This week, the Come, Follow Me lessons cover the revelation addressing the beliefs of the Shakers and the revelation Smith produced at the bequest of concerned Mormons in Kirtland regarding what they viewed as a dangerous proliferation of ecstatic expressions in Mormon worship. The lessons use these revelations to drive a discourse about the dangers of Satan and his attempts to deceive the Saints by imitating God’s gifts. This is then used as a foundation to promote the LDS church’s views on the supremacy of heteropatriachal marriage.
Before commenting on the rhetoric in the manuals, I will summarize the historical background that I believe sheds light on the original intentions underlying these sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, focusing on how they set the stage for the fascinating developments that occurred during the conference of June 1831, where the high priesthood was first given. Mark Lyman Staker, a faithful LDS historian, provides a thoroughly detailed account of the June 1831 conference in his masterful book, Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Settings of Joseph Smith’s Ohio Revelations. The bulk of what I present below will be a summary of his scholarship on the events and significance of this conference.
A Revelation for the Shakers
Leman Copley was an early convert to Mormonism in Kirtland, having converted from an association with the North Union Shakers. The Shakers were a new religious movement that believed the Second Coming of Christ had already occurred, manifest in their female leader Ann Lee. The Shakers did not believe in the necessity of baptism, believed in a nonbinary gendered God, promoted celibacy, practiced gender egalitarianism, and were known for their ecstatic expressions of dance in worship. Some practiced vegetarianism. As a new convert to Mormonism, Copley was anxious to proselytize his new religion to his Shaker acquaintances, and possibly had questions of his own regarding the place of his former Shaker beliefs within his new spiritual home.
On 7 May 1831, Leman met with Joseph Smith and was the audience of a revelation Smith produced directly addressing the beliefs and practices of the Shakers. This revelation later became Doctrine and Covenants § 49. The revelation outlined Mormon positions on baptism, Christ’s identity and the timing of the Second Coming, and God’s sanction of marriage, among other things. This revelation also called Leman Copley, Parley P. Pratt, and Sidney Rigdon to preach to the Shakers at North Union, so the three men traveled with revelation in hand to perform the Lord’s errand.
The leader of the Shaker community in North Union, Kitchell, welcomed the Mormon elders and participated in a debate with them over the merits of their respective religions. The next morning, Rigdon and Copley entered an agreement with Kitchell to not “force their doctrine on the other at this time.” Pratt arrived shortly thereafter and insisted that they “pay no attention to [Kitchell], for they had come with the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the people must hear it.” Therefore, after attending the community’s Sabbath service, the Mormon elders declared that they “had a message from the Lord Jesus Christ to this people” and requested that they be permitted to share it. Kitchell obliged, and Sidney Rigdon read the revelation in its entirety. The reception was not warm:
Kitchell, keeping his indignation in check, responded that he did not accept the message and “would release them & their Christ from any further burden about us, and take all the responsibility on myself.” Rigdon countered, “This you cannot do; I wish to hear the people speak.” But when Kitchell allowed others present to speak their minds, they too affirmed “that they were fully satisfied with what they had.”
Rigdon stoically set the revelation aside, resigned that their mission had been unfruitful. Pratt, on the other hand, was not finished so easily. He arose, Kitchell recounted, and shook the dust from his coattail “as a testimony against us, that we had rejected the word of the Lord Jesus.” ...
[Kitchell] denounced Pratt in full sight of his congregation: “You filthy Beast, dare you presume to come in here, and try to imitate a man of God by shaking your filthy tail; confess your sins and purge your soul from your lusts, and your other abominations before you ever presume to do the like again.” Kitchell then turned his wrath to Copley, who had begun weeping, and gave this stinging rebuke: “You hypocrite, you knew better;—you knew where the living work of God was; but for the sake of indulgence, you could consent to deceive yourself.”
Matthew McBride, "Leman Copley and the Shakers"
The mission to the Shakers was an utter failure and relations between the Mormons and the Shakers thereafter were rare and tense. Copley continued to associate with the Mormons but remained sympathetic to the Shakers until he finally left the church and remained in Ohio after the Kirtland Mormons left in 1838.
Religious Ecstasy and the June Conference
As we covered in detail last week, worship among the Kirtland Mormons featured scenes of intense ecstatic expressions of religious enthusiasm, which was not always positively received by their neighbors or even some of their coreligionists. While Joseph had previous attempted to reign this in, the practice had continued to flourish in Kirtland, much to the dismay of some of the members who expressed increasing apprehensions. A number of them demanded Joseph do something about it. Parley P. Pratt, John Murdock, and several other elders of the church confronted Joseph Smith and insisted he produce another revelation (D&C § 50) denouncing what they saw as delusional excesses arising from a dangerous source.
The revelation Joseph Smith received on May 9 condemned inappropriate behaviors as "abominations" (D&C 50:1–4). It also provided rules for judging spiritual phenomena by indicating that spirits (or spiritual gifts) were to be judged by the Spirit (D&C 50:17–23). The May 9 revelation confirmed that some spiritual operations among the members were not of God. It inquired stingingly of ordained elders who had then received "spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God ... in this are ye justified? Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves" (D&C 50:15–16).
Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Settings of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, p. 138
This revelation set the stage for what would occur at the June Conference, where elders endowed with a new priesthood would exercise it in ways that would cause a reinterpretation of ecstatic experiences and lead to their discontinuation in Kirtland until the arrival of Brigham Young.
The High Priesthood
One of the major purposes of the June Conference was the bestowal of the “high priesthood”—which to this point had not been known among the members of the church. The Campbellites believed in a three-tiered priesthood: the “order of Aaron,” the “order of Melchizedec,” and a priestly authority of Jesus Christ. These orders were outlined in essays by Alexander Crawford and Walter Scott, who couched their discussion of priesthood authority in the “Abrahamic covenant” and God’s “plan of salvation” designed to save mankind from Adam’s fall from grace. These ideas on priesthood authority were absent in Mormon discourse prior to contact with the Campbellites in Kirtland, but shortly thereafter, Joseph Smith began producing revelations that echoed many of these themes. Sidney Rigdon, who had been a prominent Campbellite minister, likely had discussions with Joseph surrounding these ideas as they worked together on Joseph’s ‘translation’ of the Bible.
Today, Mormons teach that Joseph received the Melchizedek Priesthood via angelic ordination sometime in 1829, before the formation of the church. There is no recorded date for this event, and no record of this account until after 1834. As previously discussed, the historical data supports the conclusion that the account of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood via angelic ordination was likely retconned into church history, roughly around the time that significant changes were made to earlier revelations for the publication of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Prior to this time, only oblique references exist to “how an angel had appeared to one Joseph Smith and had given them authority to preach this gospel to all the world,” which many believe to be a reference to the angel Moroni story. In the history he began narrating in 1838, Joseph Smith claimed that he and Oliver Cowdery were “forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood.”
Regardless, a the bestowal of the high priesthood upon the elders of the church was to be the main event in the upcoming June conference. The endowment of this priesthood would bestow the gift of discernment, as Smith had indicated in his May 9 revelation (D&C § 50). Beyond that, Smith had made other predictions that definitely contributed to a feeling of excited anticipation for the upcoming conference.
According to John Whitmer, "Joseph Smith Jr. Prophecied the day Previous [meaning Friday, June 3] that the man of Sin should be revealed." Since Joseph discussed the high priesthood at the same time, the implication is strong that the community believed priesthood would play a role in unveiling the "man of sin." John added that Joseph prophesied many additional things not recorded, one of them being that, within three days, some should see the Savior. According to Ezra Booth, "the 4th of June last was appointed for the sessions of the conference ... Smith, the day before the conference, professing to be filled with the spirit of prophecy, declared, that 'not three days should pass away, before some should see their Savior, face to face.'" Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Settings of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, p. 156
On Saturday June 4th, the Kirtland church gathered for the conference on the property of Isaac Morley. Not everyone could fit within the schoolhouse, so many were seated on log benches outside the building where they could hear better than they could see what transpired inside. Joseph began the meeting with a lengthy oration that increased in intensity and excited both himself and those who were listening—a skill he likely had developed and practiced since his days training as a youth to be a Methodist exhorter.
After he excited his audience through his sermon, he turned to the business of ordaining men to the high priesthood. Starting with Lyman Wight, Joseph laid his hands on his head and ordained him to the high priesthood and, according to Ezra Booth, ordained him “to the gift of tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, and discerning spirits; and in like manner he ordained several others.” After which, “Wight arose, and presented a pale countenance, a fierce look, with his arms extended, and his hands cramped back, the whole system agitated, […] he exhibited himself as an instance of the great power of God, and called upon those around him ‘if you want to see a sign, look at me.’ He then stepped upon a bench, and declared with a loud voice, he saw the Savior.”
Lyman Wight thereafter bestowed upon Joseph Smith and several others the same high priesthood. Joseph would later refer to this conference as when “the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time.” John Corrill echoed this description by saying, “The Malchisedec priesthood was then for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders. In this chiefly consisted the endowment—it being a new order—and bestowed authority.” Jared Carter, who also attended the conference, would relate the “memorable day when God first gave the fullness of the high priesthood to the Elders of the Church of Christ.” These statements, in combination with others, present a challenge to the traditional narrative that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had been previously ordained to the priesthood at the hands of angelic ministers:
"I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 – in Ohio…I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…"
David Whitmer, Early Mormon Documents, 5:137
"I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so.” William E. McLellin, Letter to J. L. Traughber (25 Aug 1877)
Exorcising the Saints
Regardless, after Lyman Wight had ordained Joseph Smith, together they proceeded to confer the high priesthood upon others, including John Murdock. Upon Murdock’s ordination, Joseph Smith sought to demonstrate the gifts of this new priesthood by healing Murdock’s hand that had been maimed at the age of 17 in a farming accident involving a scythe. Joseph took the hand, stretched it out strait, and commanded it to be healed. However, Murdock’s hand immediately returned to its normally twisted state; the healing had failed and Murdock instead became “bound” and unable to speak.
In Levi Hancock's account, Joseph then "put his hands on Harvey Whitlock and ordained him to the high priesthood. Harvey turned as black as Lyman was white. His fingers were set like claws. He went around the room and showed his hands and tried to speak. His eyes were in the shape of owls eyes." Ezra Booth also observed Whitlock's extreme reaction to his ordination, and described the scene in detail: "The Elder moved upon the floor, his legs inclining to a bend; one shoulder elevated above the other, upon which the head seemed disposed to recline, his arms partly extended, his hands partly clenched; his mouth partly open, and contracted in the shape of an italic O; his eyes assumed a wild ferocious cast, and his whole appearance presented a frightful object to the view of the beholder." Joseph Smith, perhaps to test the influences on Harvey Whitlock, said: "'Speak Brother Harvey' ... but Harvey intimated by signs" that he was unable to speak. ... Booth recalled that "some" of the attendants "considered Harvey was possessed of the devil." But Joseph Smith responded, "The Lord binds in order to set at liberty." ... Booth continued, "After different opinions had been given, and there had been much confusion, Smith learnt by the spirit, that Harvey was under a diabolical influence, and that Satan had bound him; and he commanded the unclean spirit to come out of him." John Whitmer also recorded: Joseph Smith "commanded the devil in the name of Christ and he departed." Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Settings of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, p. 159–160
After Harvey Whitlock was exorcised, Leman Copley—a former Shaker—was overcome with “the power” in a way that was characteristic of religious enthusiasm at revivals during the Second Great Awakening. That is, Copley pitched himself forward onto the ground from a sitting position and lay motionless and unable to speak while prostrate upon the ground. The newly ordained elders ministered to him with the laying on of hands and cast the devil from him. Thus began of a series of displays of ecstatic experience that would be interpreted as demonic possessions, with the devil taking a hold of one man, being commanded out, and then moving onto another victim.
Enthusiasm seemed to spread from the window to the watching crowd as "Satan was cast out of him [Copley] but immediately entered another," recalled Hancock. After the devil was cast out of Leman Copley, Harvey Green then fell "bound and screamed like a panther"—a not-uncommon attempt at vocalization while "bound." Ecstatic expressions now clearly defined as demonic continued all day and into a greater part of the night as those who held priesthood authority confronted each participant one by one. As a result of this experience, summarized Booth, "it now became clearly manifest, that "the man of sin was revealed." for the express purpose that the elders should become acquainted with the devices of Satan; and after that they would possess knowledge sufficient to manage him." This experience proved to be a turning point in understanding the spiritual gifts then in operation. Even though some of the gifts, such as the gift of tongues identified in revelation, were understood as coming from God, all of the ecstatic gifts as they then existed in the Church in Kirtland stopped. Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Settings of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, p. 161
Let’s turn now to the lesson manuals and see what messages they present for the membership from the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants that relate to the above history.
Truth and Deception
The first major theme of this week’s lessons is that of discernment between truth and deception. The message is that Satan is lying in wait to deceive the members of the church by counterfeiting God’s gifts and distorting His truths. The lessons ask members to identify “false teachings or traditions” in the world by contrasting them with the teachings of the church. That is, “the gospel” as it is taught in the LDS church provides the standard against which all other teachings or traditions are evaluated, with divergence from church teachings interpreted as deceptions. This is extended to include traditions that only have a “portion of the truth,” and includes a warning against those traditions and against “cafeteria Mormonism” by suggesting that those who do not accept the “fullness of the gospel” found in Mormonism will lose even that portion of the truth that they already have (2 Nephi 28:29–30).
The truths of the gospel can help me recognize false teachings. You can find some of the Shakers’ beliefs mentioned in the heading to section 49. Consider marking or noting the truths in verses 5–23 that correct those beliefs. Think about other false teachings or traditions in the world today. What gospel truths can help you guard yourself against them? The Lord’s teachings can protect me from Satan’s deceptions. The new converts in Ohio were eager to receive the spiritual manifestations promised in the scriptures, but Satan was also eager to deceive them. They wondered, When someone shouts or faints, is that the influence of the Spirit? Imagine that you were asked to help these new converts understand how to recognize true manifestations of the Holy Ghost and avoid being deceived by Satan’s imitations. What principles do you find in Doctrine and Covenants 50 that you could share? (see especially verses 22–25, 29–34, 40–46). See also 2 Timothy 3:13–17. What does it mean to “desire to know the truth in part, but not all”? Maybe you could show a partially covered picture and let family members guess what it is. What happens when we accept only part of the truth? (see 2 Nephi 28:29–30). Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 16 May 2021, emphasis my own.
The truths of the gospel can help me recognize false teachings.
What truths did the Lord teach about this topic in section 49? What do people believe about this topic today? What further truths has the Lord taught about it through our latter-day prophets? Give class members an opportunity to share their gratitude for the truths revealed in our day.
Like the elders in Kirtland who “did not understand the manifestations of different spirits” (Doctrine and Covenants 50, section heading), sometimes we wonder if something we feel or see is from the Spirit or from another influence. What can we learn from Doctrine and Covenants 50:1–36 to help us recognize the influence of the Spirit?
Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 16 May 2021, emphasis my own.
Importantly, the lessons make sure to draw from D&C § 49 to couch the discussion of what sorts of false teachings are prevalent in the world today, which will set up the discussion of the lessons’ second major theme: the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
Eternal Marriage
The lessons devote considerable time to the discussion of the essential nature of heterosexual patriarchal marriage in God’s plan. The discussion of marriage in these lessons outline the church’s position on areas the brethren perceive as threats to LDS marriage: gender and sexual identity. That is, the LDS church is very invested in defending “traditional” gender roles for men and women in marriage, defined by their assigned sex at birth. Likewise, the LDS church only recognizes heterosexuality as being in accordance with God’s will, taking a hardline stance against same-sex marriage. As becomes abundantly clear in these sections of the lesson materials, the setup from the preceding theme regarding discerning between God’s truth and Satan’s imitations is meant to drive this conversation regarding gender and sexuality in God’s pattern of marriage.
Gender Complementarianism
The lessons in both the Individuals and Families and the Sunday School manuals draw heavily from David A. Bednar’s talk, “Marriage is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” published in the June 2006 Ensign Magazine. This talk, and the lesson materials, present a hefty propagandizing of complementarianism. That is, these materials sell the notion that men and women have distinct roles determined by their gender, wherein they are to operate by virtue of the divinely ordained characteristics of their sex, and that the division into these gender roles creates a system wherein men and women complement each other in a way that could not be accomplished without this division. Of course, this division is constructed in such a way as to give men the presiding authority roles, while women are given supporting and nurturing roles—in the home, in the church, and in society at large. The converse of this ideology is egalitarianism, which advocates for the full equality in authority and responsibilities between genders, rather than the “separate but equal” approach advocated by complementarianism in what is really just patriarchy apologia.
Marriage is essential to Heavenly Father’s plan.
Elder David A. Bednar explained why marriage is essential to God’s plan of salvation:
“By divine design, men and women are intended to progress together toward perfection and a fullness of glory. Because of their distinctive temperaments and capacities, males and females each bring to a marriage relationship unique perspectives and experiences. The man and the woman contribute differently but equally to a oneness and a unity that can be achieved in no other way. The man completes and perfects the woman and the woman completes and perfects the man as they learn from and mutually strengthen and bless each other. ... Just as the unique characteristics of both males and females contribute to the completeness of a marriage relationship, so those same characteristics are vital to the rearing, nurturing, and teaching of children."
Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 16 May 2021, emphasis my own.
LDS leaders have long taught that erosion of traditional gender roles will undermine the family as the basic unit of society and lead to broken homes and moral depravity. The LDS church has fought hard against the Equal Rights Amendment and other measures that favor gender egalitarianism. Today, transgender rights are among those issues on the forefront of America’s ongoing culture wars, and the LDS church is decidedly opposed to the growing social acceptance of transgender identity. As such, the current lessons double down on the sacralization of cisgender identity and divinely-given gender-specific traits as a critical element of eternal identity and purpose.
Heteropatriarchal Supremacy
The second part of this section on the essentiality of marriage to God’s plan is a repeated and strong statement of the church’s position on same-sex marriage. Repeatedly, the lesson manuals make a point to affirm that the church defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The manuals assert that Satan is eager to create confusion about marriage, as a not-so-subtle jab at the legality and increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage in modern society. Furthermore, the lessons draw from the doctrine of complementarian gender roles to argue that heterosexual marriage is the supreme setting for child-rearing, taking another jab at same-sex wedded couples raising children.
Marriage between man and woman is essential to God’s plan. What truths about marriage do you learn from Doctrine and Covenants 49:15–17? Why do you feel marriage between a man and a woman is essential to Heavenly Father’s plan? Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 16 May 2021, emphasis my own.
Marriage between man and woman is essential to God’s plan. Because marriage is fundamental to Heavenly Father’s plan, Satan is eager to create confusion about it. Your class might benefit from making a list on the board of truths the Lord has revealed about marriage. For example, what truths about marriage do we learn from Doctrine and Covenants 49:15–17? Other helpful scriptures include Genesis 2:20–24; 1 Corinthians 11:11; or others found in “Marriage, Marry” in the Guide to the Scriptures. Class members could also find truths in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Based on what we learn from these resources, why is marriage between a man and a woman essential to God’s plan? Marriage is essential to Heavenly Father’s plan. … “A home with a loving and loyal husband and wife is the supreme setting in which children can be reared in love and righteousness and in which the spiritual and physical needs of children can be met. Just as the unique characteristics of both males and females contribute to the completeness of a marriage relationship, so those same characteristics are vital to the rearing, nurturing, and teaching of children” (“Marriage Is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” Ensign, June 2006, 83–84). Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 16 May 2021, emphasis my own.
Marriage between man and woman is essential to God’s plan. The children you teach may face confusing messages about marriage. Doctrine and Covenants 49:15–17 can help them understand how the Lord feels about marriage. Help the children understand what the phrase “marriage is ordained of God” means. Invite them to work in pairs to compare Doctrine and Covenants 49:15–17 with the first three paragraphs of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Why is marriage so important to Heavenly Father? Come, Follow Me — Primary Manual, 16 May 2021, emphasis my own.
The LDS church is incredibly concerned about the effects that increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage will have on their ability to continue sacralizing the heteropatriarchal nuclear family. In November 2015, months after the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage, the LDS church issued a policy that excommunicated same-sex couples for apostasy, and prohibited their children from being blessed or baptized until the age of 18—conditional on their disavowal of their parents’ lifestyle. This was a highly unpopular policy and led to mass disaffection. Only three and a half years later, Russell M. Nelson revoked the policy denying children of same-sex wedded couples to privileges of priesthood ordinances. According to Nelson in 2019:
Consider the policy announced in November 2015 related to the advisability of baptism for the children of LGBT parents. Our concern then, and one we discussed at length and prayed about fervently over a long period of time, was to find a way to reduce friction between gay or lesbian parents and their children. ... Though it may not have looked this way to some, the 2015 and 2019 policy adjustments on this matter were both motivated by love—the love of our Heavenly Father for His children and the love of the Brethren for those whom we serve. Pres. Russell M. Nelson, The Love and Laws of God, BYU Devotional, 17 Sept 2019
Russell M. Nelson claims that the 2015 exclusion policy and its reversal were both motivated by love and concern for LGBTQ+ families. If so, the men leading the LDS church have an extremely warped and abusive concept of love. More likely, the brethren leading the church were concerned that with the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, the church would be weakened in its ability to promote a doctrine of cisgender heterosexual supremacy. They were concerned that if same-sex married couples remained in full communion, members of their ward would develop sympathy for them through interaction with them and their children. I think this was especially a concern regarding the children and youth, who would potentially have peers who are the children of same-sex wedded couples in their Primary and Aaronic Priesthood / Young Women’s classes. By casting these members out and prohibiting communion with even their children, the LDS hierarchy was attempting to create a barrier they believed would protect members from developing LGBTQ+ sympathetic attitudes. When it became clear that the policy was persistently contributing to member disaffection, they decided to discard it.
At stake for the church are fundamental doctrines of the LDS faith related to eternal progression and exaltation. Namely, in the Mormon cosmology of the Celestial Kingdom, only those who enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage (originally plural marriage) will become gods capable of having eternal increase. This is because the mechanism of eternal increase is spiritual procreation and the glory received through one’s eternal progeny via the process of pre-mortality, mortality, resurrection, and exaltation. This is what the LDS church believes Joseph Smith meant in the King Follett sermon when he said that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, … you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, … the same as all gods have done before you.” Lorenzo Snow later added, “As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be.” This is the interpretation underlying the modern church’s understanding of Moses 1:39, “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
This is what the Plan of Exaltation is all about—the ordering of the human race into heteropatriarchal family units for the purposes of eternal creation, procreation, and exaltation. This is why the lesson manuals and leaders like David A. Bednar insist that heterosexual marriage “is essential to God’s plan.” The church has firmly established its cosmology of the afterlife in heteropatriarchy. It will take a monumental shift in theology for the LDS church to begin accepting same-sex marriages—the likes of which we have never seen, except for maybe the abandonment of the practice of polygamy.