s
people—all of God’s children, not just the members of our church—to
wholeness.”58
Looking to the future, will Latter-day Saints continue narrating a
radical rupture with the past in ways that discourage nuanced historical
inquiry and encourage separatist attitudes toward other religious tradi-
tions, or will they narrate the unfolding process of restoration in ways
that foster the charity needed to hasten the Church’s work of salvation
in its third century? The worldwide Church of the twenty-first century
is not the persecuted kingdom of the nineteenth century nor the emerg-
ing regional Church of the twentieth century. As was the case in previ-
ous periods of institutional transition, its narratives of religious heritage
might be refashioned to aid the Church in responding to future chal-
lenges. Reframed narratives might help Latter-day Saints reorient their
self-understanding to flourish in a multicultural and religiously diverse
world. Could Latter-day Saints narrate an ongoing story of restoration
as a divine redirection of existing Christian identities toward fullness
in Christ?

Miranda Wilcox is an associate professor of English at Brigham Young University, where

she teaches medieval literature and researches early medieval religious culture.

58. Patrick Q. Mason, Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World (Meridian,
Idaho: Faith Matters Publishing, 2020), 88; see also 17–18.
Civil Disobedience
in Latter-day Saint Thought

Nathan B. Oman

T he twelfth article of faith declares, “We believe in being subject to

kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and
sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). On its face, this statement seems to be
an unqualified acceptance of legal authority, one that would suggest that
Latter-day Saints ought to shun civil disobedience. However, a  closer
look at Restoration scripture, teachings, and experience reveals a more
complicated picture. To be sure, law-abidingness has long been cen-
tral to the Saints’ identity, particularly in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries, and like the New Testament, Restoration scripture generally
accepts the need to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Mark
12:17) and affirms the legitimacy of the “powers that be” (Rom. 13:1).
However, there has never been a clear consensus among Latter-day Saint
authorities on the precise extent to which the Saints owe deference to
secular law. From the beginning, members of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints have insisted that there are limits on the duty of obe-
dience that Latter-day Saints owe to Caesar.

The Authority of Law in Restoration Scripture

While the Articles of Faith have been included in the Church’s canon,
they were not received by revelation like most of the sections in the Doc-
trine and Covenants. Rather, the Articles of Faith formed the conclusion
of a document known as the “Wentworth Letter,” which was prepared by
Joseph Smith and his associates at the request of a Chicago newspaper

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)229

230 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

editor who sought a summary of Latter-day Saint history and beliefs.1

The Articles of Faith themselves are largely modeled on an earlier state-
ment of the Saints’ beliefs in a missionary pamphlet penned by Orson
Pratt.2 Interestingly, however, while most of the Articles of Faith have
antecedents in the Pratt pamphlet, the twelfth article of faith is unique to
the Wentworth Letter. The letter itself was penned in 1842, when political
and legal controversy around the Saints in Illinois was intense. Joseph
Smith was resisting extradition efforts by the state of Missouri, efforts
that Latter-day Saints assumed would result in his murder if success-
ful. Accusations of lawlessness against the Saints were common, and not
surprisingly for a document aimed at a nonmember audience, the Wen-
tworth Letter was at pains to emphasize the civic loyalty of Latter-day
Saints.
Other Restoration scripture, however, offers a more nuanced take on
legal obedience. The most extensive discussion of secular government in
the Doctrine and Covenants comes in section 134. Strikingly, this docu-
ment was also not given as a revelation. Rather, it was written by Oliver
Cowdery and adopted in Joseph Smith’s absence by a Church confer-
ence. Again, the context was public controversy around accusations of
Latter-day Saint lawlessness, this time amid the growing tensions and
persecution in Missouri. Section 134 states, “We believe that all men are
bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they
reside,” but immediately qualifies this duty by saying, “while protected in
their inherent and inalienable rights” (D&C 134:5). Those rights include
“the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the
protection of life” (D&C 134:2). In contrast to the apparently unqualified
duty of legal obedience later announced in the twelfth article of faith,
section 134 gestures toward a limited conception of legal authority of a
kind similar to that found in the Declaration of Independence.
The earliest of Joseph Smith’s revelations to address the topic of law
suggests that ultimate legal authority lies with God, not the secular state.

1. According to the Joseph Smith Papers editors, “it is not known how much of
the history was originally written or dictated by JS.” See “Historical Introduction” for
“‘Church History,’ 1 March 1842,” 706, Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 27, 2021, https://
www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1​#his​tori​
cal-intro.
2. See David J. Whittaker, “The ‘Articles of Faith’ in Early Mormon Literature and
Thought,” in New Views on Mormon History: Essays in Honor of Leonard J. Arrington
(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1987), 63–92; Orson Pratt, An Interesting
Account of Several Remarkable Visions (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840).
 Civil Disobedience   V231

In January 1831, the Lord declared that “in time ye shall have no king
nor ruler, for I will be your king. . . . And you shall be a free people, and
ye shall have no laws but my laws when I come, for I am your lawgiver”
(D&C 38:21–22). With the gathering of the Saints to build up Zion, many
converts took this promise literally, believing that at best secular law
would shortly fade away in the imminent Second Coming of Christ.
Accordingly, the Lord declared later the same year, “Let no man break
the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to
break the laws of the land. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be,
until he reigns whose right it is to reign” (D&C 58:21). However, as mobs
were expelling the Saints from Jackson County, Joseph Smith received a
revelation that significantly qualified the claims of legal authority: “And
that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle
of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all man-
kind, and is justifiable before me” (D&C 98:5). The revelation continued,
“And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this,
cometh of evil” (D&C 98:7).
Taken as a whole, Restoration scriptures suggest that there is a strong
prima facie obligation to obey the law. However, this is an all-things-
being-equal obligation, not an all-things-considered obligation. The
voice of the Lord in latter-day revelation insists that ultimate authority
lies with God, not the state. Human laws demand human respect so long
as they are broadly congruent with the laws of God and at a minimum
protect “free exercise of conscience” (D&C 134:2) and other “inherent
and inalienable rights” (D&C 134:5). Any law that fails to meet these
standards “cometh of evil” (D&C 98:7). Alongside this theology of law,
however, are defensive claims made to an often-hostile world that insist
on nearly unlimited allegiance of Latter-day Saints to secular authority.
The roots of this broader obligation to obey the law lie in the need for vul-
nerable Latter-day Saint communities to assure legal authorities that they
are not a threat and therefore not fit objects of legal and political attacks.
Importantly, this more defensive posture suggests that Latter-day Saints
have an obligation to obey the law so as to protect the community of the
Saints in precisely those cases where the state fails to meet its minimum
obligation to protect “free exercise of conscience” (D&C 134:2).

Conscientious Objection and Civil Disobedience

The term “civil disobedience” does not have any precise, technical mean-
ing. It entered the modern lexicon largely through Henry David Tho-
reau’s short essay “Civil Disobedience,” in which he justified his refusal
232 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

to pay federal taxes that were going to be used to support the Mexican-
American War and the enforcement of the fugitive slave laws.3 As Tho-
reau’s usage suggests, civil disobedience involves deliberate lawbreaking
but not necessarily lawlessness or criminality. Rather, civil disobedience
refers to some morally serious decision to disregard the law. Civil dis-
obedience thus is not the same thing as a general rejection of the moral
authority of the law. Those who engage in civil disobedience are not
philosophical anarchists. Rather, as in Thoreau’s case, civil disobedience
is directed against particular laws.
It is useful to differentiate between two different ways in which the
rejection of legal obedience might figure in one’s moral calculations.
We can refer to these different ideas as “conscientious objection” and
“civil disobedience.” This distinction is important because the Latter-day
Saint tradition has been more congenial to the former than to the latter.
Conscientious objection refers to the idea that one refuses to obey
the law because of deep moral scruples about the act of individual obe-
dience to a particular law. This might be because the law requires one
to do something that deeply offends one’s sense of right moral action.
The classic case of conscientious objection in American law is the case
of the religious pacifist who refuses to serve in the military, even when
the law demands that he be drafted into the army. There is a tradition
of accommodating such objections, for example by allowing Quakers
drafted into the military to serve in the medical corps. A closely related
objection has to do with the idea of complicity. Thoreau, for example,
did not regard the payment of taxes as immoral in and of itself. Rather,
he objected to the payment of taxes when doing so would make him
complicit in some greater evil, an aggressive war of conquest against a
neighboring country. The Quaker who serves in the ambulance corps,
in contrast, may be willing to be complicit in his country’s war machine,
so long as he is not required to take a human life himself. Both are
examples of conscientious objection. Crucially, conscientious objection
is not a political tactic. It is not directed toward achieving some concrete
goal. Rather, it is an assertion of personal morality and is directed not at
a social outcome but rather at the morality of individual conduct.
Civil disobedience, in contrast, is a political tactic. Calling it a politi-
cal tactic does not imply any lack of moral seriousness, only that the

3. See Henry David Thoreau, “Civil Disobedience,” in Henry David Thoreau: Col-
lected Essays and Poems, ed. Elizabeth Hall Witherell (New York: Library of America,
2001), 203–24.
 Civil Disobedience   V233

moral concern is directed toward the community at large and the shape
of its laws. The classic example of civil disobedience in this sense is the
Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Taking their inspiration
from the example of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and his
followers deliberately violated segregationist laws. By riding on buses
or sitting at lunch counters reserved by law for white people, African
American protesters invited criminal prosecution in order to dramatize
the injustice of those laws and work for their abolition. In practice, of
course, there is often no neat distinction between conscientious objec-
tion and civil disobedience. One might refuse to become complicit in
some wicked law from a sense of personal moral integrity while at the
same time courting prosecution as part of a campaign to repeal that
wicked law. However, conceptually the moral logic of each approach is
distinct.
Latter-day Saint experience provides examples of both conscientious
objection and civil disobedience. However, the strong prima facie obli-
gation to obey the law, particularly in contemporary Latter-day Saint
thought, means that both activities have required special justifications.
Furthermore, of the two, Church teachings and history have proven
more hospitable to conscientious objection than to civil disobedience.

The Latter-day Saint Tradition and Conscientious Objection

The most striking example of conscientious objection in Latter-day
Saint history came in the 1880s, when thousands of Saints deliberately
flouted federal laws against polygamy. Joseph Smith introduced the
doctrine of plural marriage to certain trusted Church members during
the Nauvoo period (see D&C 132). He taught that polygamy was a way
in which the Saints should imitate the ancient patriarchs and obtain
eternal blessings. Unsurprisingly, the practice was hugely controver-
sial, and initially the Prophet tried to keep its practice secret. Hostility
toward plural marriage, however, was one of the contributing factors to
his murder in 1844 and the expulsion of the Saints from Illinois a few
years later. In 1852, the Church, having established itself in the remote-
ness of the Great Basin, publicly endorsed the practice, and four years
later, the newly formed Republican party declared polygamy one of the
“twin relics of barbarism” (the other was slavery) that had to be excluded
from U.S. territories.4

4. “Republican Party Platform, 1856,” in National Party Platforms, vol. 1, 1840–1956,

comp. Donald Bruce Johnson (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1956), 27.
234 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Congress responded in 1862 with the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act,

which criminalized polygamy. For over a decade, the law was unen-
forced until the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1879. The
Latter-day Saints, however, insisted that plural marriage was a religious
commandment and that the Supreme Court had erred in holding that
the Morrill Act did not violate the Constitution’s protections for the free
exercise of religion, and they refused to comply with the law. Congress
responded in the 1880s with a series of ever more punitive laws and a
policy of mass prosecution and incarceration aimed at Latter-day Saint
polygamists. The legal crusade against plural marriage ended with the
1890 Manifesto, although the Church did not move decisively to end
polygamy until the early twentieth century. The “Raid,” as the Saints
called this period, marked the most intense period of legal hostility
toward the Latter-day Saints and continues to stand as the most pro-
longed confrontation between law and religion in American history.
Church members in the 1880s were keenly aware of the twelfth
article of faith and the passages in Restoration scripture that enjoined
members to honor and sustain the law. Nevertheless, Latter-day Saints
insisted that they were justified in refusing obedience to the anti­polyg­
amy laws. They deployed a number of arguments to justify their posi-
tion. First, they insisted that antipolygamy legislation was itself illegal
because it violated the U.S. Constitution. When the Supreme Court held
otherwise, the Saints insisted that it might at some future time reverse
its decisions. Next, Latter-day Saints argued that the antipolygamy laws
were being unfairly administered, singling out Latter-day Saints because
of their religious beliefs, despite the protestations of federal officials that
they were aiming only at criminal behavior and were not motivated by
religious animus. Finally, many insisted that they were justified in resist-
ing the law because of their loyalty to the higher law of revelation.
Future Apostle Rudger Clawson provided a succinct statement of the
Latter-day Saint case for conscientious objection in 1884. He had been
found guilty of violating federal antipolygamy laws and was asked at
sentencing what he had to say in mitigation of his offense. He told the
court: “Your Honor, . . . I very much regret that the laws of my country
should come in contact with the laws of God; but whenever they do I
shall invariably choose the latter. If I did not so express myself I should
feel unworthy of the cause I represent.”5 He went on to make the by-then

5. “Sentence of Rudger Clawson, and His Speech before the Court,” Millennial Star
46, no. 48 (December 1, 1884): 741.
 Civil Disobedience   V235

rejected argument that the Morrill Act violated the First Amendment.
After all of the legal and rhetorical maneuvering, for Clawson the anti-
polygamy laws created a stark choice between obeying the laws of God
and obeying human laws, and he insisted that he had to choose the
divine commands over secular commands.

The Latter-day Saint Tradition and Civil Disobedience

It is more difficult to find instances of Latter-day Saint civil disobedience.
However, such instances exist. In part, the resistance to the Raid can
be thought of as involving a strategy of civil disobedience. Latter-day
Saints were not simply refusing to obey laws that they insisted required
them to violate divine commands. They also claimed that if the Saints
en masse ignored such laws, it would convince the nation of the laws’
injustice or at least impracticability. In 1856, as the Republican Party
launched its attacks on plural marriage, Brigham Young insisted, “They
will have to expend about three hundred millions of dollars for building
a prison, for we must all go into prison. And after they have expended
that amount for a prison, and roofed it over from the summit of the
Rocky Mountains to the summit of the Sierra Nevada, we will dig out
and go preaching through the world.”6 In his hyperbolic way, President
Young was making a classic tactical argument in favor of civil disobedi-
ence. By violating an objectionable law en masse, the Latter-day Saints
would make enforcing the law so expensive that it would be abandoned.
President Young gave his speech at the very beginning of the fed-
eral government’s antipolygamy crusade, before Congress had passed
any laws against polygamy. Three decades later, when the Raid was at
its height, hundreds of polygamist Saints had been sent to prison, and
numerous plural wives had been prosecuted for perjury and other crimes
when they refused to cooperate with law enforcement officials in con-
victing their husbands. A First Presidency letter to the Saints signed by
John Taylor and George Q. Cannon again invoked the idea of deliberate
lawbreaking as a means of legitimate expression: “Every man who goes
to prison for his religion, every woman who, for love of truth and the
husband to whom she is bound for time and eternity, submits to bonds
and imprisonment, bears a powerful testimony to the world concerning
the falsity of the views they entertain respecting us and our religion. If
such noble and heroic sacrifices as men and women are now called upon

6. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1855–

86), 4:39 (August 31, 1856).
236 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

to make for their religion by Federal Courts do not teach the world the
truth concerning us, then woe to the world.”7 Of course, the strategy of
changing hearts and minds by deliberately violating the law and then
submitting to its punishments proved ineffective for nineteenth-­century
Latter-day Saints. Minds were not changed. Indeed, the Saints’ resistance
only further enraged antipolygamist activists, who responded with ever-
more punitive laws until the Latter-day Saints were faced with a choice
between submission or the institutional annihilation of the Church.
Perhaps because of the spectacular failure of civil disobedience as a
political strategy for nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints, contempo-
rary Church leaders have tended to endorse Jeremy Bentham’s maxim
for dealing with unjust or unwise laws: “to obey punctually; to censure
freely.”8 For example, in the wake of World War  II, the United States
considered universal compulsory military service for all young men.
The First Presidency issued a strongly worded statement in 1945 attack-
ing the proposal. Such a measure, the First Presidency argued, would
“deprive [young men] of parental guidance and control at this impor-
tant period of their youth,” derail the educational plans of young men,
“teach our sons . . . to kill,” deprive them of “adequate religious training
and activity,” and encourage a host of other evils.9 “What this country
needs and what the world needs,” they insisted, “is a will for peace, not
war.”10 Notwithstanding these objections, however, the First Presidency
also instructed leaders and members to cooperate with the peacetime
military draft.
During the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, the term “civil
disobedience” came to be associated in Church discourse not only with
peaceful protest but also with lawlessness and contempt for authority in
general. Accordingly, it is easy to find condemnations of “civil disobedi-
ence” in official publications, although the term is generally used impre-
cisely. However, civil disobedience in the more precise way we have
been using it here has also been discouraged as a political tactic, even in
favor of positions that have been endorsed by the Church. In 1995, for
example, James E. Faust of the First Presidency gave a public address

7. “An Epistle from the First Presidency,” in Messages of the First Presidency, ed.
James R. Clark, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 3:35.
8. Jeremy Bentham, preface to A Fragment on Government, The Works of Jeremy
Bentham, comp. John Bowring, 11 vols. (Edinburgh: Simpson, Marshall, 1843), 1:230.
9. “Statement by the First Presidency Regarding Universal Compulsory Military
Training,” December 14, 1945, in Messages of the First Presidency, 6:240–41.
10. “Statement by the First Presidency,” 6:242.
 Civil Disobedience   V237

in which he discussed a member who urged “that the Church resort

to civil disobedience and violence because of the moral wrongness of
abortion.”11 President Faust responded, “Civil disobedience has become
fashionable for a few with strongly held political agendas. Even when
causes are meritorious, if civil disobedience were to be practiced by
everyone with a cause our democracy would unravel and be destroyed.
. . . I tried to explain that when we disagree with a law, rather than resort
to civil disobedience or violence, we are obliged to exercise our right to
seek its repeal or change by peaceful and lawful means.”12

Legal Obedience and Latter-day Saints as a Vulnerable Minority

Since World War II, the twelfth article of faith’s insistence that Latter-day
Saints believe in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12)
has emerged as a consistent theme in official teachings about secular
authority. This period corresponds with the massive missionary out-
reach that has resulted in the appearance of Latter-day Saint t­ emples and
stakes around the world. It has now been several generations since the
typical member of the Church was an American citizen living in the pre-
dominantly Latter-day Saint regions of the Intermountain West. Today
the majority of members of record live outside the United States, and
Latter-day Saints are generally a tiny minority in the societies in which
they live. Suspicion and hostility toward Church members remain, and
Latter-day Saints have frequently been the targets of hostile govern-
ments and political leaders. During the 1980s and 1990s, leftist guerilla
movements across Latin America murdered Church missionaries, and
the Sandinista government in Nicaragua connived at the confiscation
of Church buildings. For a time, the government of Ghana banned the
Church, and Latter-day Saints have been the targets of legal harassment
from Venezuela to Russia. Given this reality, the emphasis on legal obe-
dience can be seen as part of a deliberate strategy to protect Latter-day
Saint communities by convincing at-times hostile governments that
Church members do not pose a political threat.
This means, however, that Latter-day Saints have often found them-
selves emphasizing legal obedience in precisely those contexts where
legal regimes have been the most hostile. Rather than encouraging
conscientious objection or civil disobedience, the Church has tried to

11. James E. Faust, “The Integrity of Obeying the Law,” July 2, 1995, Freedom Festival
Fireside, Provo, Utah.
12. Faust, “Integrity of Obeying the Law.”
238 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

formulate the minimum legal conditions for living as a faithful member

and has refrained from missionary efforts in regimes that cannot meet
even these basic standards. Those standards were articulated by David
Kennedy, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary who was tapped by President
Spencer W. Kimball to act as a special ambassador for the First Presi-
dency. Kennedy wrote, “So long as the government permits me to attend
church, so long as it permits me to get on my knees in prayer, so long as
it permits me to baptize for the remission of sins, so long as it permits
me to partake the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and to obey the com-
mandments of the Lord, so long as the government does not force me to
commit crime, so long as I am not required to live separately from my
wife and children, I can live as a Latter-day Saint within that political
system.”13 While Kennedy’s formulation contains a certain amount of
ambiguity—what precisely is involved in “obeying the commandments
of the Lord” or “committing crime”?—in practice, this statement means
that Latter-day Saints have endorsed legal obedience to odious regimes,
such as the German Democratic Republic of Erich Honecker and the
death-squad-wracked Chilean regime of Augusto Pinochet.
The ultimately ambiguous position of the Church and the difficult
situation in which this stance can place Latter-day Saints are vividly
illustrated by the case of Helmuth Hübener. Born in 1925, Hübener lived
in Hamburg, Germany. He was raised as a Latter-day Saint and was
active in his local branch. During the 1930s, German Latter-day Saints
tried to allay Nazi suspicion of the American Church by emphasizing
the commonalities between the teachings of the Church and those of the
new Germany, seizing on the Nazi hostility to tobacco and drunkenness.
However, the Nazi government suppressed missionary pamphlets mak-
ing this claim, the Gestapo investigated Church branches, one man was
sentenced to a concentration camp for developing pictures of American
missionaries disrespectfully holding a Nazi flag, and at least one convert
of Jewish ancestry was sent to the Theresienstadt death camp. Latter-day
Saints responded by emphasizing their obedience to secular law and
trying to avoid official attention. In 1941, Hübener began listening to
war news on the BBC in violation of wartime German laws. Based on
what he learned, he authored and secretly distributed anti-Nazi pam-
phlets with three friends. In 1942, a coworker denounced Hübener to

13. Quoted in Martin Berkeley Hickman, David Matthew Kennedy: Banker, States-
man, Churchman (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, in cooperation with the David M. Ken-
nedy Center for International Studies, 1987), 340–41.
 Civil Disobedience   V239

the Gestapo, and the seventeen-year-old was eventually tried for treason
and executed. Before Hübener’s execution, his nonmember stepfather
falsely fingered another Latter-day Saint, Otto Berndt, as the instigator
of the plot, and Gestapo agents held Berndt for four days and interro-
gated him before releasing him. Hübener’s pro-Nazi branch president
excommunicated him, and the temporary mission president approved
the action. However, after the war, the First Presidency reviewed the
excommunication and posthumously reversed the local leaders’ deci-
sion, restoring all of Hübener’s blessings.14
The above incident illustrates the way that Latter-day Saint obedi-
ence to the law can be a defensive reaction to an ultimately illegitimate
regime rather than an affirmation of the regime’s legitimacy. There was
nothing in official Church teachings that overtly encouraged Latter-day
Saints to resist the Nazi regime. Rather, there was widespread distaste for
Nazism—despite some scattered local supporters—and an effort to avoid
the attentions of the Gestapo. Hübener’s opposition to the regime was
undoubtedly fueled by his moral indignation against Nazism, a moral
indignation that flowed from his upbringing as a Latter-day Saint. Never­
theless, Hübener’s actions endangered his co-religionists. The reaction of
the Church as an institution was ambiguous, first cutting Hübener off, in
large part as a defensive measure, and then posthumously acknowledg-
ing the justice of his actions through reinstatement.

Conclusion
In the end, there is no simple answer to the question of whether or not
Latter-day Saints may engage in civil disobedience. The twelfth article
of faith suggests an almost unlimited obligation to comply with secular
law.15 The Articles of Faith, however, are not the only place where Res-
toration scripture discusses the obligation to obey the law. The Doctrine

14. The details in this paragraph are taken primarily from Joseph M. Dixon, “Mor-
mons in the Third Reich: 1933–1945,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 7, no. 1
(1972): 70–78. See also Blair R. Holmes and Alan F. Keele, comps., trans., eds., When
Truth Was Treason: German Youth against Hitler (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1995); Alan F. Keele and Douglas F. Tobler, “The Führer’s New Clothes: Helmuth Hübener
and the Mormons in the Third Reich,” Sunstone 5, no. 6 (November–December 1980):
20–29, https://sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/024-20-29.pdf.
15. It is striking, for example, that the text of the twelfth article of faith goes out of
its way to insist that the obligation to sustain the law is not contingent on the particular
form of government, insisting that Latter-day Saints are to be “subject to kings, presi-
dents, rulers, and magistrates” (A of F 1:12).
240 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

and Covenants suggests a more limited duty of obedience, one that is

broadly speaking contingent on the legal system being what might be
called “a  nearly just .  .  . regime.”16 In practice, Latter-day Saints and
their leaders have endorsed both conscientious objection and civil dis-
obedience at different times and depending on the circumstance. When
pushed by a hostile state, some Saints have been willing to declare, as did
Rudger Clawson, that if “the laws of my country should come in contact
with the laws of God, . . . I shall invariably choose the latter.”17 However,
history also reveals that the calculus for Latter-day Saints has never been
as simple as Clawson suggested. Church leaders have generally coun-
seled obedience to unjust laws coupled with engagement to improve
them. More tellingly, in the face of at-times suspicious and vicious gov-
ernments, Latter-day Saints have been counseled to obey the law as a
way of protecting themselves and their community from predatory state
actors. In short, the Restoration does not provide us with any neat or
clear answer to the perennial question of where to draw the line between
the claims of God and the claims of Caesar. Rather, it gives Latter-day
Saints a native tradition within which they may consider such questions.

Nathan B. Oman is the Rita Ann Rollins Professor of Law at William & Mary Law
School, where he teaches classes on contracts, business law, and contemporary legal
theory. He has published numerous articles on Latter-day Saint legal history in Wash-
ington University Law Review, Iowa Law Review, Brigham Young University Law Review,
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, and other journals. He is currently working on
a book examining legal thought and experience in the Latter-day Saint tradition. He is
the editor, with Samuel Brunson, of Reapproaching Zion: New Essays in Mormon Social
Thought (Salt Lake City: By Common Consent Press, 2020). He is also the author or edi-
tor of three books and numerous articles and book chapters dealing with contract law
and the philosophy of law. He was educated at Brigham Young University and Harvard
Law School.

16. This term is borrowed from the political philosopher John Rawls, who uses it in
his discussion of the obligation to obey the law. See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev.
ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 293.
17. “Sentence of Rudger Clawson, and His Speech before the Court,” 741.
What Is Women’s Relationship
to Priesthood?

Lisa Olsen Tait

A
“ s a righteous, endowed Latter-day Saint woman, you speak and
  teach with power and authority from God,” declared President Rus-
sell M. Nelson in October 2019. Women are “endowed with God’s power
flowing from their priesthood covenants.” The endowment, he taught,
bestows “a  gift of God’s priesthood power” and “a  gift of knowledge”
about how to draw upon that power.1 These teachings came at the close
of a decade in which questions about the relationship of women and
priesthood in the Church received intensifying discussion by leaders
and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
While the idea of female ordination to ecclesiastical offices does not
seem to be an open topic in official Church discourse, there have been
various formulations in thinking over time about where women fit into
the larger picture of priesthood in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.
Discussions about women and priesthood in the Church have played
out over the past two centuries within specific historical contexts. While
much more could be said in terms of analysis and interpretation, this
essay takes a descriptive, contextual approach to tracing key inflection
points in Latter-day Saints’ discussions of women’s relationship to the
priesthood. The period divisions are necessarily somewhat arbitrary,
and the examples discussed should be construed as representative
rather than comprehensive. Moreover, as the following discussion will
show, it should be noted at the outset that the meaning and usage of
many priesthood-related terms—such as “ordain,” “set apart,” “confer,”

1. Russell M. Nelson, “Spiritual Treasures,” Ensign 49, no. 11 (November 2019): 77, 79.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)241

242 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

“keys,” and “preside”—have changed over time, and such terms were
often used with less precision than in current practice and publications.2
For that matter, definition and understanding of priesthood itself has
evolved over time.3 My hope is that a clearer sense of the origins and
development of the discussion over time will provide better ground for
its continuance.

1840s: “The Ancient Priesthood”

The essential starting point, and seemingly inexhaustible seedbed, for
all discussions about women and priesthood is Joseph Smith’s teach-
ings to the Nauvoo Relief Society in 1842. In these sermons, we find
three entangled threads pertaining to priesthood: ecclesiastical author-
ity to lead and administer the organization, initiation into the order of
the priesthood bestowed through temple ordinances, and charismatic
power to administer healing rituals.4
I use the word “entangled” to describe the relationship of these
threads because they were heavily entwined and largely undifferentiated.
The primary reason for this entanglement is that Joseph used language
that has been associated, then and now, with priesthood. Records of his
words also contain significant ambiguity, providing room for differing
interpretations according to the changing contexts within which his
language has been cited.
In regard to ecclesiastical authority, Joseph clearly envisioned an
integral place for women in the Church. He said that Emma and her
counselors were to be “ordained” to their positions and “preside” over

2. See “Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women,” Gospel
Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 2015, https://
www​.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/joseph-smiths​-teach​
ings​-about-priesthood-temple-and-women?lang=eng.
3. See Jonathan A. Stapley, The Power of Godliness: Mormon Cosmology and Liturgy
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Gregory A. Prince, Power from on High: The
Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995); Roger Terry,
“Authority and Priesthood in the LDS Church, Part I: Definitions and Development,” Dia-
logue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 51, no. 2 (Spring 2018): 1–37; Roger Terry, “Authority
and Priesthood in the LDS Church, Part 2: Ordinances, Quorums, Nonpriesthood Author-
ity, Presiding, Priestesses, and Priesthood Bans,” Dialogue 51, no. 3 (Summer 2018): 1–40.
4. This analysis is influenced by Jonathan Stapley’s formulation of temple priest-
hood as “cosmological” and authority to administer ordinances as “liturgical.” Stapley,
Power of Godliness. See, for example, Joseph Smith, Journal, April 28, 1842, in Andrew H.
Hedges and others, eds., Journals, Volume 2: December 1841–April 1843, Joseph Smith
Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2011), 52.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V243

the Society—“just as the Presidency, preside over the church.” Other offi-
cers could be “appointed and set apart” if needed, “as Deacons, Teachers
&c. are among us [that is, in the male priesthood quorums].”5 Joseph
suggested that he expected the women to be largely self-governing and
to take initiative both to “relieve the poor” and to “save souls.”6
Establishment of the Relief Society incorporated women’s organiza-
tion and leadership into the formal structure of the Church, a significant
departure from previous practice. Still, while Joseph established the pre­
ce­dent of female presidencies analogous to male priesthood presiden-
cies, he did not establish—nor did Emma and the women of the Relief
Society establish—quorums or priesthood offices for women. Moreover,
Joseph repeatedly affirmed the need for order and even subordination
within the Church. It was necessary, he said, for “every individual [to
act] in the sphere allotted to him or her” and “aspire only to magnify his
own office.” He also cautioned that the Society was to “get instruction
thro’ the order which God has established—thro’ the medium of those
appointed to lead.”7 Note that he did not explain whether “the medium
of those appointed to lead” referred to the Relief Society presidency, the
priesthood hierarchy, or both.
Priesthood’s relationship to the temple is the overarching con-
text for Joseph’s teachings to the women of Nauvoo. In the months
following the organization of the Relief Society, he delivered several
sermons to the women in which priesthood language and concepts
figured prominently. The most significant of these was the discourse of
April 28, 1842, which Joseph characterized in his journal as “a lecture
on the priesthood” showing “how the Sisters would come in possession

5. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes, March 17, 1842,” in The First Fifty Years of
Relief Society: Key Documents in Latter-day Saint Women’s History, ed., Jill Mulvay Derr
and others (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2016), 31.
Joseph Smith’s statement about officers for the Relief Society parallels the recollec-
tion of Sarah M. Kimball, who said that Joseph told her he would organize the women
“in the Order of the Priesthood after the pattern of the church,” likely referring to the
established pattern of appointing a president and counselors over the various priest-
hood quorums. “4.10 Sarah M. Kimball, Reminiscence, March 17, 1882,” in Derr and
others, First Fifty Years, 495. Eliza R. Snow sometimes referred to the Relief Society as a
“quorum.” See, for example, “3.6 Eliza R. Snow, ‘Female Relief Society,’ [Deseret Evening
News,] April 18, 1868,” in Derr and others, First Fifty Years, 271.
6. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book,” June 9, 1842, in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 79.
7. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book,” April 28, 1842, in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 54, 58–59.
244 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

of the priviliges & blesings [sic] & gifts of the priesthood.”8 He affirmed
that the “keys of the kingdom” were about to be given to the women as
well as to the elders, and he declared, “I now turn the key to you in the
name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intel-
ligence shall flow down from this time.”9
“Key,” of course, was a crucial term in Joseph Smith’s lexicon: the revela-
tions often connected “keys” with priesthood (for example, D&C 81:2; 84:19,
26; 107:18, 20) but also referred to “keys” of revelation, restoration, and
translation (for example, D&C 27:5–6, 9, 12–13; 64:5). If Joseph intended to
give “priesthood keys” to the Relief Society or its leaders in some sense, he
did not explain it. We do know that he used the term “keys of the kingdom”
during this same period in reference to the temple, and this seems the
mostly likely meaning for his statements to the women.10 Indeed, just one
week after speaking these words to the women of the Relief Society, Joseph
introduced the endowment to nine close male associates.11
It would be sixteen months before women received all the temple ordi-
nances and thus joined the “temple quorum,” largely due to Emma Smith’s
vacillating feelings about plural marriage.12 Nonetheless, it is clear that
Joseph always intended to include women in the temple and expressed
this intention to others. In remarks to the Relief Society shortly after
becoming one of the first to receive the endowment, Bishop Newel  K.
Whitney exulted, “Without the female all things cannot be restor’d to
the earth it takes all to restore the Priesthood.”13 That restoration would
include ordinances of washing and anointing (adapted from the Kirtland
Temple and later called the “initiatory”), endowment, marriage sealing

8. Joseph Smith, Journal, April 28, 1842, in Hedges and others, Journals, Volume 2, 52.
9. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book,” April 28, 1842, in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 57, 59.
10. For example, see Joseph Smith, “Discourse, 1 May 1842, as Reported by Wil-
lard Richards,” 94, Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/
discourse-1-may-1842-as-reported-by-willard-richards/1#source-note; see also Eliza-
beth A. Kuehn and others, eds., Documents, Volume 10: May–August 1842, Joseph Smith
Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2020), 6–7: “The keys are certain signs
& words by which false spirits & personages may be detected from true.— which cannot
be revealed to the Elders till the Temple is completed.” See also “Joseph Smith’s Teach-
ings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women.”
11. See Joseph Smith, Journal, May 4 and 5, 1842, in Hedges and others, Journals,
Volume 2, 53–54, especially n. 198.
12. See discussion of this event, including the term “temple quorum,” in Derr and
others, First Fifty Years, 75 n. 188.
13. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book,” May 27, 1842, in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 75–76.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V245

(monogamous or polygamous), and a culminating ordinance known as

the second anointing. The latter two ordinances had to be received jointly
by a husband and wife.
By the time of Joseph Smith’s death, a few dozen men and women
had received these ordinances and related instruction from him, meet-
ing together often as a group. Contemporary journals of some partici-
pants refer to the group as the Council, the Quorum, the Holy Order, and
the Holy Priesthood.14 These people called themselves “the priesthood,”
reflecting the collective sense of priesthood as comprising priests and
priestesses. That is, they understood themselves to have entered into the
highest order of the priesthood by making covenants and receiving temple
ordinances, as reflected in Joseph’s now-canonized teachings referring to
these ordinances as an “order of the priesthood” (D&C 131:2). In this con-
text, it is worth stressing, “the priesthood” included women.
The idea that “it takes all to restore the priesthood” and that salvation
(or “exaltation,” as it began to be called) could only be received jointly by a
sealed man and woman was certainly a radical one that opened new spiri-
tual avenues and status to women. But it was implemented in the context
of an androcentric culture that accepted as fundamental New Testament
teachings about the subordination of women. This context becomes espe-
cially clear in sources dating to the postmartyrdom period when Smith’s
successors sought to implement temple ordinances more broadly as the
temple neared completion. For example, Heber C. Kimball’s journal,
which records multiple meetings of the temple quorum in 1845, is riddled
with statements underscoring the subordinate status of women.15 More-
over, Brigham Young’s hostility to Emma Smith and the Relief Society
undoubtedly prompted his edict disbanding the Relief Society and his
declaration that women “must be led” into the celestial kingdom by men
and that they “never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their
husband.”16 This pervasive rhetoric of male headship adds another layer

14. These references are ubiquitous in the primary sources in Devery S. Anderson
and Gary James Bergera, ed., Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed, 1842–1845 (Salt Lake
City: Signature Books, 2005). See also “The Quorum,” Glossary, Joseph Smith Papers,
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/quorum-the. In the Utah era, this group also
came to be known as the Anointed Quorum.
15. See the compilation in appendix 1 of David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godli-
ness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates,
1994), 181–201.
16. “1.13 Brigham Young, Discourses, March 9, 1845 (Excerpts),” in Derr and others,
First Fifty Years, 171. See also Brooke R. LeFevre, “‘I Would Not Risk My Salvation to
246 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

of complexity to interpretations of the Nauvoo-era and postmartyrdom

understanding of temples, priesthood, and women.
The third thread of connection between women and priesthood in
Joseph Smith’s teachings to the Relief Society was ritual authority to lay
on hands and bless the sick. He insisted that women’s participation in
these practices was “according to revelation” and that “it is no sin for any
body to do it that has faith.” “If the sisters should have faith to heal the
sick,” he said, “let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.”17
Healing had been considered one of the restored gifts of the gospel,
as outlined anciently in the New Testament, but there was a great deal
of variation in the ritual among Latter-day Saints. The practice of laying
on hands (by both men and women) existed alongside the admonition
to call “the elders of the church,” with no clear distinction about when
one or the other was preferred.18 Joseph Smith’s affirmation of women’s
healing practices, then, authorized their participation in rituals that
could also be identified with priesthood.
Addressing the Relief Society on the subject of healing, Smith exhorted
the sisters to see that “wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those
set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them.”19
This statement may refer to women who were specially “ordained and set
apart” to administer to the sick.20 It could also apply to Emma Smith and
her counselors, a rebuke to those who evidently criticized these sisters for
laying on hands to bless.21 As recorded, though, Joseph’s statement offers
no explicit explanation of who had been “ordaind” or what “authority”
had been “confer’d” upon them.
Moreover, it is important to understand that Joseph Smith envisioned
the temple as the ultimate site for healing; salvific ordinances adapted

Any Man’: Eliza R. Snow’s Challenge to Salvific Coverture,” Journal of Mormon History
47, no. 2 (2021): 48–74.
17. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book,” April 28, 1842, in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 55, 59.
18. Doctrine and Covenants 42:44; see also James 5:14–15. For the development of
early Mormon healing practices, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, “The
Forms and the Power: The Development of Mormon Ritual Healing to 1847,” Journal
of Mormon History 35, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 42–87; see also “Healing,” Church History
Topics, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://www.churchofjesus​christ​
.org/study/history/topics/healing?lang=eng.
19. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book,” April 28, 1842, in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 55.
20. Elizabeth Ann Whitney, “A  Leaf from an Autobiography,” Woman’s Exponent
7, no. 12 (November 15, 1878): 91, quoted in Derr and others, First Fifty Years, 55 n. 157.
21. See Stapley, Power of Godliness, 84.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V247

to healing—such as baptism for health and washing and anointing the

sick—were implemented as part of the temple liturgy.22 This seems to
be the most pertinent context for his remarks to the Relief Society on
healing. “The time had not been before, that these things [that is, laying
on hands to bless the sick] could be in their proper order,” he said, “and
cannot be until the Temple is completed.”23
However, even if we understand the temple as the context for Joseph’s
endorsement of female ritual healing, some ambiguity remains. Did
he mean that women’s healing practices were intended to take place
within the temple? Or did he mean that the endowment to be received
in the temple would impart the necessary power for them to bless the
sick in any setting? For that matter, if his statement referred specifically
to Emma and her counselors, did he believe that their “ordination” to
leadership conferred authority to heal? He did not say. In any case, the
practice flourished in subsequent decades, followed by controversy.
By the mid-1840s, then, Latter-day Saints’ understanding of women
and priesthood encompassed the threads of ecclesiastical office and
authority, sacral power bestowed through the temple, and performance
of ordinance and ritual, including both healing and temple ceremonies.
Much subsequent development in priesthood practice and discourse
would consist of disentangling these threads.

1850–1900: “In Connection with Their Husbands”

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the three threads of w
­ omen’s
connection to priesthood persisted and solidified, but they were also
somewhat disentangled.
In regard to the first thread—ecclesiastical—women’s authority to
lead within the Church expanded over the course of the last third of the
nineteenth century. After a few localized revivals of the Relief Society
in early Utah, Brigham Young commissioned Eliza R. Snow in 1868 to
reorganize the Relief Society throughout the Church, beginning the
process of establishing groups in every local unit.24 In 1870, a Retrench-
ment Association was organized to promote thrift and economic
and social solidarity among Latter-day Saint women; a Young Ladies’
Department—later renamed the Young Ladies’ Mutual Improvement

22. See Stapley and Wright, “Forms and the Power,” 75–80.
23. “1.2 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book,” April 28, 1842, in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 54.
24. See “3.5 Eliza R. Snow, Account of 1868 Commission, as Recorded in ‘Sketch of
My Life,’ April 13, 1885 (Excerpt),” in Derr and others, First Fifty Years, 266–69.
248 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Association—followed. In 1878, the Primary Association was estab-

lished to provide religious and moral training for children.25 All of these
organizations were headed by women and came to feature presidencies,
boards, and other leadership positions at the ward, stake, and general
levels, and they functioned together as a vibrant women’s sphere within
the Church.
It became customary for women leaders to be commissioned for their
service by receiving a blessing from a male priesthood leader by the lay-
ing on of hands, and the expressions “ordain” and “set apart” came to be
used in such blessings, seemingly interchangeably. In organizing the first
general presidencies of the women’s organizations in July 1880, President
John Taylor demonstrated this practice. In the blessing he pronounced
upon Eliza R. Snow, he used both terms: “I set thee apart to preside over
the Relief Societies,” he said, and “ordain thee to this office.” He “ordained”
one of Eliza’s counselors and “set apart” the other.
On that same occasion, however, President Taylor felt it necessary to
offer clarification. Referring to the “ordination” of Emma Smith and her
counselors in the original Relief Society, which was explicitly invoked as
the precedent for his actions in 1880, he observed, “The ordination then
given did not mean the confering of the Priesthood upon those sisters.”26
Taylor’s clarification reflected a trend toward codification of priesthood
language: “ordain” and its cognates increasingly referred specifically to
priesthood ordination, while “set apart” applied to any calling or capacity.
The latter—including all offices held by women—were still official posi-
tions within the Church and were generally filled with some involvement
of priesthood leaders, but they were not priesthood offices and did not
require priesthood ordination; indeed, they were subject to governance by
priesthood leaders. This understanding has continued to govern women’s
service in the Church to the present day.
A significant new development in the ecclesiastical thread occurred
around the turn of the century when the calling of the first single sister
missionaries opened a new arena of service for women. While there was
never any consideration of ordaining women missionaries to priesthood
offices or permitting them to perform priesthood ordinances such as
baptism or confirmation, they did receive a call and commission that
was otherwise parallel to that given to men. This new opportunity raised

25. See introduction to part 3 and documents 3.5, 3.6, 3.16, 3.18, and 3.30, in Derr and
others, First Fifty Years, 235–47, 266–75, 343–49, 353–57, 427–34.
26. “4.5 General Relief Society Meeting, Report, July 17, 1880,” in Derr and others,
First Fifty Years, 476–77.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V249

all manner of questions about priesthood, gender, and precedence. Male

leaders acted quickly to “domesticate” women’s missionary work and to
maintain boundaries between men’s and women’s functions. Nonethe-
less, women missionaries went forward in increasing numbers, gaining
visibility and credibility as official representatives of the Church.27
When John Taylor stated in 1880 that Emma Smith’s “ordination” did
not include conferral of the priesthood, he added a clarification that
speaks to the temple thread of women and priesthood. He said, “Yet the
sisters hold a portion of the Priesthood in connection with their hus-
bands.” This expression—that women held the priesthood, or a “portion”
of the priesthood, “in connection with their husbands”—was rather
commonplace in Latter-day Saints’ discourse in the last half of the nine-
teenth century.28 This language was reflected in revisions to the Nauvoo
Relief Society Minutes when they were edited by Church historians for
inclusion in the History of the Church, which recast Joseph Smith’s lan-
guage regarding women and priesthood as advocating male headship.29
Nonetheless, expressions of women holding priesthood “in connection
with their husbands” seem to reflect the lingering influence of Nauvoo-
era temple theology: by being sealed together in the temple, women and
men jointly entered into an “order of the priesthood,” giving women
some sense of priesthood status (D&C 131:2).
Elder Franklin D. Richards made perhaps the most forceful state-
ment in this vein. Speaking in 1888 to the Relief Society of the Weber
Stake, over which his wife Jane presided, Richards addressed the men in
the audience directly.30 Other than ordination to priesthood office, he

27. See Matthew McBride, “‘Female Brethren’: Gender Dynamics in a Newly Inte-
grated Missionary Force, 1898–1915,” Journal of Mormon History 44, no.  4 (October
2018): 40–67.
28. “4.5 General Relief Society Meeting, Report, July 17, 1880,” 475–76. For two exam-
ples, see “14 November 1876: Bountiful Relief Society; Bountiful Tabernacle, Bountiful,
Utah Territory,” Discourses of Eliza R. Snow, accessed August 17, 2021, https://www.
churchhistorianspress.org/eliza-r-snow/1870s/1876/11/1876-11-14?lang=eng: “Well do
we not my Sisters hold a portion of the Priesthood with the Brethren”; and Presid-
ing Bishop Edward Hunter, “Grain Meeting,” Woman’s Exponent 6, no. 13 [December 1,
1877]: 102: “They have the Priesthood—a portion of priesthood rests upon the sisters.”
29. For a full discussion of this incident and the full text of the revised minutes, see
“2.2 Joseph Smith, Discourses to Nauvoo Female Relief Society, March 31 and April 28,
1842, as Revised for ‘History of Joseph Smith,’ September 5 and 19, 1855,” in Derr and
others, First Fifty Years, 198–208.
30. Jane Snyder Richards married Franklin D. Richards in Nauvoo in 1842. They
later participated in plural marriage. See entries for both in “Biographical Directory,”
Derr and others, First Fifty Years, 667–68.
250 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

insisted, “our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the
holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that
we have been made partakers of.” “Is it possible,” Richards continued,
“that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it?”31
All such assertions made a positive claim—women had “priesthood”—
alongside a qualification of the claim—“in connection” or “a  portion.”
Elder Richards’s strong assertions about women’s inclusion in priesthood,
based on temple ordinances and echoing ideas that had circulated since
Nauvoo, demonstrated that the understanding of a connection between
temple and priesthood lingered but also that its implications were con-
tested.32 Richards made a powerful case that women’s temple ordinances
had bestowed a form of priesthood upon them, but like the authors of
many similar statements scattered throughout contemporary sources,
he envisioned women’s “priesthood” as shared and did not claim that it
bestowed any specific authority.
During this period, the threads of ritual authority and temple priest-
hood remained entwined because the temple continued to serve as a
site for physical healing. Indeed, this was a primary purpose for which
many Latter-day Saints attended the temple.33 Baptisms for health, per-
formed by men, and anointing and blessing the sick, performed by both
women and men, offered a vibrant healing liturgy within the temple and
a sanctioned status for women who administered the rituals.34 More-
over, both inside and outside of the temple, the late nineteenth century
was the high point for women’s participation in rituals that involved
laying on hands. Women blessed the sick, washed and anointed each
other in preparation for childbirth, and gave blessings of comfort and
prophecy. Some women were set apart under the auspices of the Relief
Society to administer to the sick or to serve as midwives and medical

31. “4.20 Franklin D. Richards, Discourse, July 19, 1888,” in Derr and others, First
Fifty Years, 552.
32. See Elder Richards’s statement in this discourse that some men considered wom-
en’s work in the Church as being “out of their line and place” and that some men had
“feelings of envy and jealousy” and “would like to keep [women] back.” Such brethren
“withhold blessings from themselves,” Richards asserted. Richards, Discourse, 546–47.
33. Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine L. Wright, “‘They Shall Be Made Whole’: A His-
tory of Baptism for Health,” Journal of Mormon History 34, no. 4 (Fall 2008): 94; Jona-
than A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, “Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism,” Journal of
Mormon History 37, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 11, 17–19. The St. George temple was dedicated in
1877, Logan in 1884, Manti in 1888, and Salt Lake in 1893, giving members several options
for temple attendance, facilitated by railroad service.
34. See Stapley and Wright, “They Shall Be Made Whole,” esp. 92–105.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V251

prac­ti­tion­ers within their communities, offering both physical care and

spiritual administration.35
Both women and men consistently expressed confidence that these
practices were legitimate, but questions repeatedly emerged about the
authority by which women performed them. In 1880, the Quorum of
the Twelve drafted a circular letter affirming that “all faithful women
and lay members of the church” had the privilege “to administer to all
the sick or afflicted in their respective families, either by the laying on of
hands, or by the anointing with oil in the name of the Lord.” This should
be done “not by virtue and authority of the priesthood, but by virtue of
their faith in Christ, and the promises made to believers.”36
While Eliza R. Snow repeatedly affirmed this understanding—that
women did not administer to the sick by priesthood authority—she some-
times suggested that women’s administration was authorized or enabled by
the endowment, an assertion that the First Presidency did not endorse.37
The practice of anointing and blessing by men, invoking priesthood
authority, existed side by side with the more general practice of healing by
faith, with the same people engaging at different times in the various forms
without anyone explaining why one was preferred in a given instance.38
Questions and disagreements show the beginning of a long process of

35. Stapley and Wright, “Female Ritual Healing,” 23–27.

36. “4.8 Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Draft Circular Letter, October 6, 1880
(Excerpt), in Derr and others, First Fifty Years, 489. In 1888, President Wilford Woodruff
affirmed essentially the same principle with specific reference to washing and anointing
expectant mothers. He cautioned that such practices should not be called “ordinances”
in order to retain a distinction between them and the washings and anointings per-
formed in the temple. “4.19 Wilford Woodruff, Letter to Emmeline B. Wells, April 27,
1888,” in Derr and others, First Fifty Years, 542.
37. Eliza R. Snow said, “Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not
only have the right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our
sisters in these ordinances.” “4.14 Eliza R. Snow, ‘To the Branches of the Relief Society,’
September 12, 1884,” Woman’s Exponent 13, no. 8 (September 15, 1884): 61, in Derr and
others, First Fifty Years, 516; see note 256 on that page for the First Presidency’s correc-
tion of Snow. See also discussion of this question in Stapley and Wright, “Female Ritual
Healing,” 36–40.
38. For example, see Melissa Lambert Milewski, ed., Before the Manifesto: The Life
Writings of Mary Lois Walker Morris (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2007), 226, 230,
238, 247–48. The now-standard ritual form for administering to the sick was not codified
until after the turn of the century. See Jonathan A. Stapley, “‘Pouring in Oil’: The Devel-
opment of the Modern Mormon Healing Ritual,” in By Our Rites of Worship: Latter-day
Saint Views on Ritual in Scripture, History, and Practice, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo,
Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
2013), 283–316.
252 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

disentangling the various ritual forms of administering to the sick and of

asserting the primacy of priesthood administration, a process that would
unfold over the next half-century.39

1900–1940: “The Blessings of the Priesthood”

In the first half of the twentieth century, the threads of women’s relation-
ship to priesthood were further disentangled, and discussions about
women and priesthood reached a point of stability that has more or
less undergirded all subsequent discourse. Women did not “hold” the
priesthood in any sense, but they shared in all its blessings. This under-
standing came to be expressed through a paradigm that posited priest-
hood and motherhood as parallel and equivalent callings.
The key backdrop to these developments was the priesthood reform
movement initiated by President Joseph F. Smith and continued by Presi­
dent Heber J. Grant, which served to bring the modern Church into
being. This movement involved “administrative modernization,” theo-
logical compilation and elaboration, and standardization of ritual prac-
tices. Priesthood was a central concern in all these efforts.40 Animated
by progressive impulses to create order and rational organization, this
movement emphasized the week-to-week ecclesiastical applications of
priesthood in the local congregation and elevated priesthood quorums
over auxiliaries as “the ruling, presiding, authority in the Church.”41 The
results carried implications for all three threads of women’s relationship
to priesthood.
Priesthood reform coalesced around President Joseph F. Smith’s def-
inition of priesthood as “the power of God delegated to man by which
man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family.”42 Smith

39. See “4.19 Wilford Woodruff, Letter to Emmeline B. Wells, April 27, 1888,” 539–42,
especially nn. 328–29.
40. Key sources on this transformation are Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in
Transition: A  History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890–1930 (Urbana: University of Illi-
nois Press, 1996); and William Hartley, “The Priesthood Reform Movement, 1908–1922,”
BYU Studies 13, no. 2 (1973): 137–56. The phrase “administrative modernization” is Alex-
ander’s. See also Matthew Bowman, The Mormon People: The Making of an American
Faith (New York: Random House, 2012), 152–83.
41. Joseph F. Smith, “Editor’s Table: On Church Government,” Improvement Era 6,
no. 9 (July 1903): 705.
42. Joseph F. Smith, in Seventy-Fifth Semi-annual Conference of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1904), 5. Smith’s definition was not sui generis but brought together elements of
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V253

consciously distinguished between priesthood as the power of God or

“the principle of power” animating priesthood office and what he called
priesthood’s “ordinary meaning” of “a class or body of men set apart for
sacred duties, or holding the priestly office” (that is, priesthood in the
collective sense).43 This distinction, which gave rise to the practice of
first conferring the priesthood upon a man and then ordaining him to
a specific office in the priesthood, served to elevate an abstract concept
of priesthood that further distanced Latter-day Saints from the sacral,
collective sense that could include women, as reflected in Nauvoo-era
temple ordinances.44
Priesthood reform was in part a response to the significant expan-
sion of auxiliary organizations and programs within the Church, which
continued apace in the early twentieth century. This expansion opened
even more opportunities for women to serve in recognized Church posi-
tions, but the fundamental understanding remained that setting women
apart for those positions did not constitute priesthood ordination.
The most significant development in women’s ecclesiastical rela-
tionship to priesthood during this era occurred on the structural level.
Joseph F. Smith made it clear that the women’s organizations (along
with the Sunday Schools and Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Asso-
ciations) were auxiliaries, subordinate to governing priesthood lines of
authority at all levels. He predicted a day when “there will not be so much
necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations,
because it will be done by the regular quorums of the Priesthood.”45 In
principle, women’s organizations had always affirmed their subordina-
tion to priesthood leadership; priesthood reform put that principle into
practice in expanded, concrete ways that meant a diminished role for
the Relief Society as an umbrella for women’s organizations and a loss of
some autonomy and latitude for women’s leadership.46

his own and earlier authorities’ discourse about priesthood and articulated them in a
concise formulation.
43. Joseph F. Smith, “Restoration of the Melchisedec Priesthood,” Contributor 10,
no. 8 (June 1889): 307.
44. See Stapley, Power of Godliness, 23–26. Stapley describes the crucial shift from
“viewing priesthood as channeling the power of God” to describing priesthood “as the
power of God.” Stapley, Power of Godliness, 12, emphasis in original.
45. Joseph F. Smith, in Seventy-Sixth Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
April 1906), 3.
46. See Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher,
Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo,
254 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

The sense of women “sharing” something received in the temple lin-

gered, but what was it they shared? President Joseph F. Smith was adamant
that women did not share or “hold” the priesthood with their husbands;
they did, however, jointly “enjoy the benefits therefrom.”47 Elder James E.
Talmage, considered the doctrinal expert among the Twelve in this era,
took up the subject as well. In his book about the temple, he acknowledged
the lingering influence of earlier views. “It is a precept of the Church that
women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their hus-
bands,” he wrote. This sharing of priesthood authority made it unneces-
sary for women to be “ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood.”48 Note
that in this formulation, “priesthood” has taken on an entirely ecclesiasti-
cal meaning; the sense of a priesthood associated with the temple is gone.
Two years later, Talmage expressed this view even more clearly, in terms
more parallel to President Smith’s: “It is not given to woman to exercise
the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless, in the sacred
endowments associated with the ordinances pertaining to the House of
the Lord, woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood.”49
In this same article, Elder Talmage set forth an essentialist view of
gender that he believed explained the priesthood order in this life. Men
and women retain their “sex” (in his terms) “fundamentally, unchange-
ably, eternally.”50 Given this truth, Talmage taught, “woman occupies

Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1992), 180–223; Dave Hall, A Faded Legacy: Amy
Brown Lyman and Mormon Women’s Activism, 1872–1959 (Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press, 2015), 56–59, 65–66; Carol Cornwall Madsen, Emmeline B. Wells: An Inti-
mate History (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2017), 448–51.
47. Joseph F. Smith, “Questions and Answers,” Improvement Era 10, no. 4 (February
1907): 308. This column was part of the monthly Editor’s Table section, written (and
usually signed) by Joseph F. Smith. Many pieces from this series were later collected in
Gospel Doctrine. The question was “Does a wife hold the priesthood in connection with
her husband? and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority?” I will discuss
the question of healing below.
48. James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord: A Study of Holy Sanctuaries Ancient
and Modern (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1912), 94.
49. James E. Talmage, “The Eternity of Sex,” Young Woman’s Journal 25, no. 10 (Octo-
ber 1914): 602.
50. Talmage, “Eternity of Sex,” 600, 602. A shorter article by the same title and con-
taining much of the same content was published in 1922: James E. Talmage, “The Eternity
of Sex,” Millennial Star 84, no. 34 (August 24, 1922): 539–40. From this piece, Dallin H.
Oaks quoted the assertion that sex is an “essential characteristic of our pre-existent con-
dition” in a 1993 sermon. It is possible that this source influenced the similar statement
in the 1995 document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Dallin H. Oaks, “The
Great Plan of Happiness,” Ensign 23, no. 11 (November 1993): 72.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V255

a position all her own in the eternal economy of the Creator; and in that
position she is as truly superior to man as is he to her in his appointed
place.”51 Whatever that “position all her own” might be (Talmage did
not elaborate), women’s subordination was part of the plan: “It is part of
woman’s mission in this life to occupy a secondary position of authority
in the activities of the world, both in the home and in the affairs of public
concern.” This arrangement was rational: “In every organization, however
simple or complex, there must needs be a centralization of authority, in
short, a head.” A gender hierarchy, at least in this mortal realm, is ordered
by God’s wisdom; priesthood assignment flows from that order.52
Proxy temple work and regular temple attendance were expand-
ing dramatically during this period, under the umbrella of priesthood
reform and liturgical modernization.53 Talmage’s teachings reflect the
profound shift in understanding this movement had effected. All priest-
hood was now seen through the lens of ecclesiology and liturgy. Rather
than the temple being a source of priesthood, the emphasis was on
priesthood as the authority that enabled temple ordinances. As Joseph F.
Smith taught, women did not “hold the priesthood in connection with
their husbands”54—that is, temple ordinances did not bestow priest-
hood upon participants—but women shared in all the blessings of the
priesthood (that is, all blessings made available through the priesthood,
including the ultimate blessings promised in the temple, were available
to women). In one sense, President Smith’s reformulation could be seen
as a refutation of those earlier understandings about women holding
the priesthood in connection with their husbands, but it also made
plain something that had always been implied in those expressions: if
priesthood meant ecclesiastical office and authority, women clearly did
not hold the priesthood.
Men were not the only ones to examine priesthood theology in this
era. Susa Young Gates—a prominent figure among Latter-day Saint
women who served on the Relief Society general board, founded and
edited the Relief Society Magazine, and relentlessly advocated genealogy

51. Talmage, “Eternity of Sex,” 602.

52. Talmage, “Eternity of Sex,” 602. He did not cite a source for this “Divine
requirement.”
53. See James B. Allen, Jessie L. Embry, and Kahlile B. Mehr, Hearts Turned to the
Fathers: A  History of the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1894–1994 (Provo, Utah: BYU
Studies, 1995).
54. Joseph F. Smith, “Questions and Answers,” Improvement Era 10, no. 4 (February
1907): 308.
256 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

and temple work—had grappled with questions about gender and

priesthood throughout her life. In the 1920s, she collaborated with her
daughter, Leah Widtsoe, to articulate a rationale for the gendered order,
echoing the terms expressed by Joseph F. Smith and James E. Talmage.
“Women do not hold the priesthood, but they do share equally in the
blessings and gifts bestowed on the priesthood in temple courts, in civic,
social and domestic life,” they wrote in 1926.
Gates and Widtsoe went beyond this assertion, seeking a rationale.
In short, women did not hold the priesthood because they were mothers:
“No woman could safely carry the triple burden of wifehood, mother-
hood, and at the same time function in priestly orders. Yet her creative
home labor ranks side by side, in earthly and heavenly importance, with
her husband’s priestly responsibilities.”55 That is to say, men have priest-
hood; women have motherhood. Gates and Widtsoe seem to be the
origin of this paradigm, which they considered wholly satisfactory.
The priesthood/motherhood paradigm has proven to be extremely
durable in Latter-day Saint thought. Leah Widtsoe elaborated and pop-
ularized the idea through a series of articles in the Church news section
of the Deseret News, published in 1934. Like Talmage, she was a pro-
gressive thinker who emphasized the need for a rational, efficient line
of accountability and “division of responsibility” in society, home, and
church. Motherhood would consume all of the energies of a righteous
woman, she argued; “the added burden” of priesthood “would be just
that much too much in her life of home building and conservation.”56
Righteous mothers would have “no time nor desire for anything greater,
for there is nothing greater on earth!”57
Leah’s husband, Elder John A. Widtsoe, gave the priesthood/mother­
hood paradigm official imprimatur when he incorporated key passages
from her articles into his important work, Priesthood and Church Gov-
ernment.58 This extremely popular and influential book served as a

55. Susa Young Gates and Leah D. Widtsoe, Women of the Mormon Church (Salt
Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1926), 5.
56. Leah D. Widtsoe, “Priesthood and Womanhood,” Deseret News, Church News
section, February 3, 1934, 3. See Kathryn Shirts, “The Role of Susa Young Gates and Leah
Dunford Widtsoe in the Historical Development of the Priesthood/Motherhood Model,”
Journal of Mormon History 44, no. 2 (April 2018): 104–39.
57. Leah D. Widtsoe, “Priesthood and Womanhood,” Deseret News, Church News
section, January 13, 1934, 7.
58. John A. Widtsoe, Priesthood and Church Government (Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book, 1939). The bulk of chapter 7, “Priesthood and the Home,” consists of excerpts of
Leah’s “Priesthood and Womanhood” articles.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V257

course of study, a standard reference work, and a source for curriculum

writers for the rest of the twentieth century.
In this work, John Widtsoe argued that women’s sharing of priest-
hood blessings with men was made clear in the temple. “The ordi-
nances of the Temple are distinctly of Priesthood character,” he wrote,
“yet women have access to all of them, and the highest blessings of the
Temple are conferred only upon a man and his wife jointly.”59 He did not
explain what it meant for temple ordinances to be “of Priesthood char-
acter,” but this statement reflects the fundamental understanding that
those ordinances were essential to salvation and necessarily required
joint inclusion of women and men. Where the earlier understanding of
temple, priesthood, and marriage had been entwined with plural mar-
riage and a more communal understanding of salvation, emphasis had
now shifted to “temple marriage” within the framework of monogamy
and the ideal of partnership in marriage as the basis for modern middle-­
class American life. Temple marriage became a subject of emphasis in
discourse aimed at young people, complete with startling statistics about
the number of Latter-day Saints marrying outside the temple.60
As these normative understandings of priesthood in the Church and
temple solidified, sanction for women’s participation in healing ritu-
als came to an end. In a 1914 circular letter, the First Presidency under
Joseph F. Smith endorsed women’s blessing of the sick, affirming that
“any good sister, full of faith in God and in the efficacy of prayer, may
officiate.” In the same letter, however, they emphasized that women
should “confirm” rather than “seal” anointings—presumably because
“sealing” was associated with priesthood—and that “the command of the
Lord is to call in the elders to administer to the sick,” giving primacy to
priesthood blessings.61

59. Widtsoe, Priesthood and Church Government, 83. Widtsoe is quoting from his
book The Program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1936), 79.
60. See “Editorial: For Time and Eternity,” Young Woman’s Journal 25, no.  6 (June
1914): 389–90; Melvin J. Ballard, “‘Be Ye Not Unequally Yoked Together’: 2  Cor. 6; 14,”
Young Woman’s Journal 24, no. 6 (June 1913): 340–42; John M. Whitaker, “Marriage,” Young
Woman’s Journal 24, no. 6 (June 1913): 343–47; Rudger Clawson, “Marriage an Investment,”
Young Woman’s Journal 31, no.  6 (June 1920): 301–3; Joseph Fielding Smith, “Marriage
Ordained of God,” Young Woman’s Journal 31, no. 6 (June 1920): 304–8.
61. Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, “To the Presidents of
Stakes and Bishops of Wards,” October 3, 1914, quoted in Messages of the First Presidency
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1833–1964, comp. James R. Clark, 6 vols.
(Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75), 4:312–17 (October 3, 1914).
258 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

This pattern of emphasizing priesthood administration without

explicitly forbidding women to bless the sick continued in succes-
sive decades; meanwhile, the ritual form for administering to the sick
was codified in priesthood manuals and handbooks as a Melchizedek
Priesthood ordinance.62 An important step toward the end of sanc-
tioned women’s healing practices came with the reformation of temple
liturgy and practice in 1922. Under the leadership of President Heber J.
Grant and Elder George F. Richards (Apostle and president of the Salt
Lake Temple), healing rituals were removed from the temple, and the
men and women who had served as temple healers were released. This
removed a visible, authorized place for women to administer blessings
at a time when the emphasis on priesthood reform had already ren-
dered such practices increasingly anomalous.63 Women did, however,
continue to lay on hands as part of officiating in certain temple ordi-
nances, something that continues to the present.
To be sure, some leaders made strident statements explicitly discour-
aging women’s healing practices. Speaking in general conference in 1921,
President Charles W. Penrose decried what he called “a revival of the
idea among some of our sisters that they hold the Priesthood.” Penrose
affirmed that women shared the blessings of the priesthood when they
were sealed to their husbands, but he stated unequivocally, “The sisters
are not ordained to any office in the Priesthood and there is authority
in the Church which they cannot exercise; it does not belong to them.”64
Penrose allowed that women had authority to bless the sick “in one
way”—quoting from Jesus’s exhortation about spiritual gifts—and said
it might be appropriate on “occasions,” alluding to blessing pregnant
women. “But when women go around and declare that they have been
set apart to administer to the sick and take the place that is given to
the elders of the Church by revelation,” he said, “that is an assumption
of authority and contrary to scripture.”65 Penrose’s talk seems to have

62. Published instructions outlining a standard procedure for administering to the sick
went back at least as far as the 1902 YMMIA manual. Young Men’s Mutual Improvement
Associations Manual: 1902–1903 (Salt Lake City: General Board YMMIA, 1902), 58–59.
63. See Stapley and Wright, “Female Ritual Healing,” 66–69.
64. Charles W. Penrose, “How Revelation from God to the Church Is Received,” Improve-
ment Era 24, no. 8 (June 1921): 678. It is not clear what perceived “revival” prompted Penrose’s
denunciation.
65. Penrose also denounced women holding meetings to speak in tongues and
prophesy without permission of priesthood authorities. Penrose, “Revelation from God,”
678–79.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V259

been a turning point after which women’s healing practices decreased

significantly.66
In 1946, general Relief Society leaders asked Joseph Fielding Smith,
Apostle and doctrinal authority who had spoken forcefully in favor of
priesthood administration, to draft a letter in response to queries about
women’s healing practices. This letter presumably provided authorita-
tive answers that could be sent out over the signature of the women.
The fact that the women felt it necessary to have such a letter suggests
that they continued to receive questions about women’s administration
to the sick, likely reflecting uneven practice and understanding in the
Church at large; the fact that they turned to a male authority to answer
the questions indicates that they considered healing practices to be
under the purview of the priesthood. Smith wrote that “the authori-
ties” feel “it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us
and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the
sick and afflicted.” Women had “greatly abused” and “improperly done”
these things in the past, Fielding Smith’s letter asserted, referring spe-
cifically to washing and anointing pregnant women, the one remaining
form of female ritual healing that had maintained some legitimacy to
that point.67
For their part, women leaders said little publicly about healing. Relief
Society general president Louise Robison, who served from 1928 to 1939,
told one correspondent in a 1935 letter that “this beautiful ordinance” of
washing and anointing expectant mothers should be done “very quietly”
and only when priesthood authorities did not take “a  definite stand”
against it.68 Joseph Fielding Smith’s 1946 letter certainly seemed to con-
stitute a “definite stand,” even though some of his other writings were
more equivocal.69

66. Stapley and Wright note that “after this point, washing and anointings for child-
birth make up the preponderance of documented female-only rituals.” Stapley and
Wright, “Female Ritual Healing,” 72.
67. Joseph Fielding Smith, Letter, July 29, 1946, Relief Society Washing and Anointing
File, CR 11 304, box 1, fd. 1, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Salt Lake City, quoted in Stapley and Wright, “Female Ritual Healing,” 81.
68. Louise Y. Robison and Julia A. F. Lund to Mrs. Ada E. Morrell, December 5, 1935,
cited in Linda King Newell, “Gifts of the Spirit: Women’s Share,” in Sisters in Spirit: Mor-
mon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective, ed. Maureen Ursenbach Beecher and
Lavina Fielding Anderson (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 137.
69. For example, in Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized priest-
hood administration and outlined proper procedures, but he also quoted Joseph Smith’s
sermon to the Relief Society and his own father’s (Joseph F.) qualified endorsement of a
260 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

It is impossible to discern now how much women’s healing practices

were stamped out and how much they simply faded, perhaps along gen-
erational lines due to changing sensibilities. Charismatic practices were
increasingly seen as old-fashioned, and with the Relief Society vigorously
promoting progressive engagement in medicine and social work, call-
ing in the sisters to anoint and bless an expectant mother, for ­example,
must have seemed incongruous with the modern worldview taking hold.
Moreover, in cases where a belief in such practices and a desire to engage
in them continued, the disapproving rhetoric of priesthood leaders likely
drove them underground or stopped them altogether. The result was that
in official discourse and lay practice, the idea of women laying on hands
to bless the sick all but disappeared, and this thread of women’s connec-
tion to priesthood was severed.

1960s: “The Home Is the Basis”

By the mid-twentieth century, Latter-day Saint discourse about women
and priesthood had taken familiar and lasting form. Priesthood was power
and authority from God; it was the governing principle of the Church. Men
were ordained to the priesthood in accordance with a divinely appointed
division of assignments that ensured order and reflected essential gen-
dered characteristics. Women’s assignment as mothers was parallel to
men’s assignment as priesthood holders. Women had access to and shared
in the ultimate realization of all of the blessings of the priesthood through
their husbands, the ecclesiastical system of the Church, and the ordinances
of the temple. Women served as ordinance workers in the temple, based
on authority delegated from priesthood leaders. Likewise, they held posi-
tions of recognized authority in their auxiliary organizations, but those
organizations were subject to governance by priesthood authority. This
understanding has remained remarkably stable and continues to under-
gird discourse about priesthood even now.

husband and wife unitedly administering to their children. Joseph Fielding Smith allowed
that “a woman may lay hands upon the head of a sick child and ask the Lord to bless it,
in the case when those holding the priesthood cannot be present” but reiterated that
“a woman would have no authority to anoint or seal a blessing.” Joseph Fielding Smith,
Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, comp. Bruce  R.
McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), 3:178. Fielding Smith’s familiarity with
the teachings of Joseph Smith, reflected in his popular compilation of the Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, may have kept him from making the blanket prohibition against
female ritual healing he might otherwise have preferred. Joseph Fielding Smith, comp.,
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 224–25.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V261

The mid-century Priesthood Correlation movement headed by then

Elder Harold B. Lee has rightly been seen in terms of its administra-
tive, ecclesiastical, and structural implications for the Church. In practi-
cal terms, Correlation’s emphasis on priesthood governance resulted in
further subordination of women’s organizations and severely curtailed
women’s autonomy and influence.70 But it is important to understand
that Correlation was rooted in a particular view of priesthood that
enshrined it as the basis of the home and family. Lee himself expressed
this view: The purpose of Correlation, he said, was to place “the Priest-
hood as the Lord intended, as the center core of the Kingdom of God,
and the auxiliaries as related thereto; including a greater emphasis on
the Fathers in the home as Priesthood bearers in strengthening the fam-
ily unit.”71 The key to the whole movement, Lee explained, was found
in a First Presidency statement: “The home is the basis of a righteous
life and no other instrumentality can take its place nor fulfil its essential
functions.”72 The vision of efficient Church organizations was related
to the vision of righteous homes, and vice versa, with priesthood as the
central and unifying element.
At the height of the Correlation movement in the 1960s and ’70s,
“priesthood” became a ubiquitous term and a frequent subject of empha-
sis.73 Priesthood referred collectively to the men who held it and to the
(male) governing structure of the Church. It is not always possible to tell
which sense any given speaker was employing. Women were to honor
and follow the priesthood—in their homes, in their personal lives, and
collectively in their organizations. “There can be nothing more funda-
mental in the Church than a faithful sister supporting the priesthood,
whether it be her husband, or her designated authority in the ward, stake,
or mission,” declared Presiding Bishop Robert L. Simpson in 1967.74

70. See Bowman, Mormon People, 190–97; Derr, Cannon and Beecher, Women of
Covenant, 330–36, 340–46.
71. Harold B. Lee, regional representatives seminar, 2–3, in Bruce C. Hafen, A Dis-
ciple’s Life: The Biography of Neal A. Maxwell (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002), 325.
Lee was speaking at a regional representatives’ training seminar. Note that his statement
regarding the auxiliaries echoes Joseph F. Smith’s 1906 statement quoted above.
72. Harold B. Lee, in One Hundred Thirty-Second Semi-annual General Conference
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1962), 72.
73. See A. Theodore Tuttle, “A New Emphasis on Priesthood,” BYU devotional, June 12,
1973, https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/theodore-a-tuttle/new-emphasis-priesthood.
74. Robert L. Simpson, “Relief Society: Arm in Arm with the Priesthood,” address,
September 28, 1967, Stake Board Session of the Relief Society Annual General Confer-
ence, printed in Relief Society Magazine 55, no. 3 (March 1968): 167.
262 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

An address by Elder Mark E. Petersen to Relief Society leaders

expresses many themes typical of this era. He taught that the priesthood
was “the divinely established foundation of a happy home life.” Temple
ordinances assured each family of “the presence of the priesthood in the
home.” When men and women are married in the temple, he said, “they
jointly and together enter into the same covenants under the priesthood
and receive the same promises of divine beneficence,” and they take this
priesthood into their home.75 Note the slight but consequential differ-
ence in wording here from the previous century: instead of entering into
an order of the priesthood, the couple enters into “covenants under the
priesthood.”
Elder Petersen defined priesthood as “the power of God transmitted
to mankind.” While he no doubt would have included “authority” as
part of priesthood, this definition rendered priesthood a wholly abstract
concept—a power that bestowed blessings. Priesthood was “the source
of peace and happiness” in the home. But “priesthood” had also become
interchangeable with “men” in women’s lives. Sisters were to encourage
husbands and sons to magnify their callings and to recognize their hus-
bands as “the priestly presidents of the family.”76
The intensity of the efforts around this vision of priesthood-centered
homes helps to explain the intensity of the response to feminism and the
ERA in the 1970s and beyond.

1970–2000: Feminism and Responses

From the 1970s onward, discussions about women and priesthood have
taken place along two general tracks, in definite if somewhat unacknowl-
edged dialogue with each other. I will call these the feminist and the
orthodox tracks, recognizing that such terms elide a great deal of diver-
sity in opinion and tone and that the examples I cite are representative
of many others. Whether specifically advocating priesthood ordination
for women or not, most feminist voices have seen problematic inequality
and asymmetry in gender relations in the Church, rooted in the male-
only priesthood structure. Voices in the orthodox track, on the other
hand, have seen themselves as defending women’s divinely appointed
identity and the Church’s revealed lines of authority.

75. Mark E. Petersen, “The Blessings and Power of the Priesthood,” Relief Society
Magazine 57, no. 1 (January 1970): 7–8.
76. Petersen, “Blessings and Power,” 9.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V263

As the women’s movement gained steam in the United States at large,

many Latter-day Saint women felt invigorated and challenged by the
questions of feminism. Informed by their own experience in life and in
the Church, they began to explore questions about women’s status. Most
of these women were committed, lifelong members of the Church who
genuinely saw themselves as “somewhere inbetween” ultraconservative
traditionalism and ultraradical feminism.77 Inevitably, however, their
work spurred a wave of awareness and discussion, with implications for
discussions about women and priesthood that grew to take on a life of
their own.
Common denominators among Latter-day Saint feminists—both
in the 1970s and subsequently—included a willingness to bring intel-
lectual and scholarly analysis to bear on the subject, to question the
status quo, and in some cases (but certainly not all) to directly criticize
Church leaders. Many argued that women’s ordination or inclusion in
priesthood was necessary for full equality and participation of women.
The priesthood/motherhood paradigm came under particular scru-
tiny: Isn’t the parallel to motherhood fatherhood? And if so, what is the
female parallel to priesthood?
Such questions were often seen as threatening and disloyal, com-
ing in the wake of the Correlation-era emphasis on priesthood in the
home and the Church and against the backdrop of strident feminism in
the larger culture. Orthodox voices denounced “worldly voices” or the
“women of the world” in implicit contrast to “faithful” women, charac-
terizing such worldly voices as selfish and rebellious, rejecting marriage,
motherhood, and homemaking.78 These orthodox discussions rested,
implicitly or explicitly, on the belief that motherhood is women’s parallel
to priesthood and that women share all the blessings of the priesthood
through temple covenants and sealing to their husbands. Within this
framework, motherhood was extolled as the ultimate, godly identity of
women, an eternal blessing made possible through the priesthood. Not
far under the surface of these discussions, as well, was an affirmation of
support for the priesthood order of the Church and the authority of its

77. Grethe Ballif Peterson, “Somewhere Inbetween,” Dialogue 6, no.  2 (Summer

1971): 74–76. Peterson’s essay was part of a special issue of Dialogue (sometimes called
the “pink issue”) edited and written by women specifically to explore the intersections
of the women’s movement and Latter-day Saint belief and culture.
78. “We are not a sisterhood seeking power as are some women of our time,” said
Relief Society General President Barbara B. Smith in 1976. “A Conversation with Sister
Barbara B. Smith, Relief Society General President,” Ensign 6, no. 3 (March 1976): 8.
264 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

leadership, in implicit contrast to those who would criticize. By the mid-

1990s, the atmosphere had become tense and polarized, and the tension
and polarization intensified when several prominent feminist writers
were excommunicated.79
Meanwhile, a vibrant wave of work on women’s history took shape in
this same period.80 Scholars and interested readers began rediscovering
primary sources such as the Woman’s Exponent, institutional records,
and the life writings of early leaders and Saints, where they found much
that startled and challenged them: Latter-day Saint women were the first
to vote in the nation and were activists in the national woman’s suffrage
movement. They laid on hands to bless and heal. They ran their organi-
zations with a great deal of autonomy. Many of these sources included
the language and practices related to priesthood as described above.
This historical work resonated with both orthodox and feminist
thinkers. Because the Church’s treatment of women was under scrutiny,
stories of the faith and accomplishments of previous generations could
work through orthodox channels to counter the image of downtrod-
den Latter-day Saint women and provide models of faith and commit-
ment for modern women—albeit largely with little acknowledgment of
the potentially controversial elements such as healing and priesthood
language.81
For feminist thinkers, historical sources seemed to provide impor-
tant precedents for the kinds of reforms they advocated. The discovery
of Joseph Smith’s teachings to the Nauvoo Relief Society—in their origi-
nal form—proved especially influential.82 Out of the historical sources,

79. “Mormons Penalize Dissident Members,” New York Times, September 19, 1993, 31.
80. Leonard Arrington, who served as Church Historian from 1972 to 1982 and
then as director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at BYU from
1982 to 1986, recruited several women who forged the foundation for Latter-day Saint
­women’s history, including Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Carol Cornwall Madsen, and
Jill Mulvay Derr. Independent researchers made significant contributions as well. See,
for example, Claudia L. Bushman, ed., Mormon Sisters: Women in Early Utah (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Emmeline Press, 1976); and Vicky Burgess-Olson, ed., Sister Saints (Provo,
Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1978).
81. It would be impossible to offer even a short list of the outpouring of women’s his-
tory titles published by Deseret Book starting in the 1980s, but notable entries include
Kenneth W. Godfrey, Audrey M. Godfrey, and Jill Mulvay Derr, Women’s Voices: An
Untold History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830–1900 (1982); Janet Peterson and LaRene
Gaunt, Elect Ladies (1990); and Carol Cornwall Madsen, In Their Own Words: Women
and the Story of Nauvoo (1994).
82. The full, unedited text of Joseph Smith’s sermons as recorded in the Nauvoo Relief
Society minutes was first published in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, ed., The
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V265

particularly those cited above that mention “priesthood” and “keys” in

relation to women, feminist thinkers constructed a durable and influen-
tial narrative: Joseph Smith had begun establishing a priesthood order
that included both men and women; his death and the conservative
trajectory adopted by his successors prevented full implementation of
that vision and resulted in women’s exclusion from priesthood. The
logical extension of this narrative, sometimes articulated directly, was
that the Church should restore Joseph’s vision by including women in
priesthood.83
As this narrative gained traction in feminist discussions in the early
1990s, Church leaders spoke out directly in response. Elder Dallin H.
Oaks noted the sesquicentennial of the Relief Society with an address
in general conference in which he discussed several of the key issues
from the Nauvoo minutes. He emphasized that the Relief Society was
intended to be “self-governing,” but not “an independent organization”;
women’s authority in that organization came through priesthood chan-
nels. Elder Oaks directly asserted that “no priesthood keys were deliv-
ered to the Relief Society.” Priesthood keys, he taught, “are conferred
on individuals, not organizations.” Elder Oaks also spoke of women’s
“laying on hands to bless one another” and noted that over time those
practices were properly confined to the temple.84
Elder Boyd K. Packer also refuted the feminist narrative, which he
characterized as a teaching by some “that priesthood is some kind of a
free-floating authority which can be assumed by anyone who has had
the endowment.” “The priesthood is conferred through ordination,” he
taught, “not simply through making a covenant or receiving a blessing.”
Moreover, priesthood ordination was always carried out through estab-
lished channels with public acknowledgement.85 Elder James E. Faust
reiterated these principles six months later,86 speaking just weeks after
the excommunications of several prominent feminists.

Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet
Joseph (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).
83. These arguments and interpretations were brought together in Maxine Hanks,
ed., Women and Authority: Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism (Salt Lake City: Signature
Books, 1992).
84. Elder Oaks quoted from the original, unedited minutes. Dallin H. Oaks, “The
Relief Society and the Church,” Ensign 22, no. 5 (May 1992): 35–36.
85. Boyd K. Packer, “The Temple, the Priesthood,” Ensign 23, no. 5 (May 1993): 20.
86. James E. Faust, “Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood,” Ensign 23,
no. 11 (November 1993): 36–39.
266 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Within Church ecclesiology, the correlated structure of the Church

remained solid, and women’s organizations (along with other auxilia-
ries) remained firmly subordinated within the governing priesthood
structure. In the 1990s, however, Elder M.  Russell Ballard opened a
line of reform that has proved consequential. Beginning with a confer-
ence address in 1993, he stressed the importance of councils in admin-
istering the Church and called for “the cooperative effort of men and
women officers in the Church.” Speaking directly to priesthood leaders,
he admonished: “Brethren, please be sure you are seeking the vital input
of the sisters in your council meetings.”87 He spoke again on the same
subject six months later, feeling an urgent need for the Church to imple-
ment the principle.88
While this emphasis did not bring about structural changes in
women’s ecclesiastical position, it did open up space for increased par-
ticipation and influence of women at the local level where, it could be
argued, most of the work of the Church actually takes place. Updates to
the Handbook of Instructions and emphasis in leadership training soon
began to reflect this focus on councils.

Twenty-First Century: Priesthood “Power” and “Authority”

In the twenty-first century, discussions about women and priesthood
among Latter-day Saints have proliferated, fueled by the availability of
online venues and sources. More than a generation removed from the
second-wave feminist movement of half a century ago, views about gen-
der that were once considered radical, alongside ground-level changes
in how people’s lives are structured, have come to permeate the cul-
ture, even in quite traditional Latter-day Saint families. These trends
have unquestionably reshaped some of the contours of the discussions.
Moreover, the younger generation is less deferential to authority and
more confident about speaking out and balancing their relatively pro-
gressive views with their faith commitments.89

87. M. Russell Ballard, “Strength in Counsel,” Ensign 23, no.  11 (November 1993):
76–77.
88. M. Russell Ballard, “Counseling with Our Councils,” Ensign 24, no. 5 (May 1994):
24–26.
89. See Jana Riess, The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS
Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V267

By the mid-2000s, the advent of the blogosphere and the Blogger­

nacle provided thriving sites for discussion of Latter-day Saint theol-
ogy and culture.90 Women participated actively in existing blogs and
launched new online discussion forums, some of which focused on
women’s issues and feminism. Discussions of women and priesthood
unfolded in this kinetic context. Besides generating new ideas and points
of discussion, these online forums disseminated the work of earlier fem-
inist thinkers and historians, giving them new momentum. Online orga-
nizing enabled the formation of new groups and facilitated in-person
action and protests, such as those launched by Ordain Women.91
Responses from orthodox and authoritative voices to this new wave
of feminist energy were not slow in coming, though in keeping with
past precedent, they did not usually engage specific questions or argu-
ments. Within a few months of each other in 2013, for example, notable
talks were given by Sister Linda K. Burton, Relief Society General Presi-
dent, and Elders Neil Anderson and M. Russell Ballard (Elder Ballard
gave two).92 These addresses, which at least tacitly acknowledged that
“questions” were being asked, outlined fundamental contemporary defi-
nitions of terms like “priesthood” and “keys” and emphasized a distinc-
tion between priesthood authority and priesthood power that opened a
sense in which priesthood could apply to women. Burton said, “Priest-
hood authority is conferred by ordination; priesthood power is available
to all.”93 In these discussions, virtually all spiritual power received by
men and women through ordinances and spiritual channels was defined
as priesthood power. These ordinances and the attendant blessings they

90. “Bloggernacle” is a term coined to refer to the network of Latter-day Saint–

themed blogs. See Mormon Archipelago, https://www.ldsblogs.org/, a site that bills itself
as the “Gateway to the Bloggernacle.”
91. Colleen McDannell, Sister Saints: Mormon Women since the End of Polygamy
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 173–94.
92. Linda K. Burton, “Priesthood: ‘A  Sacred Trust to Be Used for the Benefit of
Men, Women, and Children,’ ” BYU Women’s Conference, May 3, 2013, https://womens​
con​ference.byu.edu/sites/womensconference.ce.byu.edu/files/lindaburtontalk.pdf (the
quotation in the title of this address comes from Dallin H. Oaks, “Relief Society and
the Church,” 36, cited in Burton, “Priesthood,” 3 n. 13); Neil L. Andersen, “Power in the
Priesthood,” Ensign 43, no. 11 (November 2013): 92–95; M. Russell Ballard, “This Is My
Work and Glory,” Ensign 43, no. 5 (May 2013): 18–21; M. Russell Ballard, “Let Us Think
Straight,” devotional address, BYU Campus Education Week, August 20, 2013, https://
speeches.byu.edu/talks/m-russell-ballard/let-us-think-straight-2/.
93. Burton, “Priesthood,” 4.
268 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

bring are available to men and women equally; who administers them
is less important and simply reflects the Lord’s way of organizing his
Church. Sheri Dew, prominent former Relief Society leader and CEO
of Deseret Book, made many of these same arguments in her book, also
published in 2013, Women and the Priesthood. Dew noted that women
in the Church already perform many services and functions that would
require ordination in other religious traditions.94 In 2015, the Church
published an official essay, “Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood,
Temple, and Women,” that addressed many of the historical points
embedded in the discussion.95
The most consequential entry in recent discussions has unquestion-
ably been Elder (now President) Dallin H. Oaks’s 2014 general con-
ference address, “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood.” In this
talk, Oaks explicitly built on previous discussions, endorsing the prin-
ciples that priesthood power blesses all. He added, “Priesthood keys
direct women as well as men, and priesthood ordinances and priest-
hood authority pertain to women as well as men.” It is this latter point
that constitutes Oaks’s reorienting contribution to the discussion. “We
are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the
priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?”
he asked. “Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one
who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in perform-
ing her or his assigned duties.”96 This takes the discussion beyond access
to “power” and “blessings” of the priesthood, essentially recasting all
authority in the Church as priesthood authority, based on a distinction
between keys and authority. In this view, women exercise priesthood
authority by virtue of being set apart for their callings; they do not exer-
cise priesthood keys, which are held by men ordained to priesthood
office. President Oaks’s framing of these distinctions contrasts with pre-
vious understandings: in 1958, for example, Joseph Fielding Smith had
taught women that they had “authority” but not “Priesthood.”97

94. Sheri Dew, Women and the Priesthood: What One Mormon Woman Believes (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 85–87.
95. “Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women.”
96. Dallin H. Oaks, “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” Ensign 44, no. 5
(May 2014): 49, 51.
97. Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” Relief Society
Magazine 46, no. 1 (January 1959): 4. President Oaks quoted this statement by Smith in
1992. Oaks, “Relief Society and the Church,” 36.
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V269

President Oaks’s characterization of women’s authority as priesthood

authority has been influential in shifting paradigms about women’s rela-
tionship to priesthood. In 2018, Elder Dale G. Renlund and his wife, Ruth
Lybbert Renlund, published a thorough examination of the Melchizedek
Priesthood in which they draw a distinction between priesthood as “the
total power and authority of God” and priesthood as “the power and
authority that God gives to ordained priesthood holders on earth to act
in all things necessary for the salvation of God’s children.”98 This distinc-
tion seeks to clarify what I have called the abstract sense of priesthood
(“the power of God”) and the collective meaning of priesthood—power
and authority as embodied in men who have been ordained to priest-
hood offices. The Renlunds stress that God has delegated “only a portion
of His total priesthood power and authority” to men and quote from
Oaks to assert that “through a setting apart by an authorized priesthood
holder, women have priesthood authority to use in their callings in their
wards and branches throughout the Church. They have all the authority
they need to fulfill their callings and stewardships.”99
The current Relief Society General Presidency likewise drew on Presi-
dent Oaks’s formulation in their joint talk at the 2019 BYU Women’s Con-
ference. Sister Reyna I. Aburto cited President Oaks and said, “Priesthood
authority is conferred by the laying on of hands under the direction of
those who have priesthood keys. Women receive this authority in the
form of a calling.” Sister Sharon Eubank added, “When we serve in any
calling or leadership position, . . . these are authorized positions of author-
ity in the work of God.”100 These examples suggest that the idea of women
having priesthood authority in the Church is taking root.
In addition, recent discourse about women and priesthood has
emphasized the availability of priesthood power to all endowed women,
as reflected in President Russell M. Nelson’s statement that women are
endowed with priesthood power that flows from their covenants. In this
formulation, spiritual power becomes priesthood power when it is chan-
neled through the priesthood covenants of the temple. Relief Society

98. Dale G. Renlund and Ruth Lybbert Renlund, The Melchizedek Priesthood:
Understanding the Doctrine, Living the Principles (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018), 11.
99. Renlund and Renlund, Melchizedek Priesthood, 13, 18.
100. Jean B. Bingham, Sharon Eubank, and Reyna I. Aburto, “Endowed with Priest-
hood Power,” BYU Women’s Conference, May 2, 2019, 7, 9, https://womensconference​
.byu.edu/sites/womensconference.ce.byu.edu/files/relief_society_general_presidency_​
-_2019.05.02_-_endowed_with_priesthood_power.pdf.
270 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

General President Jean Bingham explained that “priesthood power is

spiritual power used for priesthood purposes,” available directly to all
endowed women who keep their covenants without need for human
intermediaries.101 On another occasion Bingham taught that the priest-
hood power of God is multifaceted, encompassing keys, offices, authority,
and power, and she encouraged women to study the revelations deal-
ing with priesthood and seek spiritual understanding of the differences
between these facets.102
Meanwhile, a movement to reconsider women’s visibility, influence,
and scope of action within present Church policies and structures has
gained steam on both official and unofficial levels. Neylan McBaine’s
book Women at Church was an early, influential entry, and this discus-
sion continues to resonate in online forums.103 Within the Church, sev-
eral significant steps have unfolded. In 2012, the minimum age for sister
missionary service, previously twenty-one, was reduced to nineteen,
opening a floodgate of young women eager to serve.104 Shortly there-
after, new leadership councils were implemented in missions, giving
women an expanded role as “sister training leaders,” a position some-
what parallel to male zone leaders.105 In 2019, the role of witness at bap-
tisms and other ordinances, which had previously been filled only by
priesthood-ordained men, was opened to women and girls.106 In 2021,

101. Wendy Ulrich, Live Up to Our Privileges: Women, Power, and Priesthood (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), quoted in Bingham, Eubank, and Aburto, “Endowed
with Priesthood Power,” 3.
102. Aubrey Eyre, “Why Women in the Church Should Follow President Nelson’s
Invitation to Study about the Priesthood,” Church News, March 6, 2020, https://www​
.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/why-women-in-the-church-should-follow-presi​
dent-nelsons-invitation-to-study-about-the-priesthood?lang=eng.
103. Neylan McBaine, Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women’s Local Impact
(Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014).
104. “Church Lowers Missionary Service Age,” Newsroom, The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 6, 2012, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/
article/church-lowers-age-requirement-for-missionary-service.
105. “Church Adjusts Mission Organization to Implement ‘Mission Leadership
Council,’ ” Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 5, 2013,
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-adjusts-mission​-organization​
-imple​ment-mission-leadership-council.
106. Any baptized member, female or male, could serve as a witness to baptisms of liv-
ing persons outside the temple or proxy baptisms in the temple, and any endowed member
could serve as a witness for marriage sealings in the temple. Sarah Jane Weaver, “Women
Can Serve as Witnesses for Baptisms, Temple, Sealings, First Presidency Announces,”
 Women’s Relationship to Priesthood   V271

the Church announced that female area organization advisers would be

called in areas outside North America to provide training and leader-
ship to women leaders, increase the collaboration of men and women in
Church work, and provide for women’s voices in councils at all levels.107
On the general level, women General Officers of the Church (the
General Presidents of the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary)
were appointed to the priesthood leadership councils (Missionary Exec-
utive Council, Priesthood and Family Executive Council, Temple and
Family History Executive Council) that previously included only male
leaders.108 Most dramatically, perhaps, in January 2019, temple ceremo-
nies were modified to excise some of the elements that emphasized
gender differences.109

Conclusion
Latter-day Saints have maintained a belief in divinely restored priest-
hood authority and power since the earliest days of the Church. Early
Saints understood the term priesthood to refer both to the authority
bestowed by ordination and to the collective body of men who were so
ordained. In any case, priesthood offices were conferred on only men.
Over time, the Church’s lay priesthood structure expanded to include
all worthy men regardless of race. This means that virtually all men who
are active in the Church have been ordained to the priesthood. Despite
this bedrock association of priesthood with men, dynamic discussions
about women’s relationship to priesthood have unfolded and intensified
over time.

Church News, October 2, 2019, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/women​

-can-serve-as-witnesses-for-baptisms-temple-sealings-first-presidency-announces​?lang​
=eng; see also First Presidency letter, October 2, 2019.
107. Sydney Walker, “Area Organization Advisers: Women Leaders in International
Areas to Provide Instruction, Mentoring,” Church News, March 17, 2021, https://www​
.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2021-03-17/area-organization-advisers​
-relief​-society-young-women-primary-local-instruction-207196.
108. Tad Wal ch, “In a Significant Move, Women to Join Key, Leading LDS Church
Councils,” Deseret News, August 19, 2015, https://www.deseret.com/2015/8/19/20570502/
in-a-significant-move-women-to-join-key-leading-lds-church-councils.
109. Peggy Fletcher Stack and David Noyce, “LDS Church Changes Temple Cere­
mony; Faithful Feminists Will See Revisions and Additions as a ‘Leap Forward,’ ” Salt
Lake Tribune, January 2, 2019, https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01/02/lds​-church​
-releases/.
272 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

The ongoing discussion among Latter-day Saints about women and

priesthood has ebbed and flowed and undergone several permutations
while maintaining some consistent themes. The most consistent of these
themes has been, as Elder Oaks stated in his 2014 address, that Church
leaders are “not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men
will hold offices in the priesthood.”110 While there is no reason to believe
that this understanding will change, discussions about women’s rela-
tionship to priesthood and their position in the Church will undoubt-
edly continue.

Lisa Olsen Tait is a historian, writer, and specialist in women’s history at the Church
History Department, where she has contributed to several department projects includ-
ing Saints and a forthcoming history of the Young Women’s organization. She received
a PhD in American literature from the University of Houston and has published work
on late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Latter-day Saint history. She is also
co-chair of the Mormon Women’s History Initiative Team (MWHIT), an independent
group that fosters work in the field.

110. Oaks, “Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” 50.

On the Foreknowledge of God
Time, Knowledge, Reality, Agency

Rosalynde Welch

O n the question of God’s knowledge of future events, Old and

New Testament authors respond in a motley chorus. Some bibli-
cal authors assume exhaustive divine foreknowledge of both individ-
ual lives and world historical events. Psalm 139 affirms that “your eyes
saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in
your book before one of them came to be” (Ps. 139:16).1 The Apostle
Peter declares that Christ’s crucifixion was accomplished according to
“God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23). Other biblical
accounts seem to show that God adjusts his intentions according to
human behavior, implying that he does not or cannot know free human
choice ahead of its realization. Of Israelite king Saul, for instance, bibli-
cal authors record the Lord’s words to Samuel, “I regret that I have made
Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out
my instructions” (1 Sam. 15:11).
Latter-day scripture offers little clarification on the question. Again,
some passages assert a strong view of divine foreknowledge, such as
Alma’s teaching that God calls and prepares his high priests “from
eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things”
(Alma 13:7), and God’s own declaration, through Joseph Smith, that
he “knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes”
(D&C 38:1–2). Nephi’s detailed vision of Christ’s incarnation and the
providential sweep of human history suggests that God knows, and can
reveal to his prophets in advance, the course of future events crucial to

1. All Bible citations are from the New International Version.

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)273

274 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

the redemption of his people (1 Ne. 11–14). Other scriptures, however,

suggest that God’s foreknowledge of events and his interaction with
humans depend on the real-time unfolding of human behavior. In July
1831, for instance, the Lord revealed Independence, Missouri, to be the
place “appointed and consecrated” for the building of the city of Zion in
anticipation of the Lord’s return (D&C 57:1). In January 1841, however,
after the faithful had endured years of conflict with neighboring Mis-
sourians, the Lord rescinded that command, explaining that when the
wicked hinder the work of righteousness, “it behooveth me to require
that work no more” (D&C 124:49).
If scriptural statements about God’s foreknowledge are internally
inconclusive, with primary emphasis on experiential and practical con-
cerns rather than on reasoned explanation, Latter-day Saint authoritative
discourse over the past fifty or so years has plainly asserted God’s compre-
hensive knowledge. The Church’s website states succinctly that “[God] is
perfect, has all power, and knows all things.”2 Typically framed as a ques-
tion of divine omniscience in general rather than foreknowledge as such,
Latter-day Saint pastoral discussion of the question ­simply praises God’s
perfect knowledge and power to save and affirms his responsiveness to
human petition and human agency. For most believers, little intuitive
conflict arises between God’s reassuring knowledge of the future and our
genuine freedom of human agency. God sees, but does not predetermine,
our thoughts and actions. In an important sense, then, the doctrine of
God’s omniscience is settled in the present-day Church. What remains
open, however, is the meaning of “omniscience” and, in particular, the
status of foreknowledge of the future as a subset of all knowledge. Does
God’s omniscience mean only he knows everything that can be known?
Does it require that he know everything that will ever become knowable?
Is divine omniscience contingent or absolute? Is God’s omniscience the
same with respect to the past and the future? These questions, far from
the immediate pastoral concerns of contemporary Latter-day Saint offi-
cial discourse, remain open.
For Christian theology broadly, the question of divine foreknowl-
edge has long been among the most contested and confounding. Influ-
enced by Platonism, early Christian theists recognized a knotty logical
conundrum in the reconciliation of exhaustive divine foreknowledge

2. “God the Father,” Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, accessed October 14, 2019, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/
gospel​-topics/god-the-father?lang=eng.
 On the Foreknowledge of God   V275

with human free will. The problem for classical theism goes roughly
as follows: because God, beyond time, is omniscient, immutable, and
impassible, his simultaneous and unalterable knowledge of the future
must exist logically prior to the creation of the world. Divine knowl-
edge cannot respond to existing creation as it unfolds in time, because
this would make God’s knowledge subject to temporal change on the
basis of events outside himself, thus violating divine immutability and
impassibility. But if God’s foreknowledge is absolute and logically prior
to creation, then two troubling implications follow. First, perfect divine
foreknowledge means that God cannot intervene providentially in the
world by, for instance, responding to spontaneous petitionary prayer.
If God has always known that today I will slip on the ice and sustain
a head injury, he cannot grant my morning petition for safety without
backwardly falsifying his knowledge. Counterintuitive as it seems, it is
logically impossible for a perfectly foreknowing God to reach provi-
dentially into the temporal flow of human experience. Second, divine
foreknowledge means that humans cannot act with libertarian free
will, defined as the ability to choose otherwise than they do. If God has
always known that I will visit a friend today, but I, exercising genuine
freedom to choose otherwise in the moment of action, decide instead to
go shopping, I will have brought it about that God knew something that
he does not in fact know. For classical theism, this is a logical impos-
sibility. Thus it appears that absolute divine foreknowledge logically
implies some kind of causal determinism.
It might seem that Latter-day Saint theology would enjoy a concep-
tual purchase on the problem that classical theism lacks. In LDS thought,
God is progressive within time, responsive to human interaction, and
co-eternal with free intelligent matter. There is no need to protect divine
immutability and impassibility in the face of the unfolding realization of
human free will. Yet serious questions, ontological and pastoral, remain.
If God, material in some sense, exists within sequential time rather
than in a privileged sphere of simultaneity, how is it that he can know
the open future at all? If God cannot know and control future events
except on the basis of prediction and persuasion, then on what basis
can humans place trust in his power to carry out his plans or respond
providentially to their petitionary prayers? Locating God in time and
space, Latter-day Saints have discovered him to be responsive to human
engagement, respectful of human freedom, and supremely relational in
his divine workings. Yet this appealingly personal portrait of God calls
into question the sovereignty of divine knowledge and power.
276 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Historical Reckonings
Early Latter-day Saint reflection on God’s foreknowledge flowed in several
different directions, three streams which I will call epistemic progression,
informal absolutism, and inductive inference. The headwaters of each are
Joseph Smith’s revelations, which conveyed heady intimations of a radical
ontological materialism, a grounding plurality of co-eternal intelligence,
and a temporal matrix embracing God himself in its dynamism. The rev-
elations seeded various hermeneutic efforts to synthesize the revelations
into coherent and often competing cosmological pictures. Among the
best known of these theological wrestles is the debate between Orson and
Parley Pratt and Brigham Young on the question of God’s omniscience.
In a well-documented conflict culminating in Young’s 1860 ex cathedra
denunciation of the Pratts’ views, two competing theories of God’s epis-
temic status emerged.3 For their parts, the Pratts argued in a theological
vein that, while the person of God the Father may act within the dynamic
flow of time, subject to the conditions of space-time, God qua Godhead
possesses absolute omniscience.4 Thus, as a modern scholar summarizes,
according to the Pratts, “God cannot progress in knowledge or ever learn
anything which he did not previously know. . . . God knows all future
events, including contingent acts of free agents.”5 For Brigham Young,
this position was intolerable for the apparent limit it places on God’s
potential for increase and, consequently, on human potential to develop
in God’s image. Young argued that “according to [Orson Pratt’s] theory,
God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that
I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase
to all eternity, if they are faithful.”6 Young seems to construe eternity as a

3. See Gary James Bergera, “The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Con-
flict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13, no. 2
(1980): 7–49.
4. This argument enjoyed a minor revival in James R. Harris’s article “Eternal Pro-
gression and the Foreknowledge of God,” BYU Studies 8, no.  1 (1968): 37–46. Harris
posits a comprehensive repository of communal knowledge to which the divine minds
of the combined Godhead contribute and from which each member of the Godhead
may draw. While each particular divine being continues to learn and grow through
experience, he may at any moment draw upon the divine communal mind for any
knowledge necessary. God is thus progressing in knowledge as the Father and effectively
omniscient as the Godhead.
5. Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (Salt Lake City:
Greg Kofford Books, 2001), 87.
6. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1855–
86), 11:286 (January 13, 1867).
 On the Foreknowledge of God   V277

chronological sequence of endless duration, wherein the past closes and

recedes while the future remains unformed and invisible; at any given
moment, only present events actually exist. That God would remain epis-
temically immutable in the midst of this dynamic temporal cosmos was,
for Young, not the stable ground of reality that it represented for classi-
cal theism but an enervating restriction of divine potential. Conversely,
the implication that God, acting from within a chrono-temporal frame,
necessarily lacks exhaustive foreknowledge does not, for Young, vitiate
divine venerability or God’s worthiness of worship based on his greatness.
Rather, Young rejoices in a buoyant vision of endless knowledge. Survey-
ing the world’s vast scope of created forms and natural kingdoms, Young
exults in the prospect of endless learning and improvement promised by
“eternity . . . before us, and an inexhaustible fountain of intelligence for us
to obtain.”7
The Young-Pratt debate over God’s epistemic progression bloomed
a suite of issues that would shape subsequent Latter-day Saint explora-
tions of divine foreknowledge. These issues include the question of God’s
venerability given the limiting ontological conditions of materiality and
space-time; the nature of God’s relationship to time, be it chronological-
sequential, atemporal-simultaneous, or some other mode of temporal-
ity; the nature of epistemology and consequent notions of truth as a
fixed canon of propositions or an unfolding creative process; and indeed
the very meaning of salvation, as a function of epistemic growth or as
some other process.
Young’s views on epistemic progression were eventually challenged
themselves by informal absolutists during the next century. Yet progres-
sivism’s bracing appeal persisted, championed and nuanced by early
twentieth-century Latter-day Saint intellectuals John A. Widtsoe and
B.  H. Roberts, among others. Roberts redefined omniscience within a
defined chrono-temporal frame, acknowledging that God is omniscient
only in the time-limited sense that “all the knowledge that is, all that
exists, God knows. All that shall be he will know. . . . Much more is yet to
be. God will know it as it ‘becomes,’ or as it unfolds.”8 Insisting that God
knows all that can be known in the present and will know all that may
be known in the future, Roberts seems satisfied with God’s venerability
as the unsurpassed knower, if not the classically omniscient deity. While

7. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 8:8 (March 4, 1860).

8. B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, ed.
John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1994), 418.
278 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

retaining a sequential model of time, Roberts conceives of knowledge

not as a fixed corpus of information but as an unfolding process of truth-
making wherein the present bodies forth new realities into an open future,
as much a matter of ontology as epistemology. In the late twentieth cen-
tury, English professor Eugene England again advanced Young’s notion
of epistemic progression, attempting a reconciliation with conflicting
absolutist positions. England argues for a leveled cosmos in which God,
acting within time, masters the episteme of one level and thus commands
absolute worship within that sphere, while continuing to gain knowledge
in higher dimensions.9 Implicit in the compromise England works is the
juxtaposition of an open future of potentiality, undetermined and undis-
covered, against a fixed past, its potential exhausted in actuality, to be
mastered absolutely by God’s local perfection. It is toward the former that
England’s imagination strains. While God is absolute within our space-
time-bounded realm, he argues, “the universe is ultimately open, an invi-
tation to adventure and change, that the very divinity of God demands.”10
A second doctrine on divine foreknowledge emerged during the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, framed explicitly as a corrective
to epistemic progression. From the Church’s beginning, some thinkers
have layered traditional Christian theism over the theological inno-
vations implied in Joseph Smith’s revelations. The result is a kind of
informal absolutism, an approach that projects some of the sovereign
attributes of the God of classical theism—his omnipotence, omniscience,
and immanence—onto the embodied God of latter-day revelation.
Instances of this approach abound in official Church discourse. Hyrum
Smith in 1844 declared in familiar absolutist language that “I would not
serve a God that had not all wisdom and all power.” Yet within a few
seamless sentences, Hyrum draws on the bold cosmological monism
of LDS revelation that placed God and humanity in a shared ontologi-
cal stratum, declaring that “I can believe that man can go from planet
to planet—a man gets so high in the mansions above.”11 The sovereign
greatness of God seems to magnify and justify the greatness of human
potential with a compelling intuitive force that brooks no ontological
quibble. This strain of informal absolutism holds that a God lacking

9. Eugene England, “Perfection and Progression: Two Complementary Ways to

Talk about God,” BYU Studies 29, no. 3 (1989): 31–47.
10. England, “Perfection and Progression,” 45.
11. Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H.
Roberts, 2nd ed., rev., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1962), 6:300.
 On the Foreknowledge of God   V279

omniscient foreknowledge is not worthy of worship; such a God can-

not command the saving faith of his children. The concern is evident as
early as the 1835 Lectures on Faith, which frame the question of God’s
omniscience in terms of human faith: “If it were not for the idea existing
in the minds of men, that God had all knowledge, it would be impos-
sible for them to exercise faith in him.”12
In the first half of the twentieth century, Joseph Fielding Smith,
Church Apostle and grandson of Hyrum Smith, mounted a sustained
defense of God’s omniscience and omnipotence against the limitations
of epistemic progression: “Do we believe that God has all ‘wisdom’? If
so, in that, he is absolute. . . . If he is lacking in ‘wisdom’ and in ‘power’
then he is not supreme and there must be something greater than he
is, and this is absurd.”13 Later, Elder Bruce R. McConkie followed this
line of interpretation, maintaining that “eternal progression” implies
only that God increases in dominion, not in knowledge: “It should be
realized that God is not progressing in knowledge. . . . He has already
gained these things in their fulness. But he is progressing in the sense
that his creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit offspring
multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his domains.”14 Though posi-
tioned against epistemic progression, McConkie’s absolutist picture of
eternal progression nevertheless resonates with B. H. Roberts’s notion
of future “becoming”: both describe ontological processes of reality-
making, rather than mere mastery of an extant body of knowledge.
For early- and mid-century proponents of omniscience, God’s
knowledge of the future is merely implied. In the later decades of the
twentieth century, however, Elder Neal A. Maxwell brought foreknowl-
edge to the fore of what we might call his neo-absolutist position. Build-
ing on earlier notions of the qualities God must possess to command
worship, Maxwell brought a new theological dimension to the question
of temporality, citing sixth-century philosopher Boethius and arguing
that God occupies a meta-temporal dimension that Maxwell calls “the
eternal now”: “We may be surprised at the turn of events, but God in
His omniscience never is. He sees the beginning from the end because
all things are, in a way which we do not understand, present before

12. “Lecture Fourth: Of Faith,” 47, Doctrine and Covenants, 1835, Joseph Smith
Papers, accessed June 2, 2021, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/transcript/doctrine​
-and​-covenants-1835?print=true.
13. Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of
Joseph Fielding Smith, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 1:5.
14. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 239.
280 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Him simultaneously in an ‘eternal now.’ ”15 The opening phrase of this

passage signals Maxwell’s primary pastoral intent to reassure readers of
God’s loving power to shepherd them through affliction. Nevertheless,
his remarks bring a renewed theological focus to the question of time
and divine omniscience. Maxwell declines to comment on whether God
is capable of experiencing surprise—that is, whether God’s nature is pas-
sible in such a way that he can feel the delight, horror, or strangeness of
the unforeseen. Whether or not God can be surprised, Maxwell asserts
that he never is, because he possesses a simultaneous awareness of all
things. Interestingly, Maxwell specifically attributes to God only knowl-
edge of “the beginning from the end,” the type of backward-facing past-
knowledge of which the human mind is also capable. Comprehensive
foreknowledge, one presumes, would allow God to know the end from
the beginning, as God claims in Isaiah 46:10. Nevertheless, it’s clear that
Maxwell intends to affirm God’s foreknowledge as the consequence of
God’s privileged position within the metatemporal “eternal now.” Yet,
as we have seen, this move undermines the coherence of human free
will. Maxwell is aware of the theological debate around foreknowledge
and free will and asserts simply that God sees our actions but does
not determine them. “Some find the doctrines of the omniscience and
foreknowledge of God troubling because these seem, in some way, to
constrict their individual agency. . . . God’s ‘seeing’ is not the same thing
as His ‘causing’ something to happen.”16 So long as humans, situated in
a chronological present, approach their own choices with no knowledge
of future outcomes, Maxwell argues, their free will is not compromised
by God’s foreknowledge.
A third route, inductive inference, attempts to chart a middle way
between epistemic progression and informal absolutism. James E. Tal-
mage, Church Apostle and intellectual in the early twentieth century,
suggested an inductive process by which God observes creation through
time and, based on this cumulative understanding, infers its probable
future. Aware of the logical problems besetting classical theism, Tal-
mage rests his argument not on an impassible God whose foreknowl-
edge logically precedes creation but, on the contrary, on a responsive
intimacy between God and creation. “Our Heavenly Father has a full
knowledge of the nature and disposition of each of His children. .  .  .

15. Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1980), 37, emphasis in original.
16. Maxwell, All These Things, 20.
 On the Foreknowledge of God   V281

By reason of that surpassing knowledge, God reads the future . . . ; He

knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from
the beginning.”17 Like epistemic progressivists, Talmage places God
with creation in a chronological mode of time, but, unlike progressivists,
he nevertheless affords God a privileged insight into the future. God’s
inductive foreknowledge arises from a subjunctive apprehension of
what his free creatures would do if placed in any given condition and a
reasoned extrapolation of “the end from the beginning” based on these
subjunctive conditions. For Talmage, inductive foreknowledge provides
a satisfactory account of human free will while preserving divine vener-
ability. “[God’s] foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason. He
foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as
one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be.”18
While Talmage’s argument for God’s probabilistic inductive foreknowl-
edge has not endured as a rigorous theological reckoning, his portrait
of God as a loving parent who rationally infers his children’s future and
providentially directs history has remained prominent in Latter-day
Saint discourse. Elder Russell M. Nelson preached in 2013, “Your Heav-
enly Father has known you for a very long time. You, as His son or
daughter, were chosen by Him to come to earth at this precise time, to
be a leader in His great work on earth.”19 In pastoral contexts, human
agency is confirmed by God’s intimate knowledge of his children and
their destiny, not compromised. Knotty logical discrepancy between
free will and divine foreknowledge melts away in the warmth of the
familial intimacy binding creature to creator.

Contemporary Reckonings
Among contemporary thinkers engaging the issue of divine foreknowl-
edge in Latter-day Saint teaching, Blake Ostler offers the only extensive
systematic treatment. Disputing various Christian theologies of fore-
knowledge, Ostler rests his own argument on the principles of God’s
faith-worthiness as a responsive personal being, the reality of liber-
tarian free will, and a chronological-sequential model of divine time
required, in his view, by Church teachings on God’s progression. In

17. James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission accord-
ing to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
1915), 29.
18. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 29.
19. Russell M. Nelson, “Decisions for Eternity,” Ensign 43, no. 11 (November 2013): 107.
282 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

language akin to B.  H. Roberts’s, Ostler argues for “contingent omni-

science,” the belief “that God knows all that can be known but that
future, free acts of persons cannot be infallibly foreknown.” God is
“maximally knowing,” not “all knowing.”20 God’s knowledge of the
future is limited to knowledge of his own intention to act providen-
tially in the future; he does not determine nor can he foresee the future
free acts of other agents, because the future is open, knowable only in
the moment of emergence. God may possess full knowledge of every
possible eventuality and may plan his own response to every contin-
gency, but he may not predetermine nor foreknow the free choices of
individuals. Ostler attempts to reconcile contingent omniscience with
scripture that implies full divine foreknowledge. Any scripture that
seems to link God’s providential works to his foreknowledge must be
interpreted to indicate merely contingent foreknowledge, he argues,
because full foreknowledge logically forecloses God’s intervention in
time. Nephi’s panoramic vision forecasting a detailed history of the
Christian salvation of nations, for instance, should be understood only
as “expressions of what God himself intends to bring about rather than
what will occur through free acts of humans, for it is God himself who
came down among men.”21 Yet Ostler’s notion of contingent foreknowl-
edge can account for Nephi’s prophetic vision of the mother of Christ
only by effacing female agency: if Mary assented freely to the divine
commission to bear and nurture the corporeal God, then her assent
could not have been foreknown. In the end, Ostler seems to acknowl-
edge that some scriptural passages cannot be reconciled with a limited
form of divine foreknowledge but argues that such passages should not
be understood as “definitions of omniscience, for the writers of scrip-
ture nowhere attempt such definitions. Their beliefs arise out of experi-
ence and not out of philosophical thought or rational examination.”22
For this most technical of Latter-day Saint theologians no less than
for other LDS thinkers, theology begins and ends with an experiential
apprehension of God’s beckoning love.
Ostler’s treatment broadly chimes with several other contempo-
rary LDS explorations of divine foreknowledge. Philosopher David
Paulsen offers an account of limited foreknowledge based on Church

20. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, 297, 295, 62.

21. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, 302.
22. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, 304.
 On the Foreknowledge of God   V283

teachings of ontological materialism, primordial agency, and a passible

God. In conversation with an evangelical theology known as “open the-
ism,” Paulsen affirms that God is open and responsive to significant
relation with his creatures and that the future is genuinely open to the
free actions of individuals. Consequently, divine foreknowledge in an
open theism is limited to “all that can be known.” Evangelicals under-
stand God to voluntarily self-limit in a gracious invitation to humanity,
whereas Latter-day Saints, according to Paulsen, understand God’s fore-
knowledge to be limited by ontological and not merely logical necessity
or goodwill. Acknowledging the diversity of LDS positions on the topic,
Paulsen concludes that any treatment of divine foreknowledge must,
minimally, (1) acknowledge libertarian free will, (2) deny causal deter-
minism, and (3) hold that “God’s knowledge, like God’s power, is maxi-
mally efficacious” within the ontological conditions described above.23
In similar fashion, Terryl Givens explores divine foreknowledge briefly,
limning the historical controversies and concluding that Church teach-
ing requires only the affirmation that “God is possessed of all the knowl-
edge there is” without compromising human agency.24 Beyond these
minimal commitments, he argues, Latter-day Saint dogma does not
prescribe a particular view. Ostler, Paulsen, and Givens, heirs of early
epistemic progressivism, represent a loose consensus around a parsi-
monious account of contingent foreknowledge, committed to human
agency and attendant to the ontological implications of Latter-day Saint
metaphysics.

Conclusion
The conversation among Latter-day Saint thinkers about God’s fore-
knowledge is certain to evolve, likely along the four axes that structure
the issue: time, knowledge, reality, and agency. New voices may chal-
lenge the dominant account of agency as libertarian free will. They may
further probe the contours of metaphysical materialism or propose new
accounts of transcendence. They may object to the positivist epistemology

23. David L. Paulsen, “Response to Professor Pinnock,” in Mormonism in Dialogue

with Contemporary Christian Theologies, ed. David L. Paulsen and Donald W. Musser
(Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2007), 532; see also Clark H. Pinnock and David L.
Paulsen, “A Dialogue on Openness Theology,” in Mormonism in Dialogue, 489–553.
24. Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cos-
mos, God, Humanity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 101.
284 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

that lingers in some accounts of eternal progression. Indeed, these con-

versations are already ongoing, though they have yet to be cashed out on
the particular issue of divine foreknowledge.
In this respect, one emerging strand of Latter-day Saint thought is
worth noting as a concluding nod to the future. In conversation with
contemporary continental philosophy, philosophers Joseph Spencer
and Adam Miller have explored a “messianic temporality,” a model of
time that opens up the chronological-sequential model underlying the
ideas of epistemic progression and limited foreknowledge discussed
above. Messianic time, a term drawn from philosophical reflections
on biblical promises of the future coming of a Messiah, critiques both
classical theism and the causal closure of purely secularist naturalism,
while offering an alternative to the opposed temporal models of time-
lessness and chronology. As a theoretical tool, then, it is a good fit for
LDS thought’s twin projects to vex both secularism and classical the-
ism with its conjoined sacramentalism and materialism. The messianic
perspective shares with classical theism the insight that there must be
some metatemporal seedbed from which chronological time emanates
or is produced and dismay at the prospect of a closed past, a locked
future, and a present exhausted in the actual. Yet as a species of mate-
rialism, messianicity cannot countenance a Platonic realm of timeless,
transcendent simultaneity, where time does not exist at all as a divine
reality. Rather, messianic time is an immanent matrix of potential that
performs or produces time, a kind of subtemporality that itself gives
birth to chronological time and infuses it with grace, creation, potenti-
ality, and freedom, “simultaneously disrupting and composing it from
within.”25 Every moment may be, in the words of Walter Benjamin, “the
‘small door through which the Messiah enters.’ ”26 Elder Neal Maxwell
might hear echoes of his “eternal now” in the claim that messianic time
“experiences history’s point of origin as located in an open present rather
than in a closed past.”27 But, like the God of neoplatonic theology, Max-
well’s grounding “eternal now” achieves metatemporal simultaneity
because, lacking any sense of chronological before and after, it is neces-
sarily fulfilled and unchangeable, actualized once and for all. The “open

25. Adam S. Miller, Future Mormon: Essays in Mormon Theology (Salt Lake City:
Greg Kofford Books, 2016), 39. See also Joseph M. Spencer, For Zion: A Mormon Theol-
ogy of Hope (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014).
26. Miller, Future Mormon, 42.
27. Miller, Future Mormon, 41, emphasis added.
 On the Foreknowledge of God   V285

present” of messianic time is, by contrast, radically unrealized, existing

solely as potential for time and actuality that remains unexpressed and
withdrawn behind the actual events of linear time—what we might call
“paratemporal” rather than “metatemporal.” Messianic time, then, bears
a kinship to Maxwell’s theology of time and divine foreknowledge—and
to the Church’s unique development of materialism generally—while it
offers new theoretical tools for theologians. In particular, the model of
messianic time seems pregnant with insight into the question of divine
foreknowledge, but Latter-day Saint thinkers have not yet explored the
question specifically. It remains to be seen whether a fruitful messianic
account will emerge to join the ongoing debate in Latter-day Saint the-
ology about God, time, knowledge, reality, and agency.

Rosalynde Welch is an independent scholar working in Mormon literature, scripture,

and theology. She holds a PhD in early modern English literature from the University
of California at San Diego. She is the author most recently of Ether: A Brief Theological
Introduction (2020). Her work has also appeared in BYU Studies, Dialogue, Element,
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Mormon Studies Review, and other journals and
edited volumes. She lives in St. Louis, Missouri, with her husband and four children.
Will Things Get Better or Worse
before the Second Coming?
Are the Latter-day Saints
Premillenarians or Postmillenarians?

Jed Woodworth

F or millennia, Christians of every variety have puzzled over the mean-

ing of biblical prophecies that seemed at odds with one another. Pas-
sages in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation spoke of impending disaster
and doom at the end of the world. God was angry with the wicked and
would destroy them with his mighty hand. Other passages in Revela-
tion and Isaiah conveyed a different message. A new heaven and a new
earth would come at the end of time, ushering in a millennium of per-
petual peace. God seemed kinder and more benevolent, less inclined to
destroy the wicked and the unjust. Just how the passages related to one
another was never explained in the scriptures with any degree of speci-
ficity. Would the world end in calamity or in peace? Countless schemes
have sought to work out a relationship between the two sets of images.1
The fulcrum in these end-time scenarios was always the triumphal
return of Jesus Christ. Would Jesus come at the beginning of the Millen-
nium or the end? Would the wicked be destroyed before Christ returned
or not at all? Beginning with the works of postrestoration English proph-
ecy writers of the seventeenth century, two basic positions emerged.
One view held that at the end of time, moral and spiritual conditions

1. See, for example, John M. Court, Approaching the Apocalypse: A  Short History
of Christian Millenarianism (London: I.  B. Tauris, 2008); Timothy P. Weber, “Millen-
nialism and Apocalypticism,” in The Oxford Guide to United States History, ed. Paul S.
Boyer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 503–4; Stephen Hunt, ed., Christian
Millenarianism: From the Early Church to Waco (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
2001); Eugen Weber, Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults, and Millennial Beliefs through the
Ages (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 1999).

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)287

288 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

on Earth would progressively worsen, ending in a wave of natural and

spiritual calamities. Only an event outside of history, the Second Com-
ing of Christ, would end these terrors and establish God’s kingdom of
peace on earth.2 In contrast to the declension narrative, another view
held that light and truth would gradually fill the world, brought on by
human action, culminating in Christ’s glorious return at the end of time.
In the one view, the world was getting worse and worse; in the other, it
was getting better and better. These Christian millenarianisms are but
two instances of countless millenarian schemes, religious and secular,
designed to make sense of the future of the earth and the ultimate des-
tiny of the human family.3
By the 1960s, scholars had begun to distinguish these competing
Christian positions with the terms premillennialism and postmillennial-
ism (alternatively premillenarianism and postmillenarianism, the terms
used in this essay). As the prefix suggests, premillenarians hold that
Christ’s return will come at the beginning of the Millennium, not at the
end. Premillenarians typically look upon the state of the world in bleak
terms: things are falling apart, and no amount of human effort can do
anything to reverse the course of events. Postmillenarians, by contrast,
tend to look upon the world more optimistically and to see human
agency as vital to the dawning of the golden age. The spread of Christi-
anity, the development of enlightened values like tolerance and equality,
and the advent of educational and charitable institutions of all kinds are
inching the world closer toward universal peace and harmony. Postmil-
lenarians disagree on whether Christ will return, but all within the camp
agree that human effort is not futile in creating a better future. Some-
times haltingly, sometimes rapidly, the world is steadily improving.4
The terms premillenarian and postmillenarian originally referred to
beliefs about the timing of Jesus’s return. In scholarly usage, however,
these terms have long been used more broadly to refer to the two diver-
gent eschatological understandings described above. They are often

2. Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American
Culture (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1992), 66; Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Funda-
mentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930 (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1970), 22.
3. James West Davidson, The Logic of Millennial Thought: Eighteenth-Century New
England (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977), 28–29; see Richard Landes,
Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of Millennial Experience (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2011).
4. On Christ’s figurative reign, see Davidson, Logic of Millennial Thought, 261–76.
 Premillenarians or Postmillenarians?   V289

used with little or no reference at all to the timing of Jesus’s return rela-
tive to the Millennium. In these terms’ obsolete sense, Latter-day Saints
are unquestionably premillenarian. This is no open topic. Yet how these
terms’ current meanings might apply to Latter-day Saints is a more com-
plicated question. The terms can only imprecisely characterize restora-
tion theology but may sometimes be useful as shorthand descriptions
for the various points of view considered in this essay.
Latter-day Saints are generally of two minds when it comes to this
debate. On the one hand, the Doctrine and Covenants paints a dour pic-
ture of the conditions that are to precede the Second Coming. Famine,
pestilence, and violence of wide and grotesque proportion fill the pages
of Joseph Smith’s early revelations.5 Like other premillenarians, early
Latter-day Saints spoke of Jesus’s literal and imminent return close on
the heels of judgments that would wipe the wicked from the earth. But
alongside these bleak pronouncements are more optimistic passages
suggestive of postmillenarian thought. The Saints are to seek for light
and truth. They are to establish temples and places of learning, to culti-
vate spiritual harmony between people in the hopes that understanding
can grow “brighter and brighter until the perfect day” (D&C 50:24).
Even if the end-time scenario had already been worked out in the mind
of God, human effort very much matters to Latter-day Saints, in the
nineteenth century and today.
The case for the premillenarian and postmillenarian positions has
much to do with where we are looking and what we believe counts for
evidence. In general, nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints tended to
be more premillenarian in worldview and disposition. In the twentieth
century, members tended to be more postmillenarian. Even then, there
are exceptions to these generalizations, and elements from both strands
of thought inform the Church today.

The Case for Latter-day Saints as Premillenarians

At first glance, the Latter-day Saint movement appears to fit comfortably
within premillenarian Christianity. Joseph Smith is often placed within
a stream of Anglo-American prophets who preached that the world
was rotten and had to be destroyed before the Lord’s Second Coming.
Between 1750 and 1820, at least three hundred men and women were
recognized as prophets in England and North America, many of them

5. See, for example, Doctrine and Covenants 5:19; 29:14–21; 35:14; 36:6; 38:11–12;
43:25–26.
290 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

doomsaying prophets of “loose millenarian movements”: Joanna South-

cott, Richard Brothers, Ann Lee, David Austin, Jemima Wilkinson, and
later Joseph Smith and William Miller, to name a few.6 Jesus was coming
soon, and the wicked had to repent before it was too late.
These prophets can be joined together by a set of common concerns.
As upstarts, they often criticized establishmentarian churches for their
departure from the one true way. Like their Protestant Reformer and
Puritan forebears, these prophets were concerned by dilution in the
churches, and they taught a Christian primitivism that stressed a return
of the spiritual gifts and power of New Testament Christianity. These
prophets read the scriptures literally more than figuratively and sensed
the nearness of sacred events. Jesus, after all, had spoken of destruction
before his return. He had said he would come quickly (Matt. 24; Mark
13:26, 30, 33; Rev. 22:12–14). Awaiting Christ’s quick return, these upstart
prophets often organized their followers in communitarian societies
modeled on the book of Acts.7
Joseph Smith’s early revelations seemed to confirm the standard bleak
premillenarian outlook. In his earliest recorded account of the First
Vision, Joseph Smith linked Jesus Christ’s anger to his speedy return.
“The world lieth in sin at this time,” the Lord said, “and none doeth good
no not one.” God was displeased with the state of the world. “Mine anger
is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth,” he said, “to visit them
ac[c]ording to th[e]ir ungodliness. . . . Behold and lo I come quickly as
it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father.”8 In
Joseph Smith’s early revelations, “I come quickly” was repeated over and

6. Susan Juster, Doomsayers: Anglo-American Prophecy in the Age of Revolution

(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 65, 73–74; Court, Approaching
the Apocalypse, 111–38; Ronald L. Numbers and Jonathan M. Butler, eds., The Disap-
pointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century (Knoxville: University
of Tennessee Press, 1993).
7. Theodore Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puri-
tanism, 2nd ed. (Chapel Hill: Omohundro Institute and North Carolina Press, 2011);
Lincoln A. Mullen, The Chance of Salvation: A History of Conversion in America (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017), 138–39, 159; Matthew J. Grow and Brad-
ley Kime, “Mormon Communalism and Millennialism in Trans-Atlantic Context,” in
Protestant Communalism in the Trans-Atlantic World, 1650–1850, ed. Philip Lockley
(London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016), 175–76; see also Stephen A. Marini, Radical
Sects of Revolutionary New England (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982);
and Donald E. Pitzer, ed., America’s Communal Utopias (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1997).
8. “History, circa Summer 1932,” 3, Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmith​
papers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/3, also in Karen Lynn Davidson
 Premillenarians or Postmillenarians?   V291

over, giving newfound urgency to the spiritual lives of Latter-day Saints

(D&C 33:18; 34:12; 35:27).
Joseph Smith himself often spoke of the world growing worse, not
better. The wickedness of the world filled him with “the most painful
anxiety,” he once said. He observed the “withdrawal of Gods holy Spirit
and the vail of stupidity which seems to be drawn over the hearts of
the people.” Everywhere he looked, he beheld the judgments of God
“sweeping hundreds of thousands of our race (and I fear unprepared)
down to the shades of death.”9 While visiting New York City in 1832,
Joseph wrote home to his wife, Emma, that he believed “the anger of the
Lord [was] kindled” against the city’s inhabitants. Their works were sure
to be “burned up with unquenchable fire.” He compared New York to
Nineveh, a city ripening for destruction.10
Early Latter-day Saint converts tended to share the same bleak world-
view. Sidney Rigdon, one of the leading lights of the early movement,
broke with the postmillenarian preacher Alexander Campbell in part
over the question of whether the Millennium could be brought about
by preaching alone.11 Mormonism’s early convert base included Shak-
ers, radical Methodists, and reformed Baptists, all groups that taught an
imminent Second Coming. Many converts seem to have been attracted
to the restored gospel precisely because it offered safety from the judg-
ments surely awaiting a wicked world.12
For early Latter-day Saints, gathering with the Lord’s elect was the
only way to avoid the judgments reserved for the wicked. The City of
Zion, founded in Jackson County, Missouri, in the summer of 1831 was

and others, eds., Histories, Volume  1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844, Joseph Smith
Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 13.
9. “Letter to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833,” 14, Joseph Smith Papers, https://www​
.joseph​smith​papers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-noah-c-saxton-4-january-1833/1, also
in Matthew C. Godfrey and others, eds., Documents, Volume 2: July 1831–January 1833,
Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 351.
10. “Letter to Emma Smith, 13 October 1832,” [2], Joseph Smith Papers, https://www​
.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-emma-smith-13-october-1832/2, also
in Godfrey and others, eds., Documents, Volume 2, 304–14.
11. Grant Underwood, The Millenarian World of Early Mormonism (Urbana: Univer-
sity of Illinois, 1993), 25–26; Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow, Parley P. Pratt: The
Apostle Paul of Mormonism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 24–25.
12. Grow and Kime, “Mormon Communalism and Millennialism,” 166–68; Stephen J.
Fleming, “The Religious Heritage of the British Northwest and the Rise of Mormonism,”
Church History 77, no. 1 (March 2008): 73–104; Givens and Grow, Parley P. Pratt, 39–40,
106–7; see also Malcolm R. Thorp, “The Religious Backgrounds of Mormon Converts in
Britain, 1837–52,” Journal of Mormon History 4, no. 1 (1977): 51–66.
292 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

to be a New Jerusalem where God’s people could build a temple com-

plex and find refuge from destruction while they awaited the Lord’s
return.13 “A great many people imbibed the same idea which I did in
the beginning,” Brigham Young later recalled, “and really believed that
in Jackson County all the earthly sorrows, afflictions, disappointments,
and weaknesses pertaining to the flesh would be at an end, and that
every one would be sanctified before the Lord, and all would be peace
and joy from morning until evening, and from year to year, until the
Savior should come.”14 Joseph Smith later expanded the idea of the City
of Zion to include multiple sacred cities designed to “fill up the world
in these last days.”15
Even after the demise of the City of Zion at the hands of a mob,
Latter-day Saints living in the nineteenth century and beyond anticipated
a return to Jackson County. In 1890 and 1891, around the time when
Joseph Smith would have been eighty-five years old, some Latter-day
Saints anticipated a near Second Coming. Church leaders downplayed
such rhetoric, however, and life soon returned to normal.16 Although
the timing of events has changed over the years, the basic series of
events thought to be connected to Christ’s return has remained largely
unchanged since the mid-nineteenth century, and the basic premillenar-
ian assumptions of early Church members have not been called into
question.

The Case for Latter-day Saints as Postmillenarians

The case for Latter-day Saints as postmillenarians begins with the com-
plication of the premillenarian and postmillenarian camps. The distinc-
tion between the two is not as clean as it was once thought to be. As
historians looked more closely at the evidence, they found premillenar-
ian and postmillenarian strains within the writings of the same thinker
or movement. Jonathan Edwards, for example, was often classified as
a postmillenarian who wrote hopefully of Christianity’s advance, but

13. Richard Lyman Bushman with Jed Woodworth, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Roll-
ing (New York: Random House 2007), 161–76.
14. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 26  vols. (Liverpool: F.  D. Richards,
1855–86), 2:252–53 (April 6, 1855).
15. “History, 1838-1856, Volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 306, Joseph
Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856​
-vol​ume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/312.
16. See Dan Erickson, As a Thief in the Night: The Mormon Quest for Millennial
Deliverance (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998).
 Premillenarians or Postmillenarians?   V293

he also wrote of God as a wrathful deity, reminiscent of premillenarian

writings.17
James West Davidson argues that eighteenth-century postmillenar-
ians like Edwards embraced an “afflictive model of progress” in which
the advance of Christianity comes only after a series of setbacks and
trials.18 Thus, postmillenarians could hopefully anticipate the approach-
ing Millennium while, at the same time, somewhat gloomily foresee
only wickedness, persecution, and turmoil on the short-term horizon.
Postmillenarians, in other words, were not necessarily the “dewy-eyed
optimists” they seemed to be at first glance.19
The split mind can be found in Joseph Smith as well. In the same 1832
letter to Emma in which he said the wicked were doomed to be burned
up by fire, Smith asked himself whether God was displeased with the
“truly great and wonderful” architectural splendor he observed in New
York City. No, he concluded, “seeing these works are calculated to make
men comfortable, wise, and happy.” Presumably, Joseph Smith would
have commended any invention intended to “make men comfortable,
wise, and happy” as being in keeping with God’s plan for the latter days.20
Nor was Joseph Smith opposed to social reform, which was typically
affirmed by postmillenarians. Evangelical Christians like Charles Finney
taught that the expansion of United States sovereignty, Christianity, and
social reforms like temperance and antislavery could help bring about
an earthly millennium before Christ’s Second Coming.21 Like other
postmillenarians, many early Latter-day Saints embraced social reform.
One early revelation enjoined the Saints to be “anxiously engaged in a
good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass
much righteousness”—implying, of course, that individuals had a role
to play in God’s eschatology (D&C 58:27). Setting the example, Joseph
Smith revealed the Word of Wisdom, which promised “great treasures
of knowledge” to those who shunned alcohol, tobacco, and hot drinks.22

17. Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, 76.

18. Davidson, Logic of Millennial Thought, 151, see 75, 260; Ruth Bloch, Visionary Repub-
lic: Millennial Themes in American Thought, 1756–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985), 18–21.
19. Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, 76.
20. “Letter to Emma Smith, 13 October 1832,” [1].
21. John G. Turner, The Mormon Jesus: A  Biography (Cambridge: Belknap Press,
2016), 126; see Robert H. Abzug, Cosmos Crumbling: American Reform and the Religious
Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
22. Doctrine and Covenants 89:19; see also Jed Woodworth, “The Word of Wisdom,”
in Revelations in Context: The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants,
294 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

He later ran for president of the United States on a platform that sought
to mitigate human suffering of various kinds: penal reform, the aboli-
tion of slavery, and the founding of “seminaries of learning.”23 Rather
than seeing it as pointless to try to regenerate a dying world, as premille-
narians often did, early Latter-day Saints saw themselves as active agents
in preparing the world for the return of Christ.
Near the end of his life, Joseph Smith sought to distance himself from
more ardent premillenarians. At the April 1843 general conference of the
Church, while commenting on William Miller’s failed prophecy of Christ’s
imminent return, Smith recounted praying and hearing a voice proclaim,
“My son, if thou livest till thou art 85 years of age, thou shalt see the face
of the son of man.” Smith then prophesied “in the name of the Lord God”
that “the Son of Man will not come in the heavns till I am 85. years old.”24
That view pushed back the return of Christ even as other premillenarians
were pushing it up.
Likewise, the reconfiguration of Zion tended to shrink the space ripe
for destruction and expand space designated as a refuge. “The whole
America”—North and South America—“is Zion,” Joseph Smith pro-
claimed shortly before his death. “Build chu[r]ches where ever th[e]
people receive the gospel.”25 The instruction to build up churches every-
where implied that the Saints could build Zion anywhere and at any
time. The idea could be found from the early days of the Restoration
and stood in tension with the belief that Zion needed to be built in a
single geographical location. Like the early Saints, later Saints conceived
of their lives as a work: they were to proclaim the gospel to every kin-
dred, tongue, and people; gather out the Lord’s elect; and strive to build
temples and do temple work wherever they happened to be living. The

ed. Matthew McBride and James Goldberg (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, 2016), 183–91.
23. Joseph Smith, General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government
of the United States (Nauvoo, Ill.: John Taylor, 1844), 9.
24. Doctrine and Covenants 130:14–15; see also “Discourse, 6  April 1843–B, as
Reported by Willard Richards,” [73], Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmith​
papers​.org/paper-summary/discourse-6-april-1843-b-as-reported-by-willard-rich​
ards/10, also in Andrew H. Hedges and others, eds., Journals, Volume 2: December 1841–
April 1843, Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2011), 338.
25. “Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 4, 1 March–22 June 1844,” [73–74], Joseph
Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal​-decem​ber-
1842-june-1844-book-4-1-march-22-june-1844/75, also in Andrew H. Hedges and others,
eds., Journals, Volume 3: May 1843–June 1844, Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church
Historian’s Press, 2015), 223.
 Premillenarians or Postmillenarians?   V295

vastness of this labor pushed the timetable of the Lord’s return back-
ward, not forward.
In the nineteenth century, Latter-day Saint missionaries routinely
warned potential converts to flee from their lands of residence—Bab­ylon—
and move to Zion in the Great Basin of the American West. But in the
twentieth century and especially after 1920, missionaries advised converts
to stay in their native lands. The old “Babylon-Zion” distinction lived on in
Latter-day Saint hymns, but the demarcation of space as “inside” and “out-
side” came to an end. Zion, more a state of the heart and less a geographical
place, could be found wherever the person lived. Babylon was understood
more in figurative than in literal terms.26
Latter-day Saints continued to have much in common with premil­
lenarians well into the twentieth century. At a time when postmille-
narianism was in steep decline, leading Latter-day Saint theologians like
President Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder Bruce R. McConkie articu-
lated a dispensational view of world history not unlike that popularized
by John Nelson Darby and other Protestant fundamentalists, in which
the earth is divided into seven 1,000-year periods, or “dispensations.”
The earth was thought to be very near the end of the sixth dispensation,
awaiting the Lord’s return at the beginning of the seventh. According
to some frameworks, the righteous would be caught up to meet the
Savior when he returned amid widespread destruction.27 More recently,
some Latter-day Saints have overlaid belief in the rapture with a read-
ing of the Book of Mormon that sees the book of 3 Nephi as a type or
prophecy of the last days. Just as God’s wrath was poured out upon the
wicked Nephites, leaving only “the more righteous part of the people” to
witness Jesus Christ’s appearance in the flesh in the New World, so too
will the ungodly be destroyed and a remnant spared at Christ’s Second
Coming.28

26. Turner, Mormon Jesus, 140–41, 145–46; Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a
New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 130–49.
27. Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7; Joseph Fielding Smith, The Signs of the Times:
A Series of Discussions (Independence, Mo.: Press of Zion, 1942); Bruce R. McConkie, The
Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
1982); James H. Moorhead, “The Erosion of Postmillenialism in American Religious
Thought, 1865–1922,” Church History 53, no. 1 (March 1984): 61–77; Court, Approaching
the Apocalypse, 123–24; Richard Wightman Fox, Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cul-
tural Hero, National Obsession (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), 332–33.
28. 3 Nephi 10:12; see also Ezra Taft Benson, “The Book of Mormon—Keystone of
Our Religion,” Ensign 16, no. 11 (November 1986), 4–7; Donald W. Parry and Jay A. Parry,
Understanding the Signs of the Times (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 1999), 451, 494.
296 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

But the Protestant fundamentalist position, influential as it was,

stood in tension with other Latter-day Saint thinking. Elder B. H. Rob-
erts’s magnum opus, The Truth, the Way, the Life, accepted the dispensa-
tionalist framework without privileging a cataclysm at the end of time.
For Roberts, “the destructive forces—so called—as well as the creative
forces in the universe are under the dominion of law, which will con-
serve and perpetuate through eternity the orderly cosmos.” Destruction
(and the regeneration he believed inevitably accompanied it) was more
the order of a rational universe and less the workings of an angry God.29
Elder Roberts was one of a handful of important second-generation
thinkers who represent a break from the first generation’s concern with
apocalypticism. As the Latter-day Saints sought accommodation with the
world, many aligned themselves with liberal Protestantism’s turn away
from end-time speculation. In fact, twentieth-century Latter-day Saints
can generally be distinguished from nineteenth-century Saints by their
attention to the distant past more than to the distant or near future. Nephi
Anderson’s novel Added Upon, which went through thirty-five printings
between 1898 and 1973, captured the Saints’ fascination with a deep past
where premortal spirits fall in love and find each other once again in
mortality. It is telling that the tradition’s most beloved musical theater
production, Saturday’s Warrior, descends directly from Added Upon.30
The basic tension in both Added Upon and Saturday’s Warrior is the idea
of measuring up in mortality to the destiny one has already chosen in the
premortal realms. This is a 180-degree turn away from the nineteenth-
century Saints’ preoccupation with purifying and readying oneself for
some glorious future event wholly outside of time.
Even if they accepted the dispensational framework, most twentieth-
century Church leaders resisted making dire prognostications about the
end times. During the Cold War, evangelical preachers often spoke of
coming destructions as a way of driving people to repent, just as Jona-
than Edwards had done. Not so in twentieth-century Latter-day Saint
sermons, where the subject of the Second Coming largely disappeared.31

29. B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology,
ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1996), 218.
30. Nephi Anderson, Added Upon: A  Story (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1898);
Saturday’s Warrior, dir. Bob Williams (Fieldbrook Entertainment, 1973); see Terryl L.
Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2007), 270, 285.
31. Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the
Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 253.
 Premillenarians or Postmillenarians?   V297

More stress was put on living righteously and peaceably in the pres-
ent, and less emphasis was given to future destructions and signs. “We
must have faith in the future regardless of the ultimate eventualities,”
Apostle Richard L. Evans urged at the dawn of the Cold War. Elder Evans
paraphrased President Wilford Woodruff, who, when asked when the
Second Coming would be, reportedly said, “I would live as if it were to
be tomorrow—but I am still planting cherry trees!”32 The quotation cap-
tured the divided mind on the matter of millenarian questions.
Unlike many premillenarian Christians, Latter-day Saints generally
did not look upon the year 2000 as the beginning of the end. By the late
nineteenth century, many Latter-day Saints had relegated belief in an
imminent Second Coming to a “hobby of fringe elements.” This group
said, in effect, “We will now move smoothly along into the millennium;
[and] no great sorrows or upheavals will trouble us.” For some, the fall
of Communism had suggested that a “progressive peace” would precede
the Lord’s Second Coming.33
The chasm between Latter-day Saints and premillenarian Christians
today can be seen in their approach to natural disasters. For promi-
nent Protestant fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell,
disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the 2010 Haitian earthquake were
God’s way of punishing sin. Latter-day Saint leaders, meanwhile, spoke
of these disasters exclusively in humane, compassionate terms, offering
no explanation for the disaster’s cause. Modern Latter-day Saints are
much less comfortable attributing natural disasters to God’s wrath than
their forebears were. Food storage and emergency preparedness are nec-
essary, Latter-day Saints teach, not just for the Saints to help themselves
but to lend aid to others not in the Church. Rather than attributing the
destruction wrought by natural disasters to God’s will, Latter-day Saint
Charities and the Church’s “Helping Hands” program seeks to minimize
the effects of natural disasters around the world.

32. Richard L. Evans, in One Hundred Twentieth Annual Conference of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1950), 105. Martin Luther is alleged to have said much the same thing: if he dis-
covered the world would end tomorrow, he would immediately “go out into the garden
and plant a tree.” Richard Bauckham and Trevor Hart, Hope against Hope: Christian
Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans,
1999), 181.
33. Avraham Gileadi, The Last Days: Types and Shadows from the Bible and the Book
of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 1. Still, the Church’s commercial press
capitalized on interest in end times as the year 2000 approached. See, for example, Parry
and Parry, Understanding the Signs of the Times.
298 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

Contemporary Latter-day Saints are known more for their sunny,

optimistic dispositions than for an anxious, brooding, sky-is-falling
premillenarianism. The outlook can be seen in a 2005 talk in which
Apostle Boyd K. Packer briefly acknowledged that these are the last
days of the earth’s history before he moved quickly to the many reasons
to avoid pessimism. “When I think of the future,” he said, “I am over-
whelmed with a feeling of positive optimism.”34

Conclusion
Today, Latter-day Saints do not look for an imminent return of Jesus
the way they once did. The “signs of the times” are not discussed in
detail in the lessons missionaries preach to potential converts. Church
leaders today do not talk publicly about a return to Missouri or about
judgments that leaders once said must precede the Second Coming.35
But the internet has kept the older teachings alive. In the backs of their
minds, believers know that teachings long forgotten and seemingly dis-
carded could be taught once again in a Church that holds to a belief in
modern revelation. Older teachings can reappear, and newer teachings
can be set aside. Premillenarianism and postmillenarianism are likely to
ebb and flow in the future, in new combinations, just as they have done
in the past.

Jed Woodworth is a historian in the Church History Department in Salt Lake City. He
is currently the managing historian of Saints, the Church’s official multivolume history
now in the process of publication.

34. Boyd K. Packer, “On Zion’s Hill,” Ensign 35, no. 11 (November 2005): 70.
35. Turner, Mormon Jesus, 149–50.
 In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks

Book Review
By Richard E. Turley Jr.
Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021

Reviewed by John W. Welch

I n several ways, this is not a normal book. But then, it does not cover
an ordinary life. It should be read and revisited especially by every
Brigham Young University student, faculty member, and alum. After all,
no other biography has ever been written about a graduate of BYU (1954)
who went on to become a clerk to the chief justice of the United States
Supreme Court (1957–1958), a dynamic president of BYU (1971–1980),
and also an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ (1984). I can only imagine
that every Latter-day Saint and all readers of BYU Studies Quarterly will
want to absorb this book in several ways and for a number of beneficial
purposes.
This book will appeal to a wide readership. This well-illustrated and
attractively designed book testifies and documents how the life of Dal-
lin H. Oaks, a remarkable servant of the Lord, has been guided by the
hands of the Master, Jesus Christ. This high-level biography offers thirty
accessible chapters—averaging twelve pages—packed with information
and featuring insights that are skillfully aimed to inspire and instruct
both the young and old, female and male, novice and expert.
Behind the friendly personality of this book, readers will have no
reason to notice that it was actually authored by a lawyer and about a
lawyer. Richard E. Turley  Jr., a graduate of the BYU Law School and
former Assistant Church Historian and Recorder, has been privileged to
work closely with Elder and now President Oaks for over three decades.
Rick is a master organizer and brilliant analyzer of vast bodies of docu-
mentary evidence.1 But even he could not have anticipated the vast sea

1. Turley’s control of documentary evidence is already legendary. See, for example,

his books Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case (Urbana: Univer-
sity of Illinois Press, 1991); with Ronald W. Walker, Mountain Meadows Massacre: The

BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2021)299

300 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

of storage boxes, archives, diaries, speeches, and letters that he would

need to wade through in order to string together the hundreds of pearls
of great price that adorn this biography.
While other biographies of LDS Church leaders have served read-
ers well, this latest biography surpasses the others in its universal utility.
For example, unlike the two volumes written by historians on J. Reuben
Clark (1980, 1983)—who was also a lawyer and Counselor in the First
Presidency—In the Hands of the Lord dwells more on divine influences
and less on various contexts of life-changing events. Here, less can be
more. And unlike the highly regarded and detailed biography of Spen-
cer W. Kimball—who was not a lawyer but whose story was masterfully
written by a lawyer-son Edward L. Kimball—this book focuses more
on the personal and high-level leadership challenges faced by Dallin H.
Oaks while making their life-lessons relevant to the ordinary reader. This
orientation adds to pertinence. And while much like the biography of
Elder Neal A. Maxwell—also superbly written by a close friend, Bruce C.
Hafen—Turley’s book dives less into deep wellsprings and instead relates
religion more with law’s roles to meld thinking with doing.
Throughout this book, I was struck by the balances that Dallin H.
Oaks has been blessed to achieve within the full fabric of his life. His
scope embraces both secular and spiritual, public and private, institu-
tional and personal, professional and social, domestic and international,
athletic and intellectual, speaking and writing, being chosen and also
choosing. Professionally, he specialized in teaching the laws of fiduciary
duties and obligations, while at the same time he defended the guaran-
tees of all rights and freedoms. His life is well represented by the scales of
justice, as displayed in the décor of the courtroom of the U.S. Supreme
Court. Such a scale has two balance pans, not just one. And likewise,
this book succeeds by seeing Oaks’s life not just in the hand of the Lord,
but in both hands of the Lord, fully embraced and not deviating either
to the right or to the left.
On just about every page, readers will learn surprising things about
President Oaks: for example, that his father died when Dallin was still
just seven years old, that he was raised essentially by a single mom, and
that the middle initial “H” in his name is for Harris, the maiden name of
his mother, who was a great-granddaughter of Emer Harris, the brother
of Book of Mormon witness Martin Harris (2). Or again, that Margie

Andrew Jenson and David H. Morris Collections (Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2009), and
with Ronald W. Walker and Glen M. Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
 Review of In the Hands of the Lord   V301

McKnight, his secretary, fittingly saw the words “all in” in the name
D-all-in (376). Did you know that Dallin played the oboe in the band,
struggled with arithmetic, and was bullied in school (12–13, 18)? Or that
in young Dallin’s presence his grandfather revived, by the power of the
priesthood, a child who had drowned in an irrigation ditch (16–17)?
Dallin’s growing-up years set the stage for many of his later contribu-
tions. For example, he was employed, beginning as a young teenager, at
local radio stations (21–23), developing skills and interests that would
make him a very precise public speaker (49) and would pave the way
for him years later to become chairman of Public Broadcasting Ser-
vices (153). One might wonder how formative it may have been for his
later defenses of religious freedom (ch.  25) that he had served in the
National Guard and that his cousin Merrill became a four-star general
in the United States Air Force. Dallin certainly tied together his aca-
demic training and his spiritual interests, as is reflected in his first book,
The Wall between Church and State (University of Chicago Press, 1963),
and an article in the Improvement Era (December 1963) on the Supreme
Court’s cases on prayers in school (90–93).
While some will know that he graduated as editor in chief of the law
review and second in his law school class at the University of Chicago
(55), how many would know that Dallin and June’s third child was born
while they were still in law school (55–56) and while June also was fur-
thering her education at Chicago’s Roosevelt University (51)? Or that
Dallin regularly volunteered as a public defender in the inner city of
Chicago while he was a student and then a faculty member there (100–
103, 105–6), paving the way for his becoming a pioneer in the federal
civil rights legal movement of 1964 and going on to publish the leading
law review article in 1970 on a series of Supreme Court opinions dealing
with the exclusionary rule, defining lawful and unlawful searches and
seizures?2 His law school dean and mentor, Edward Levi, was Jewish
and always admired Dallin for his extraordinary and humble devo-
tion to his very demanding Church callings, appointing him as acting
dean of the law school (88). These opportunities were the first of many
extraordinary experiences—of helping and connecting with key people,
of being in the right places at the right times—that prepared him to walk
humbly forward and with decisive dedication.

2. Dallin H. Oaks, “Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure,” Univer-
sity of Chicago Law Review 37, no. 4 (1970): 665–757, https://chicagounbound.uchicago​
.edu/uclrev/vol37/iss4/3.
302 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

This is not to say that everything in this biography is serious and

sobering. Many things learned here are just plain fun. For instance, read-
ers will learn about “the family dog, Gretchen, a Great Dane” referred to
by Dallin as “the beast” (124), who came with them from Chicago to live
in the President’s House in Provo on the campus of BYU. By character,
Dallin Oaks is smiling, radiant, happy, bold, and full of gusto. He even
made a guest appearance once as Cosmo the Cougar (146).
Dallin H. Oaks’s adult life divides naturally into two main chrono-
logical periods: his years with his first wife, June Dixon (1952–1998, until
she died of cancer), and then his years with Kristen McMain (2000–
present). Dallin and June were together for forty-six years, including his
nine years as BYU president and his first fourteen years as an Apostle
(chs. 3–18). Dallin and Kristen have now been together for twenty-one
years, with the great promise yet ahead for all they will yet enjoy and
contribute together (chs. 19–30). Turley’s frequent inclusion of interest-
ing information about Oaks’s mother (18, 22, 151) and the significant
roles of other women and children in his life inform his repeated doc-
trinal emphasis on the family (chs. 18–20, 23). Although this biography
runs mainly in a clear chronological order, a timeline of his life would
have been useful in helping readers keep track of nearly ninety years of
data as well as relate it more readily to important events going on in the
world and in the Church during each of decades of his life.
Ever the scholar and teacher, Dallin Oaks has authored at least eight
tightly focused books,3 eighty-three general conference talks (ch.  26),
thirty-five videos available as BYU speeches,4 and literally thousands
of personal ministering letters (ch. 27). His conference talks are solidly
grounded in the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, the Doc-
trine and Covenants, and the Gospels of Matthew and John.5 His range

3. Dallin H. Oaks, ed., The Wall between Church and State (Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1963), see 90–91; Dallin H. Oaks and Warren Lehman, A Criminal Justice System
and the Indigent (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), see 109; George Gleason
Bogert and Dallin H. Oaks, Cases and Text on the Law of Trusts (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation
Press, 1978), 109; Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the
Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975), 103–5, 197; Dal-
lin H. Oaks, Pure in Heart (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988); Dallin H. Oaks, The Lord’s Way
(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991); Dallin H. Oaks, His Holy Name (Salt Lake City: Book-
craft, 1998); and Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011).
4. See “Dallin H. Oaks,” BYU Speeches, August 9, 2021, https://speeches.byu.edu/
speakers/dallin-h-oaks/.
5. His favorites include verses in 1 Nephi 1, 3, 11, 16 and 22; 2 Nephi 1–4, 25–32; Mosiah
2–5; Alma 5, 7, 22, 32, 34, 37, 40–42; 3 Nephi 9, 11, 18, 27; and Moroni 7 and 10. His talks
 Review of In the Hands of the Lord   V303

of ­topics is encyclopedic, returning often to the themes of atonement,

blessings, commandments, faith, integrity, Jesus, knowledge, love, and
virtue. Thinking like a lawyer, he often emphasizes the personal rights
of all to exercise their agency powers and to reap the rewards or conse-
quences. He is also ever mindful of priesthood duties, love unfeigned,
authority, and powers of fathers, as well as why priesthood keys are
essential and how they work and are necessarily surrendered when a
person is released from callings to which those keys uniquely pertain
(325). As is exemplified in this biography, President Oaks clearly articu-
lates reasons behind rules, rationales behind duties, and God’s creation
and bringing to pass of his eternal desires and plans for us, his children.
Each chapter title begins with a few quoted words followed by a
subject subheading in italics. For example, chapter  11: “Absolutely
Extraordinary”—The Nine BYU Years. Or chapter 24: “An Apostle, Not
a Judge”—The Church and the Law. This technique for creating chap-
ter headings was used in the 1975 Carthage Conspiracy book by Dallin
Oaks and Marvin Hill,6 so it is especially fitting that Turley uses it here.
The quoted words in each chapter title have been pulled from within
the chapter, usually coming from a statement by Oaks himself. I found
myself eagerly reading each chapter more attentively in order to spot the
quoted words, which I then could appreciate in their full context.
This book delivers a steady stream of arresting gems of wisdom, typi-
cal of President Oaks’s succinct use of words: On his receiving a C in
theology during his freshman year at BYU in 1951–1952, he simply said
it was “perhaps a measure of my indifference during this time” (34),
when he might instead have shifted some of the blame to the course
itself. His trenchant maxims include: “Work first, play later” (40). “Faith
. . . can move people”; “be not too easily discouraged”; “be not flattered
by success” (79). Know the difference between “good, better, and best”
(324). Revelation begins by “feeling vulnerable” (94). Revelation occurs
for eight different purposes (see 321). Spiritual uplift and growth comes
from “an ongoing practice of repenting, even of seemingly small trans-
gressions” (355). No doubt, many more such statements, including spon-
taneous remarks, had to be left on the cutting room floor. For example,
Joseph Bentley, a student under Professor Oaks at Chicago, told me of
the advice Oaks gave him as he started law school there: “Remember
to always keep the Sabbath Day holy.” I  remember him telling me in

also have included passages found in over forty sections of the Doctrine and Covenants.
6. Oaks and Hill, Carthage Conspiracy.
304 v  BYU Studies Quarterly

the hall outside our faculty offices in the J. Reuben Clark Law building,
“A bad argument is worse than no argument at all,” advice I have made
use of on many occasions.
In the end, most chapters conclude with a teaser that leads directly
into the beginning of the next chapter. This device makes this book
even more of a page-turner. And, indeed, this book rewards seekers.
In almost every chapter, something fascinating, even thrilling, appears.
This book takes readers behind stage, into the very rooms where things
have happened: into the chambers of the United States Supreme Court
(ch. 5); into temple rooms where Elder Oaks made the decision to marry
Kristin, with June’s blessing, two years after June had died (235–38);
into priesthood leadership meetings to learn what Elder Oaks taught
in unpublished training sessions (325–27); and into the solemn coun-
cil meeting conducted by President Russell M. Nelson, in which he
first heard from all of the Apostles individually and then, after a long
period of deep and reflective prayer, announced that Dallin H. Oaks and
Henry B. Eyring were to serve as his two counselors (ch. 28). This, he
said, was “for the good of the Church,” so that President Oaks, the next
in line to become the prophet, could be trained in “items that are only
done by the First Presidency” (346).
This book offers every reader an irrefutable and engaging testimony
of how the life of Dallin H. Oaks, time and again, has been positioned
and guided by the hands of the Lord and how Dallin H. Oaks, recipro-
cally, has faithfully taken those hands and turned his life over to the ser-
vice of God and to leading God’s children everywhere. This book now
places that torch into the hands of readers everywhere.

John W. Welch is Professor Emeritus of Law and Religion, having retired recently from
the J. Reuben Clark Law School faculty. He became acquainted with Dallin Oaks in the
1970s, in connection with the beginnings of the Law School. Over the years, he interacted
with Elder Oaks on the law faculty, on the editorial board of the Encyclopedia of Mor-
monism, and as editor of BYU Studies Quarterly. Coordinating with Richard E. Turley,
he and Jan Shipps copublished through BYU Studies The Journals of William E. McLellin
(1831–1836). Having launched the BYU New Testament Commentary published by BYU
Studies, and having organized Book of Mormon Central, a tax-exempt organization that
cooperates with BYU Studies, Welch and his wife, Jeannie, are now serving as a senior
missionary couple.
INSTRUCTION TO AUTHORS
BYU Studies publishes scholarship that is informed by the restored gospel of Jesus
Christ. Submissions are invited from all scholars who seek truth “by study and also by
faith” (D&C 88:118), discern the harmony between revelation and research, value both
academic and spiritual inquiry, and recognize that knowledge without charity is noth-
ing (1 Cor. 13:2).
BYU Studies Quarterly features learned perspectives relevant to Latter-day Saints.
Contributions from all disciplines are invited. Personal essays, short studies, poetry, art,
and significant historical documents are welcomed.
To be accepted for publication, a submission must clearly communicate all of the
following:
• It is informed by the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
• The author knows and clearly conveys what is at stake.
• The submission contributes new knowledge or insight.
• It is accessible to educated nonspecialists.
Submissions are considered by the editor in chief and staff editors. If the submission
merits further review, it is considered by one or more members of the editorial board, which
is composed of scholars from a wide range of disciplines. Together they determine whether
the submission merits peer review. If so, well-informed and responsive scholars provide
reviews on which acceptance or rejection is based. This process takes three months or less.
BYU Studies rarely considers work that has been previously published (including on the
Internet), is under consideration elsewhere, or that may be the property of another publisher.
Visit https://byustudies.byu.edu/submissions.

SUBSCRIBERS’ NOTICE
Subscription rates are $30 for one year (four issues), $56 for two years, and $79 for three
years. Digital subscriptions are $16 for one year. Foreign subscriptions are: Canadian
residents, one year, $40; other non-USA residents, one year, $60 (airmail). A price list
for back issues is available upon request. All subscriptions begin with the forthcoming
issue. Address all correspondence to BYU Studies, 1063 JFSB, Provo, Utah 84602-6720.
You may also contact us by email: [email protected]; phone: (801) 422-6691; or fax:
(801) 422-0232. If you move, please notify us in writing four weeks before changing
your address; otherwise you must pay for replacement issues and mailing costs.

PUBLISHED INDEXES AND ABSTRACTS

BYU Studies Quarterly is abstracted in Current Contents, Social and Behavioral Science,
and Religious and Theological Abstracts; indexed in ATLA Religion Database (published
by the American Theological Library Association, Chicago, email: [email protected], web-
site: http://www.atla.com), Index to Book Re­views in Religion, and Elsevier; and listed in
Historical Abstracts; Arts and Humanities Citation Index; America, History, and Life; and
MLA International Bibliography.

BYU Studies Quarterly is published quarterly at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Copyright © 2021 Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. All rights reserved.
Printed in the U.S.A. on acid-free paper
4-90-46359-3.3M
ISSN 2167-8472 (print); ISSN 2167-8480 (online)
 Topics include:
How and What Do We Know?
The Nature of God and Humanity
Agency and Salvation
Scripture
History, Society, and Eschatology

c ov e r
Calm and Stars
Yongsung Kim
havenlight.com