This is a continuation of my reactions to the portrayal of church history and the rhetoric employed in the 2021 Come, Follow Me curriculum. These are not meant to be a thorough deep-dive into each lesson, but merely represent my surface level reactions to each week’s lessons from curriculum manuals for Individuals and Families, the Primary, the Sunday School, and the Youth. This being the first year the LDS church has taught the Doctrine and Covenants in Sunday School since I experienced an acute faith crisis in 2018, and also being a brand new curriculum since the roll out of the Come, Follow Me program and the release of the Saints books, I thought it would be interesting to see how the church presents its narrative to members in 2021. Forewarning: this will present a critical perspective.
March 2021 Overview
Jump to the sections for each week’s lessons via the links below:
Week 1 | March 7
Week 2 | March 14
Week 3 | March 21
Week 4 | March 28
Week 1 | D&C § 20–22
This week’s lessons cover the organization of the Church of Christ (the name would change in subsequent years) on 6 April 1830. The lessons touch on topics such as the restoration of the original Christian church, the importance of priesthood authority, and the significance of baptism and the sacrament (i.e. eucharist). However, the over-arching theme is the exceptionality of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the importance of loyalty to the said church. Let’s explore these themes briefly below:
A Priestly and Authoritative Sales Pitch
The modern LDS church teaches a unique brand of fundamentalist Christianity. Arguably, the foremost fundamental doctrine of the present-day church is the necessity of divinely-dispensed priesthood authority. The church is built upon a narrative of Apostasy and Restoration, upon which foundation rests the church’s claims to exceptionality as “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” The message that individuals need the authority that is found exclusively in the church is intimated throughout the lesson, but is perhaps most clear in the following:
What would we say if someone asked us why we need the Church? What answers do we find in Doctrine and Covenants 20? See also D. Todd Christofferson, “Why the Church,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2015, 108–11. Come, Follow Me — Sunday School Manual, 7 March 2021,
Christofferson’s talk is a tremendous example of the rhetoric employed by church leaders time and time again, in establishing not just the church’s claims to exceptionality, but in conveying the necessity of the church in the eternal welfare if all people. It’s the same message that is the backbone of the lessons the missionaries are trained to give while in the Missionary Training Center.
Beginning with Adam, the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached, and the essential ordinances of salvation, such as baptism, were administered through a family-based priesthood order. ... Then, in the meridian of time, Jesus organized His work in such a way that the gospel could be established simultaneously in multiple nations and among diverse peoples. ... Following the apostasy and disintegration of the Church He had organized while on the earth, the Lord reestablished the Church of Jesus Christ once again through the Prophet Joseph Smith. ... If one believes that all roads lead to heaven or that there are no particular requirements for salvation, he or she will see no need for proclaiming the gospel or for ordinances and covenants in redeeming either the living or the dead. But we speak not just of immortality but also of eternal life, and for that the gospel path and gospel covenants are essential. And the Savior needs a church to make them available to all of God’s children—both the living and the dead. ... In the authority of these keys, the Church’s priesthood officers preserve the purity of the Savior’s doctrine and the integrity of His saving ordinances. They help prepare those who wish to receive them, judge the qualification and worthiness of those who apply, and then perform them. ... With the keys of the kingdom, the Lord’s servants can identify both truth and falsehood and once again authoritatively state, “Thus saith the Lord.” Regrettably, some resent the Church because they want to define their own truth, but in reality it is a surpassing blessing to receive a “knowledge of things as they [truly] are, and as they were, and as they are to come” insofar as the Lord wills to reveal it. ... The Church is that prophesied latter-day kingdom, not created by man but set up by the God of heaven and rolling forth as a stone “cut out of the mountain without hands” to fill the earth. ... it is the repository of His authority in the earth, the administrator of His holy covenants, the custodian of His temples, the protector and proclaimer of His truth, the gathering place for scattered Israel, and “a defense, and … a refuge from the storm, and from wrath when it shall be poured out without mixture upon the whole earth.” Elder D. Todd Christofferson October 2015 General Conference Emphasis my own.
Notice that Elder Christofferson juxtaposes the belief that individuals can “define their own truth” or that there are “no particular requirements for salvation” with the assertion that all people need the authority found exclusively in the church in order to access “essential saving ordinances” and find refuge from the forthcoming apocalyptic storm. Also take note of who is delivering the message: a representative of Mormon priestly authority. Similarly, Joseph Smith preached that God had chosen to restore his lost priesthood authority through Smith, who would preside over the administration of that authority as the President of the Church.
The Mormon elevation of priestly authority is interesting given the church’s roots in American Protestantism. Protestants explicitly rejected the Roman Catholic Church’s claims of priestly authority by arguing for a “priesthood of all believers” and the supreme authority of scripture—sola scriptura. The reasons for this rejection were rooted in perceived abuses of power by Roman Catholic clergy and corruption of the faith through priestcraft. Similar themes can be read in the Book of Mormon, which was written early in the development of Mormonism and precedes many of the developments of authority that would come to define the faith in later years. The Doctrine and Covenants reflects many of these developments, especially when one compares the wording of the many sections we have today with their wording in earlier versions.
For a scholarly discussion of the development of priesthood authority in Mormonism, confer Karl Best’s article in Dialogue, Greg Prince’s Power From on High, D. Michael Quinn’s Origins of Power, or Dan Vogel’s informative videos (part 1, part 2). Also consider these thoughtful summaries on MormonThink, LDS Discussions, and Mormon Stories.
Ordinances of Dependence
The lessons—particularly the Primary lesson—emphasize the importance of baptism in the church and of regularly partaking the sacrament to renew one’s baptism. Special emphasis is placed on reinforcing that both these ordinances are ineffectual unless done by the proper authority held exclusively by ordained LDS men. For those who have already been baptized, the lessons focus on remembering one’s baptism and invoking the positive memories associated with that day. The LDS church does a tremendous job of making individuals feel loved and celebrated on the day of their baptism, often making this a very memorable occasion associated with many positive emotions. Members are taught to associate positive emotional responses as the influence of the Holy Spirit communicating to them divine approval of their actions. For those yet to be baptized, emphasis is placed on preparing oneself for baptism and on the importance of making and keeping promises.
Individuals and Families: If someone in your family is not yet baptized, these verses could lead to a discussion about how to prepare for baptism (see verse 37) and how baptisms are performed (see verses 71–74). Family members could share pictures or memories from their baptismal day. Sunday School: Ask class members to imagine they have a friend who has been baptized into another church. They could read this section to find counsel to help their friend understand why baptism into the Savior’s restored Church is necessary. Class members could role-play this scenario as a class or in pairs. Junior Primary: The children you teach are preparing to be baptized. Help them understand what it means to be baptized and what they can do to be ready. ... Testify that we should follow the Savior’s example and be baptized in the way He has commanded. Sing a song about baptism, such as “When I Am Baptized” (Children’s Songbook, 103), or watch “The Baptism of Jesus.” Invite the children to share their feelings about being baptized. Tell the children about a time when you made a promise and kept it. Invite them to tell similar stories of their own. Explain that when we take the sacrament, we make promises. Read Doctrine and Covenants 20:77, emphasizing the promises we make to “always remember him” and “keep his commandments.” Invite the children to share a time when they remembered the Savior or obeyed a commandment. Senior Primary: Invite a few children to come prepared to share what they felt or experienced when they were baptized. Perhaps they could bring a picture from their baptismal day to show the class. Why did they choose to be baptized? How has being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost blessed them? Show the children something that has a name on it (such as a brand name or a personal name). What does the name tell us about the item? Read together Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 to discover whose name we take upon ourselves when we are baptized. What does it mean to take Jesus Christ’s name upon us? How should we think and act because we have this name? Come, Follow Me — 7 March 2021
The ordinance of the sacrament (i.e. the eucharist) is an interesting one from the lens of reinforcing loyalty and dependence upon the church. Members are taught that baptism is requisite for salvation from sin and entrance into the Celestial Kingdom of God. Likewise, the sacrament is taught to be a saving ordinance inasmuch as it renews one’s baptism and enables the participant access to Christ’s substitutionary atonement, after one has sinned following their baptism. Furthermore, members are taught that in order to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, they must first be baptized. Upon receiving this ordinance, they are entitled to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, provided they remain worthy of it. Importantly, it is the reception of the Holy Ghost following baptism and through the sacrament that is actually responsible for the cleansing of one’s sins, according to Mormon theology. Of course, no one is perfect and individuals inevitable fall short of the church’s many high requirements of worthiness. Likewise, members are taught that negative emotions are signs of the loss of the Spirit. Inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, if one loses the companionship of the Holy Ghost through sin, this is a sure sign that one is unworthy to endure the presence of God, and that one surely is unworthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom. The solution: weekly participation in the sacrament, available exclusively through the church.
The purpose of the sacrament is explicitly to enable the members to “always have His spirit to be with them.” A critical part of this ritual is that members promise to take upon themselves the name of Christ. In the lesson to the senior primary, notice how this is portrayed as analogous to being branded with Christ’s name, effectively making one the property of Christ (and by extension, the church). This is reinforced by the suggested singing of the song from the Children’s Songbook, “The Church of Jesus Christ.” The open line of this song is “I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Some critics have pointed out that this wording invokes the language of property ownership. Personally, I think that might be a bit much, but it certainly does echo language in the temple regarding the Law of Consecration, wherein members are instructed to “consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Tell the children why you are thankful that we have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Explain that being a member of the Church prepares us to live with God again. Help them repeat the phrase “I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” several times or sing “The Church of Jesus Christ” (Children’s Songbook, 77). ... Invite the children to make a list of reasons they are thankful for the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Come, Follow Me — Primary Manual, 7 March 2021
Importantly, the way the Gift of the Holy Ghost is presented as a reward accessible only through regular participation in the sacrament turns the ordinance of the eucharist into a powerful tool for maintaining loyalty. Because members are taught that the sacrament is only efficacious when administered by ordained LDS men, members become dependent upon the LDS church for access to the Holy Spirit. Additionally, because LDS bishops and stake presidents have the ability to restrict a member’s access to the sacrament, the need to regularly receive the sacrament instills dependence upon LDS authorities. Finally, because the sacrament is offered exclusively at LDS worship services, unless specifically authorized by one’s bishop, the requirement to regularly partake of the sacrament in order to retain one’s worthiness before God creates a powerful incentive for regular church attendance.
Follow the Prophet
I started this series of posts reacting to the 2021 Come, Follow Me curriculum by highlighting the overarching theme of loyalty to the church and to its leaders. This was glaring in the very first lesson, and will remain a consistent theme throughout the year. This messaging is most profoundly transparent in the lessons for the Primary. Before we get into how this message is presented in the lessons materials, let’s first look at the verses upon which this message in based for this week’s lessons:
4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. 6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory. 7 For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard. 8 Yea, his weeping for Zion I have seen, and I will cause that he shall mourn for her no longer; for his days of rejoicing are come unto the remission of his sins, and the manifestations of my blessings upon his works. 9 For, behold, I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe on his words, which are given him through me by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. Doctrine and Covenants § 21:4–9 Emphasis my own.
The message of these verses is pretty clear: the prophet speaks for the Lord, and individuals will be blessed if they follow all the prophet’s words and commandments. This is an echo of similar messaging found in D&C § 1:38—”my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” The promise that those who follow the prophet’s direction will be protected from “the gates of hell” and that “God will disperse the powers of darkness from before them” is similar to the messaging that members very often receive that they cannot be led astray when following the prophet. Most famously, there is the quote by Wilford Woodruff, included with Official Declaration 1, which states: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”
How is this message delivered in the current lesson? Consider the snippets below taken from the lesson manuals:
Individuals and Families: How can you receive the living prophet’s word “as if from [God’s] own mouth”? (verse 5). What counsel has today’s prophet given that could lead to the blessings promised in verse 6? Consider inviting family members to look for words and phrases in verses 4–5 that teach us about following the Lord’s prophet. What does it mean to receive the prophet’s words in patience? in faith? Sunday School: We are blessed when we receive the Lord’s word through His prophet. What do these phrases [found in verses 4–7] teach us about following the Lord’s prophet? Primary: I am blessed when I follow the prophet. How will you help the children receive the blessings promised in these verses to those who follow the prophet? Show a picture of the current prophet, and invite the children to share something they learned or heard from him recently. Read together Doctrine and Covenants 21:5. Invite the children to write or draw something they can do to follow the prophet. Share your testimony that when we follow the prophet, we are following the Savior. Come, Follow Me — 7 March 2021
Each lesson makes a point to direct members specifically, and repeatedly, to verse five: “For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.” This is a clear message that the prophet’s words are God’s words, and we should treat them as such.
There are clear problems with this messaging, apart from the fact that it encourages members to unthinkingly accept anything the prophet teaches as God’s definitive word and will for humankind. One is that teachings of the modern leaders of the church often directly conflict with those of previous church presidents, as with Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine or the justifications for the temple and priesthood ban that were promoted by multiple church presidents. According to the present-day church, anyone who follows and promotes these teachings of these previous prophets has been led astray and at risk of facing church discipline. Sometimes, the leaders of the church contradict themselves in only a matter of a few years, as with the President Hinkley’s promotion of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign and President Nelson’s insistence that using the term Mormon to refer to members of the church is “a victory for Satan.” Or when President Monson implemented the November 2015 exclusion policy that excommunicated same-sex wedded couples and prohibited their children from being baptized, only to have this policy lifted 3.5 years later in April 2019—both of which occurrences President Nelson claimed were directed by revelation.
The other problem I want to touch on briefly is how this teaching that individuals are blessed and protected for following the prophet plays into a larger narrative within Mormonism of transactional faith. That is, the idea that blessings or trials are the rewards or punishments of righteous or evil works, respectively. Sometimes this is referred to as the “prosperity gospel,” but I think that doesn’t quite capture the whole of it, and carries with it too many other associations. At its core, transactional faith is based on the idea that faith begets blessings, here or in the hereafter, and that the reason for faith is to obtain those promised blessings. The Book of Mormon is replete with this messaging, as is the Doctrine and Covenants, and I plan to explore this theme in more detail as it is featured in key verses later on. For now, I will simply say that transactional faith leads to a toxic culture of checking the boxes and perfectionism and an unhealthy relationship with God and one’s faith community.
Week 2 | D&C § 23–26
This week’s lessons focus heavily on Emma Smith in an effort to highlight the role of women in the church and to romanticize her relationship with Joseph Smith. As with so many other stories of the early church, the lessons present a rose-tinted perspective of Emma and Joseph’s relationship while also relating an inaccurate narrative regarding the persecutions experienced by early converts to the church.
Disorderly Persecutions
Each lesson makes reference to the persecutions experienced in New York by the earliest converts to the church and citing such as the reason why they eventually were forced to relocate to Ohio. The narrative presented is that members of the church experienced constant harassment because of the unique teachings of the church and their acceptance of the Book of Mormon as additional scripture to the Bible. That is, these earliest coverts were ridiculed and harassed by their neighbors for believing in supposedly heretical doctrines. While that is partially true, this does not come close to telling the entire story.
What is left out is that Joseph Smith already had a local reputation for being a “glass-looker,” a “money-digger,” and a “disorderly person,” who defrauded his neighbors by pretending to special powers aided by his seer stone. Indeed, a year before Joseph claimed to receive the gold plates, Joseph was tried as a “disorderly person” for his involvement in attempts to locate a Spanish silver mine as a treasure-seer in the service of Josiah Stowell. Incidentally, it was during these attempts that Joseph lodged with the Hale family and met Emma, whom he would convince to elope with him against her family’s wishes. Later he would be tried twice more on similar charges in 1830.
Notably, the lessons distort Joseph’s arrest and trials in 1830 by claiming: “just as Joseph was about to confirm the [newly baptized] members, he was arrested for upsetting the community by preaching about the Book of Mormon.” This is a distortion of the facts, relying solely on accounts of devout Mormon followers years after the fact, and ignoring evidence of the time that Joseph was tried for attempts to defraud his neighbors as a “stone-gazer.” Indeed, the focus of the trials were on Joseph’s previous attempts to defraud his neighbors via the treasure quest, with the line of reasoning that he was doing something similar with the church he had just founded on the basis of his gold plates story. What you will not find any mention of in these trials is that Joseph was teaching heretical doctrine, or really anything regarding the theological content of the Book of Mormon. Rather, these trials were focused solely on Joseph’s history of financial fraud through his activities as a treasure-seer and how the gold plates were just the latest example.
By presenting the notion that Joseph and the early members of the church were persecuted for their theological beliefs, rather than for Joseph’s history as a money-digger, the lessons perpetrate a modern fraud upon present day members of the church. These members are led to believe that early opposition to the church was purely in response to the church’s theological claims. While it is true that some preachers in the area voiced opposition to the newly founded church by citing issue with the Book of Mormon, the primary complaints were of Joseph’s history of fraudulent treasure-seeking and the superstitious and gullible nature of the church’s earliest converts. As D. Michael Quinn notes regarding Rev. Diedrich Willers‘s objections to the church, no mention is made of distinctive Mormon theological claims such as the First Vision, the apostasy of Christendom, or priesthood authority. These were all later theological developments of the church that were not known or emphasized among the membership in 1830. Rather, Willers’s primary objection was that the Book of Mormon was “a clumsy deception which even mediocre intellects will disdain” and that prominent early members believed in witches and were characteristically superstitious, gullible, and religiously instable.
Emma’s Legacy: An Elect “Child of Hale”
The lessons highlight Emma Hale Smith and D&C § 25, in which she is called “an elect lady” and counseled to support Joseph in meekness. Emma is used to as an example of the faithful wife who supports her husband Joseph in his responsibilities as a worthy bearer of the priesthood. She is praised primarily for the way she sacrifices herself in support of Joseph and the church. Consider in particular the following verses from D&C § 25, a revelation directed specifically to Emma:
4 Murmur not because of the things which thou hast not seen, for they are withheld from thee and from the world, which is wisdom in me in a time to come. 5 And the office of thy calling shall be for a comfort unto my servant, Joseph Smith, Jun., thy husband, in his afflictions, with consoling words, in the spirit of meekness. 9 And thou needest not fear, for thy husband shall support thee in the church; for unto them is his calling, that all things might be revealed unto them, whatsoever I will, according to their faith. 13 Wherefore, lift up thy heart and rejoice, and cleave unto the covenants which thou hast made. 14 Continue in the spirit of meekness, and beware of pride. Let thy soul delight in thy husband, and the glory which shall come upon him. Doctrine and Covenants § 25:4–5, 9, 13–14
These lessons present videos, quotes, and other materials to suggest that Emma and Joseph had an idealistic, romantic relationship. While the two obviously had a romantic connection, this overlooks that their relationship was a very complicated one that featured many instances of infidelity and clear signs of abuse. It is notable that their marriage began through elopement against the wishes of her family, and that Emma herself expressed that she “had no intention of marrying when I left home,” but was persuaded to do so at his urging and the urging of Josiah Stowell. There is evidence to suggest that this urging included the language of ultimatums and angelic command, which would become a theme in Joseph’s later proposals to his plural wives.
By the time of his death in June 1844, Joseph had some 33 or more plural wives, the vast majority of which were concealed to Emma at the time. Many of these relationships likely included a sexual dimension. The first of the women that LDS apologists like to claim as a plural wife was Fanny Alger, who worked in the Smith home as a teenage girl in Kirtland, Ohio. In all likelihood, this relationship was purely an extramarital affair, which was discovered and hushed up at the time. Rumors of Joseph having improper relationships with women to whom he was not married surface as early as the New York period, which may have contributed to the opposition he faced at this time.
Among the quotes presented in the lesson to highlight Joseph and Emma’s loving and devoted relationship is an excerpt from Joseph’s journals dated 16 August 1842. In this passage, Joseph expresses his devotion to Emma who had recently paid him a visit while he was in hiding from Missouri lawmen seeking his extradition, to face charges for conspiracy in the attempted assassination of Missouri governor, Lilburn Boggs. He wrote:
With what unspeakable delight, and what transports of joy swelled my bosom, when I took by the hand, on that night, my beloved Emma—she that was my wife, even the wife of my youth; and the choice of my heart. Many were the re-vibrations of my mind when I contemplated for a moment the many scenes we had been called to pass through. The fatigues, and the toils, the sorrows, and sufferings, and the joys and consolations from time to time had strewed our paths and crowned our board. Oh! what a co-mingling of thought filled my mind for the moment, Again she is here, even in the seventh trouble, undaunted, firm, and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma. Joseph Smith, Journal Entry, 16 August 1842
At the time this was written, Joseph had already married some 13 to 16 women as plural wives—all behind Emma’s back. Two days later, Joseph would pen the following letter, written in his own hand, requesting that his 17 year old plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney, be brought to him in hiding to comfort him and bring him succor:
I take this oppertunity to communicate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers [Granger’s], Just back of Brother Hyrams [Hyrum Smith’s] farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come and see me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield; I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safety, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction, or not at all now is the time or never, but I have no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it, keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it, one thing I want to see you for is to get the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come to night, if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Letter to Newel K., Elizabeth Ann Smith, and Sarah Ann Whitney 18 August 1842, emphasis my own.
Personally, I find it incredibly dishonest of the church to portray Emma and Joseph’s relationship the way they do, especially by using this particular entry from Joseph’s journal just days before he orchestrated a liaison with his teenage plural wife—with explicit instructions regarding keeping it hidden from Emma. Joseph deceived his wife by paying her doting affections in public whilst hiding his rampant entanglements with other women. Likewise, the church is deceiving its members by presenting a romanticized version of the marital relationship of their founding prophet whilst hiding the truth about the broader contours of that relationship. When Emma did discover Joseph’s clandestine relationships, she was understandably incensed. One account of such provides additional insights into the nature of Joseph and Emma’s relationship. On 22 August 1843, William Clayton recorded the following regarding Emma’s discovery that Joseph had gifted an expensive gold watch to his secret plural wife, Flora Woodworth:
President Joseph told me that he had difficulty with Emma yesterday. She rode up to Woodworths with him and called while he came to the Temple. When he returned, she was demanding the gold watch of Flora [Woodworth]. He reproved her for her evil treatment. On their return home she abused him much and also when he got home. He had to use harsh measures to put a stop to her abuse but finally succeeded. George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), p. 119
One can speculate what “harsh measures” might have entailed, but it certainly seems to suggest physical abuse. Either way, it is obvious that Joseph and Emma’s relationship was far from the picture of idealized domestic bliss and devotion that the church likes to present. What’s more, the LDS church’s portrayal of Emma as a heroine of the Restoration is out of harmony with its longer tradition of demonizing her as a villain and “child of hell.” LDS leaders often sought to defame Emma in an effort to protect their claims to authority from challenges by Emma’s sons and the RLDS church. Consider the following depiction of this “elect lady” of the Restoration by Joseph Smith’s successor, Brigham Young:
To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he 'You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.' When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. He spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him. Pres. Brigham Young, 6-8 Oct 1866, 36th Semi-Annual Conference
For an honest and historically responsible depiction of Emma Hale and her relationship with Joseph Smith, I highly recommend Newell and Avery’s biographical work, Mormon Enigma. For a shorter preview of this work, consider Linda King Newell’s article in Dialogue, The Emma Smith Lore Reconsidered.
Patriarchy Apologia, For the Kids!
The youth lesson for this week capitalizes of the story of Emma’s charge to compile a collection of sacred hymns to launch a discussion of male and female gender roles in the church, and in society at large. The lesson is entitled “How Do the Divine Roles of Men and Women Complement Each Other?” To drive their narrative, the lesson draws heavily from The Family: A Proclamation to the World and an April 2015 General Conference address given by Linda K. Burton.
Let’s cut to the chase: the present lesson is just one of many examples of the apologia the church peddles to justify their restriction of priestly ecclesiastical authority from women by suggesting that women and men play separate but equal roles in the church. The truth of the matter, however, is that women can hold no positions in the church in which they preside over men. Rather, their positions of authority are exclusively over other women or children. The church is patterned upon a patriarchal order in which women play supporting roles to the men who preside and govern over them. The theology underlying the LDS church is still a patriarchy that equates the divine potential of one man to an infinite number of women.
As social currents have shifted, the church has had to adapt the language it uses to defend the patriarchal structure of its organization and theology. Gone are the days when the church could be openly misogynist in its teachings and transparently refer to the “patriarchal order” divinely instituted by God the Father. In recent years, the church has been forced to adopt the language of a “soft-egalitarianism,” or “complementarianism,” in order to preserve its sexist structure. This is done while giving occasional breadcrumbs to women and heralding them as miraculously progressive strides. All the while, women are still denied full ecclesiastical privileges in the LDS church. Given all that context, let’s look at how the lesson to the youth rhetorically sells patriarchy in the disguised language of soft-egalitarianism:
From the lesson manual: To help your quorum or class understand how men and women can complement each other as equal partners, write the following headings on the board: Father’s Responsibilities and Mother’s Responsibilities. Ask quorum or class members to search the seventh paragraph of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and write what they find under the appropriate heading. From the Proclamation: By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. From Linda K. Burton's 2015 General Relief Society address: I am convinced that a husband is never more attractive to his wife than when he is serving in his God-given roles as a worthy priesthood holder—most important in the home. I love and believe these words from President Packer to worthy husbands and fathers: “You have the power of the priesthood directly from the Lord to protect your home. There will be times when all that stands as a shield between your family and the adversary’s mischief will be that power.” We know from the scriptures that “it is not good that … man should be alone.” That is why our Heavenly Father made “an help meet for him.” The phrase help meet means “a helper suited to, worthy of, or corresponding to him.” For example, our two hands are similar to each other but not exactly the same. In fact, they are exact opposites, but they complement each other and are suited to each other. Working together, they are stronger. When I was a young mother of several small children, at the end of days filled with diapering, dish washing, and disciplining, no one sang more emphatically the Primary song “I’m so glad when daddy comes home.” I’m sad to admit, however, I was not always cheerful when Craig seemed to bounce through the door after a hard day of work ... I wish I had been a little less preoccupied with the endless list of to-dos still to be done and had more wisely focused, like he did, on things that mattered most. I would have stopped more often and enjoyed sacred family time and would have thanked him more often for blessing our lives! Not long ago, a faithful sister in the Church shared with me a deep concern she had been praying about for some time. Her concern was for some of the sisters in her ward. She told me how it hurt her heart to observe that they sometimes spoke disrespectfully to their husbands and about their husbands, even in front of their children. She then told me how as a young woman she had earnestly desired and prayed to find and marry a worthy priesthood holder and build a happy home with him. She had grown up in a home where her mother had “ruled the roost” and her father had cowered to her mother’s demands in order to keep peace at home. She felt that there was a better way. She had not seen it modeled in the home she grew up in, but as she prayed fervently for guidance, the Lord blessed her to know how to create a home with her husband where the Spirit would be warmly welcomed. I have been in that home and can testify it is a holy place! Come, Follow Me — Youth Lesson Materials, 14 March 2021
Week 3 | D&C § 27–28
This week’s lessons cover the story of Book of Mormon witness, Hiram Page, receiving false revelations through his seer stone and Joseph Smith’s response to such. Using this story as a backdrop, the lesson discusses the role and function of personal revelation in the church. We will also take a closer look at Doctrine and Covenants § 27 and how it was changed to reinforce an emerging priesthood restoration narrative in 1835. Other topics include the sacrament and the “armor of God” metaphor (stolen from Ephesians 6), but we will focus primarily on the aforementioned themes and how they serve to reinforce centralized authority in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the church.
Upon My Rock (Not Your Rock)
Hiram Page was one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon and an in-law to the Whitmer family. Like his marital relatives, and like his prophet, Hiram Page shared the worldview of folk magic that included the belief in seer stones as an instrument of divination. As Joseph Smith had been employing his own seer stone in receiving revelations for the church, Hiram Page began to do likewise with the aid of his own seer stone. This provided a challenge to Joseph’s charismatic authority, which at this point in the church was based primarily on his 1823 angelic visitation, the translation of the Book of Mormon (by aid of his seer stone), and the revelations he continued to receive through his seer stone. If Hiram Page, Oliver Cowdery, or others began to receive revelations in a similar manner, Joseph’s role as a principal Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the church would be severely undermined.
Joseph was having none of it, and so he produced a revelation that directly denounced those of Hiram Page. In a remarkably shrewd move, this revelation was directed not to Page, but to Cowdery, who had shown previous ambitions to charismatic authority that Smith had likewise addressed. This move would serve to reinforce that earlier ‘correction’ while recruiting Cowdery into putting down the challenge represented by Hiram Page. It should be noted that at this time, many members—including Cowdery—accepted Hiram Page’s revelations to be authentic. To address this challenge to his authority, Smith revealed the following:
1 Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver, that it shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given. 2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. 3 And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church. 4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it. 5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom; 6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church; 7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead. Doctrine and Covenants § 28:1–7 Emphasis my own.
These passages are interesting for several reasons. First, they clearly establish a dominance hierarchy between Smith and Cowdery, with Smith at the top. Second, they promise Cowdery some degree of authority in the church, tied to sustaining Smith. Cowdery is to be the Aaron to Smith’s Moses. In this revelation, Smith is telling Cowdery that if they work together, and Cowdery agrees to be obedient to Smith’s lead, that Cowdery will be his right hand man. Cowdery is permitted to speak “by way of commandment unto the church,” just not to write those commandments as authorized revelations. Importantly, he is not given authority to command Joseph Smith, who remains the head of the church. Thus, Smith is recruiting Oliver to be his ally in consolidating charismatic authority to lead the church, and provides Oliver with his first task in doing so:
11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him; 12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants. Doctrine and Covenants § 28:11–12 Emphasis my own.
This is incredibly clever. By recruiting Cowdery to put down Hiram Page’s rival claims to charismatic authority, Smith is able to distance himself from this move that ultimately reinforces his own authority. Cowdery benefits by being Smith’s closest ally and partner. Essentially, Cowdery is told that if he will help Smith consolidate his authority, Smith will share that authority with Cowdery above all others. This saves Smith from having to challenge Page’s authority directly in a what would have been an even more transparent power play of “don’t follow him, follow me!”
Oliver agreed to do Smith’s bidding and would continue to serve as the Second Elder of the church. He confronted Hiram Page, who was compelled to submit to Smith’s authority. This was also put to a vote at a church conference and accepted unanimously. While it is not certain what became of Hiram Page’s seer stone and revelations, Martin Harris’s brother claimed that the stone was “ground to powder” and the revelations were burned. Cowdery would enjoy a privileged position within the church all throughout the Kirtland era, but would soon be forced to compete for Smith’s favor with Sidney Rigdon.
Truly False Revelations
As we discussed in February, Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery were among those directed by a revelation through Smith to travel to Canada in a failed attempt to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon. When these men failed to secure the funds despite following Smith’s revelation, they returned perplexed and asked Joseph to inquire via the seer stone as to why they were unsuccessful. The response is telling, and ironic given the situation that would later arise with Hiram Page’s seer stone:
Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil.” So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (p. 30–31).
The notion that some revelations are from men or the devil will become a prominent idea within Mormonism from this time forward. It is interesting to see Smith use it in such a short period, and with the same men, to both excuse his own failed revelations and to undermine rival claims to his own charismatic authority to direct the church. It is remarkable to me that he pulled such a thing off. It doesn’t appear to have worked with everyone, however, as some early dissenters called him out on such inconsistencies, such as Ezra Booth. Booth was one of the earliest members to become disaffected with Smith and the church, and to become a vocal critic of Mormonism—writing several letters in the Ohio Star that were later reprinted in Eber D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed. In these letters, Booth criticized Smith for playing fast and loose with his revelations. Booth also wrote his interpretation of the Hiram Page seer stone episode:
Never was there a despot more jealous of his prerogatives than Smith; and never was a fortress guarded with more vigilance and ardor, against every invading foe, than he guards these. Smith apprehended a revival in the department of written inspiration, from another quarter, and hence Cowdery was commissioned to commence an attack, and suppress the enemy, before he had acquired sufficient stability and strength, so as to become formidable. "Thou shalt take thy brother Hiram between him and thee alone, and tell him the things he hath written from that stone," &c. Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses, and also one of the "money diggers," found a smooth stone, upon which there appeared to be a writing, which when transcribed upon paper, disappeared from the stone, and another impression appeared in its place. This when copied, vanished as the former had done, and so it continued alternately appearing and disappearing; in the meanwhile, he continued to write, until he had written over considerable paper. It bore striking marks of a Mormonite revelation, and was received as an authentic document by most of the Mormonites, till Smith, by his superior sagacity, discovered it to be a Satanic fraud. Ezra Booth, Letter to Nelson, Portage Co., 29 Nov. 1831
Clearly not everyone was fooled by Smith’s maneuvering. Notably, both Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page would also become disaffected with Smith when things would later fall apart in Kirtland.
Ecclesiastical Preeminence and Revelation Bias
The lesson manuals do something interesting with the Hiram Page story by using it as a cautionary tale to reinforce the imperative to “follow the prophet.” Members are warned that they too could be deceived by false revelations unless they check those revelations against the words of their appointed ecclesiastical superiors. The lessons explicitly reinforce the notion that the President of the Church is God’s appointed mouthpiece:
Section Headings The living prophet is God’s mouthpiece for His Church. (Individuals and Families) The living prophet receives revelation for the Lord’s Church. (Sunday School) The prophet leads the Church. (Primary) Sunday School How does Satan try to convince us to follow those whom the Lord has not appointed? You might invite class members to share experiences that strengthened their testimonies that the prophet receives revelation for the Church. Primary Ask the children to play “follow the leader”—one child could stand at the front of the room, and the rest of the children could imitate whatever he or she does. This could lead into a discussion about why we follow the prophet. You could show a picture of Jesus Christ and emphasize that we follow the prophet because he follows the Savior and speaks the Savior’s words. Come, Follow Me — 21 March 2021
The lessons also teach that members can be lead by the Holy Ghost to receive personal revelation to direct their own lives. However, the Hiram Page story serves as a warning to members to always check their personal revelations to ensure that they agree with those received by one’s appointed ecclesiastical leaders. This message is conveyed most dramatically in the following quote included in the Sunday School manual:
When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or any extraordinary gift or inspiration, convey something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. … In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others. … The history of the Church records many pretended revelations claimed by imposters or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, and in every instance, disappointment, sorrow and disaster have resulted therefrom. Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, Charles W. Penrose “A Warning Voice,” Improvement Era, Sept. 1913, 1148–49.
This quote has an interesting history of its own, having been published as a reaction to members who were persuaded to invest in the Dream Mine (or Relief Mine) that John Koyle was building in Salem, Utah. Briefly, Koyle was a faithful Latter-day Saint who in 1894 reportedly had a vision in which the angel Moroni revealed to him the location of an ancient Nephite mine on a nearby mountain. Moroni promised him that if he reopened the mine by digging new tunnels, it would provide the church with financial aid during a forthcoming economic collapse and provide financial relief to the financially struggling church to fund the gathering of Israel in the last days. Many members were persuaded to invest in the mine, which alarmed LDS leaders who denounced the whole endeavor in a statement that included the quote above. This story provides an interesting snapshot into a time when the financially struggling LDS church had begun its efforts to assimilate into the American mainstream—in the wake of the manifestos ending polygamy and the Reed Smoot hearings—and during a time in which the church began to distance itself from its folk magic roots by instead emphasizing the First Vision narrative.
Leaving the Dream Mine aside, the more important feature of this quote for our present discussion is how it demonstrates an idea that has become well-ingrained in Mormon thought as pertaining to personal revelation. Namely, that personal revelations can only be accepted as true if they agree with the words of the present-day leadership of the church. This establishes personal revelation as something that necessarily confirms the authority of one’s ecclesiastical leaders. Any thoughts or feelings that an individual might experience that causes them to doubt the positions of their appointed leaders are dismissible as “false revelations.” This creates what some have termed as a “hermetically sealed system of revelation,” in which a person is prevented from reaching the conclusion that God is revealing to them something that contradicts the leaders of the church.
Notably, similar systems of thought are also employed regarding the personal revelatory experience that one is promised to receive if they read and pray about the Book of Mormon. One could argue that the function of such “hermetically sealed” systems of personal revelation is to give the individual the illusion of autonomy by allowing them the opportunity to obtain a confirmation of the truth of the Book of Mormon, of the authority of their leaders, and of the church. Rather than merely accepting it blindly that these things are true, the individual is invited to participate in an exercise that provides the appearance of open inquiry, but is arranged to only treat confirmatory answers as valid.
Changing the Revelations
As we’ve touched on briefly a few times before (1, 2, 3), the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants included many substantial changes to earlier revelations that had been previously published in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Most of these changes were minor corrections to wording or grammar that do not significantly alter the meaning of the passages, but others are substantial revisions or additions that dramatically change the narrative. Prominent critics of Mormonism, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, thoroughly documented these changes and deserve a lot of credit for what we now know. Perhaps the most glaring example is the modern D&C § 27, which includes 1835 additions that exceed the length of the original 1830 revelation itself, introducing for the first time to the church the notion that priesthood authority had been restored through angelic ordinations. Attentive readers will note that the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood by John the Baptist is also referenced in D&C § 13, but this is merely an excerpt from Joseph Smith’s 1838 history and wasn’t added to the Doctrine and Covenants until the 1876 edition.
Scans of this revelation in the 1833 Book of Commandments and of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants are available on the Joseph Smith Papers (JSP) website. I highly encourage readers to compare these documents for themselves. Additionally, one can read the explanation given by the JSP editors regarding these additions in the Historical Introduction to this section of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, in which they state:
The 1835 version, featured here, contains information not present in the earlier versions; in fact, less than one third of the 1835 text appears in the 1831 or 1833 texts. The additional information contains considerable detail about Jesus Christ one day partaking of sacramental wine with JS and various prophets and apostles from the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Also included is material emphasizing the transmission of priesthood keys—or the authority to govern and lead the church—to JS by biblical prophets, apostles, and patriarchs. In particular, the revelation outlines specific keys held by Elias and Elijah and references a visit by Peter, James, and John to ordain JS and Oliver Cowdery as apostles. This is the first clear documentary reference to angelic visitations by Peter, James, and John and the first clear reference to their conferral of priesthood keys. The historical record is silent as to when or how the additional information in the 1835 version was originally recorded, though JS was undoubtedly involved. The absence of the content in the extant 1831 or 1833 versions suggests the extra information may have originated sometime thereafter. In addition, the 1835 version of the revelation identifies the archangel Michael as Adam and equates Adam with the ancient of days referred to in the Book of Daniel. Not until at least 1833 did church members appear to have identified Adam with Michael and the ancient of days. However, it is possible that JS dictated all of this information in 1830. JS’s history indicates that the “first paragraph” of the revelation, which represents most of the original revelation, was written down immediately in early August 1830 and the “remainder in the September following.” But if all of what appears in the 1835 version was originally dictated in 1830, it is unclear why the additional material was not included in the extant 1831 and 1833 versions. Historical Introduction to 1835 D&C § 50 Joseph Smith Papers, emphasis my own.
One has to ask, why would the earlier recorded versions of this revelation have omitted so much critical content—particularly such theologically significant information regarding the restoration of essential priesthood authority at the hands of angelic beings? Had the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods been recorded prior to 1833, one would expect accounts of either to appear in the Book of Commandments. However, nowhere in the Book of Commandments are either of these miraculously foundational events recorded. Rather, the notion of angelic ordinations appears to have been foreign to early members of the church, as attested by statements from early church leaders:
"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.” “But as to the story of John, the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized: I never heard of it in the church for years, although I carefully noticed things that were said.” "An angel never ordained a man to any office since the world began. Then say you how did Joseph and Oliver get authority to start? I answer, that a revelation from the Lord gives a man both power and authority to do whatever it commands. The Lord commanded Joseph to baptize, confirm, and ordain Oliver, then Oliver to do the same for him." William E. McLellin, Letter to J. L. Traughber, 25 Aug. 1877. Letter to Joseph Smith III, July 1872, RLDS church archives. True L[atter] D[ay] Saints’ Herald 19 (1 Aug. 1872): 472.
"I enquired of David and young David; also of Philander A. Page, aged fifty-four, son of Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses; also John, in whose hands the records are; all (and separately) who say that they do not have any knowledge of, neither do the records show, concerning Peter, James, and John's coming to the Prophet Joseph. On this and also on John the Baptist's mission, they seem, all of them, very ignorant. David said the Prophet of God received the command from God, and that [that] was sufficient authority. He did not seem to understand the necessity of the connecting link of ordinations." Edward Stevenson, Letter to Apostle Franklin D. Richards, 12 February, 1886
What’s more, modern LDS scholars and apologists, such as Richard Bushman, also acknowledge the fact that prior to the mid-1830s, the narrative of angelic restoration of the priesthood was not being taught by Joseph Smith or other leaders of the church. In his biography of Smith, Bushman writes:
Summarizing the key events in his religious life in an 1830 statement, he mentioned translation but said nothing about the restoration of priesthood or the visit of an angel. The first compilation of revelations in 1833 also omitted an account of John the Baptist. David Whitmer later told an interviewer he had heard nothing of John the Baptist until four years after the Church’s organization. Not until writing in his 1832 history did Joseph include ‘reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel’ among the cardinal events of his history, a glancing reference at best...The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 75
For more information about the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835 and how they reflect the changing narrative by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery regarding the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, I refer the reader to these excellent articles by Lane Thuet and LDS Discussions.
Week 4 | D&C § 29
This week’s lessons give a primer of “the plan of exaltation” with a hefty emphasis on substitutionary atonement theology. They also cover the theme of “the gathering of Israel” with rhetoric characteristic of separatist premillennialism. These lessons demonstrate that the Latter-day Saint faith adopts a similar fundamentalist scriptural literalism that is common among American Evangelicals, but is by no means the predominant expression of Christianity. Because these lesson responses tend to go far longer than I ever anticipate, and eat up far more of my time that I would like, this will probably be the last week that I go into this same degree of depth in my lessons responses. Going forward, I hope to keep these lesson responses far more brief and will highlight only a couple of primary themes. More detailed analyses may make an appearance in posts of their own that I can craft on my own timetable, rather than the weekly deadline that these lesson reactions demand.
A Primer on Christian Fundamentalism
First, I want to contextualize the argument I will be making below by giving a brief background on Christian fundamentalism. It is my experience that an understanding of Christianity outside of Mormonism is frequently lacking or highly distorted among those raised in the LDS church. That is, what many Mormons have been taught about what Christians believe outside of Mormonism is a caricature largely reflecting American Evangelicals and is misrepresentative of Christianity more broadly. That certainly is was my experience until I began to explore other faith traditions in earnest as a result of my faith transition. While a discussion of the varieties of Christian belief is far beyond the scope of this lesson response, I want to emphasize that what Mormons are frequently taught to understand of outside Christian beliefs is a representation of fundamentalist Christianity that is a relatively recent development and a predominantly American expression of the faith tradition. Ironically, in many ways, LDS Mormonism itself more closely reflects this expression of Christianity than it does the more traditional expressions of the faith.
The term “fundamentalist” has special connotations in Mormondom that imply polygamist schismatic groups like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Apostolic United Brethren. However, outside of Mormonism, the term as applied to Christianity has a history associated with debates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries regarding “fundamental beliefs” defining Christianity. These debates were largely a reaction among theologically conservative Christians to the liberalization of the faith during this period that tried to accommodate advancements in scientific discoveries (i.e. evolution, geology, etc.) and textual criticism of the Bible. During this time, conservative Christians developed a set of “The Fundamentals” and created their own self-described fundamentalist denominations of Christianity. Overtime, as the term fundamentalist developed its own stigma, these Christians essentially rebranded themselves as “evangelical.” Versions of these debates also took place within Mormon circles, but with far less intensity and strong fundamentalist leanings.
Again, I don’t want to get too into the weeds here, but I want to highlight that central among “the fundamentals” that these Christians proposed is the literal interpretation of scripture and an emphasis of substitutionary atonement theology. As I will attempt to highlight below, this position on the literal interpretation of scripture is one held in common with the LDS church. At some point, I may post more about fundamentalist vs modernist developments in Christianity as they relate to similar developments in Mormonism. For now, if you are curious about this subject, I encourage you to explore the links to various links provided throughout this section.
Fundamentalist Christianity in Mormonism
Below are the themes taken from the lesson materials and Doctrine and Covenants § 29 that I believe demonstrate the Christian fundamentalist leanings of Mormonism and the LDS church. I will comment only briefly on each, as these topics will each come up again multiple times in future Come, Follow Me lessons later in the year.
The Plan of Exaltation
Each lesson manual includes a section on what is termed “The Plan of Exaltation,” which serves as a brief primer highlighting the outlines of God’s plan for humanity according to Mormon theology. Everyone in the church is likely familiar with the diagrams of multiple spheres including premortal existence, life on earth, the spirit world, and three degrees of glory. While these diagrams are saved for later lessons (D&C § 76), this week’s lessons give a broad outline as follows:
Heavenly Father prepared the perfect plan for our exaltation. Doctrine and Covenants 29 teaches many truths about God’s plan for His children. As you read, look for truths you learn about each of the following parts of the plan: • Premortal life (see verses 36–37) • Creation (see verses 31–33) • The Fall of Adam and Eve (see verses 40–41) • Mortal life (see verses 39, 42–45) • The Atonement of Jesus Christ (see verses 1, 42–43, 46–50) • The Resurrection (see verses 13, 26) • The Final Judgment (see verses 12–13, 27–30) Come, Follow Me — Individuals and Families Manual, 28 March 2021
Notice how these topics mirror doctrines emphasized by Christian fundamentalists as foundational to the faith, particularly a literal Adam and Eve, a substitutionary atonement, a literal bodily resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement at the literal second coming of Christ. As strange as it may seem to those raised within Mormonism, these literal interpretations are not the universally accepted positions in Christianity, though they are hallmarks of American Protestant Evangelicalism.
Mormons have long taught that Adam and Eve were real people who lived in a literal Garden of Eden, even going so far as to identify its geographical location. Both the lesson for Individuals and Families and the lesson for the youth refer repeatedly to the Preach My Gospel manual used my LDS missionaries in their proselytizing efforts. The section on Agency and The Fall of Adam and Eve very clearly demonstrates the literalist approach the LDS church takes to scripture with the following messages:
Agency and The Fall of Adam and Eve Adam and Eve were the first of God’s children to come to the earth. God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, with bodies of flesh and bones. While Adam and Eve were in the garden, they were still in God’s presence and could have lived forever. They lived in innocence, and God provided for their needs. Satan tempted Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and they chose to do so. This was part of God’s plan. Because of this choice, they were cast from the garden and out of God’s physical presence. This event is called the Fall. Separation from God’s presence is spiritual death. Adam and Eve became mortal—subject to physical death, or separation of the body and spirit. They could now experience disease and all types of suffering. They had moral agency or the ability to choose between good and evil. This made it possible for them to learn and progress. It also made it possible for them to make wrong choices and to sin. In addition, they could now have children, so the rest of God’s spirit children could come to earth, obtain physical bodies, and be tested. Only in this way could God’s children progress and become like Him. Preach My Gospel, Lesson 2 Emphasis my own.
Likewise, Mormons subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Christian eschatology, with the tribulations described in Revelation as alluding to literal events for which the Latter-day Saints must prepare. These tribulations will precede the literal return of Jesus Christ to the earth that will usher in a literal 1000-year reign of peace and immortality upon the earth. Following which a final conflict with the forces of evil will result in a final judgement that rewards individuals according to their faithfulness to the gospel (i.e. Mormonism). These are all outlined in these lessons and in D&C § 29.
An interesting feature of D&C § 29 is how it describes the plight of the wicked at the Second Coming of Christ, and how this reflects Joseph’s particular thinking in 1830:
27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father; 28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 29 And now, behold, I say unto you, never at any time have I declared from mine own mouth that they should return, for where I am they cannot come, for they have no power. 44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not; Doctrine and Covenants § 29:27–29, 44
These verses describe the more classical depiction of an eternal hell from whence there is no return as the end-fate of the wicked who reject Christ. This depiction echoes similar characterizations in the Book of Mormon, but notably differ from the theology that Smith would later develop in Kirtland of multi-tiered kingdoms of glory, which is now standard in modern LDS theology. Inasmuch as D&C § 29 is purportedly a revelation introduced as “the voice of Jesus Christ,” it seems puzzling that the Savior himself would convey a depiction of hell that is at odds with later Mormon theology. Modern Mormons might contend that this is a description of Spirit Prison, but these verses explicitly state that this is an everlasting condition from whence there is no return (v. 29). Alternatively, it could be argued that this corresponds to what would later be described as the fate of Sons of Perdition, but such a fate in modern Mormon theology is reserved only for those who openly deny the Christ; these verses seem to refer to those who are merely unbelieving and repent not, which would later be used to describe those who receive telestial glory.
The Gathering of Israel
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. Tenth Article of Faith
Another feature of the lessons that highlights Mormon tendencies toward literal interpretation of scripture and belief in premillennialist eschatology is the emphasis on the gathering of Israel before the Second Coming. It should be noted that the Mormon understanding of this concept is dramatically different from more widely accepted views. Within Mormonism, this concept corresponds with the belief that Latter-day Saints are literal descendants of scattered Israel, or that they become Israelites through adoption at baptism. Mormon leaders have even gone so far as to teach that converts’ blood is transmuted into Israelite blood in what might be considered a strange blend of alchemy and transubstantiation.
From nearly the very beginning, Latter-day Saints believed in the principle of gathering together in “Zion” as a place of shelter from the tribulations preceding the imminent eschaton. A phenomenal read on this subject is Christopher Blythe’s Terrible Revolution, which demonstrates powerfully how central this idea was in the Mormon psyche throughout the 19th century and beyond. This article provides good context as well. The Latter-day Saint movement was immersed in apocalypticism, who would have thought? Prominent in the principle of gathering is the idea of separation from the outside world (i.e. Babylon) in order to escape its destruction. While the modern LDS church has reinterpreted its concept of the Gathering of Israel to not emphasize the physical gathering of the saints into one geographical location in preparation for the eschaton, separatist themes can still be detected in the language of the current lesson materials.
Individuals and Families Manual In our day, gathering to Zion means uniting in stakes of Zion around the world. How does gathering as Saints help us “be prepared in all things” for the tribulations that will come before the Savior’s Second Coming? (verse 8; see also verses 14–28). Sunday School Manual Some of the latter-day events described in Doctrine and Covenants 29:14–21 may be distressing to class members. Let them share how they feel. Why does the Lord warn us about these events? What reassuring truths do we learn about the Savior and the gathering from verses 1–8? How does gathering help us look forward to these events with faith instead of fear? As part of your discussion, you could sing a hymn about gathering, such as “Israel, Israel, God Is Calling” (Hymns, no. 7), and discuss what the hymn teaches about the gathering of Israel. Primary Manual The tenth article of faith talks about the gathering of Israel. Do any of the children have this article of faith memorized? If they do, invite them to recite it for the class. If not, help them set a goal to memorize it. Come, Follow Me — 28 March 2021
It is interesting to me that the lesson manuals reference Hymn #7, Israel, Israel, God is Calling. LDS Hymns are replete with separatist apocalyptic themes, and this hymn is a shining example:
Israel, Israel, God is calling, Calling thee from lands of woe. Babylon the great is falling; God shall all her tow’rs o’erthrow. Come to Zion, come to Zion Ere his floods of anger flow. Israel, Israel, God is speaking. Hear your great Deliv’rer’s voice! Now a glorious morn is breaking For the people of his choice. Come to Zion, come to Zion, And within her walls rejoice. Israel, angels are descending From celestial worlds on high, And to man their pow’r extending, That the Saints may homeward fly. Come to Zion, come to Zion, For your coming Lord is nigh. Israel! Israel! Canst thou linger Still in error’s gloomy ways? Mark how judgment’s pointing finger Justifies no vain delays. Come to Zion, come to Zion! Zion’s walls shall ring with praise. Israel, Israel, God is Calling (Hymn #7) Emphasis my own.
Notice the themes of separating from the outside world to relocate in Zion—a place of refuge from the imminent outpouring of God’s wrath upon Babylon. Importantly, the Gathering of Israel, the establishment of a literal New Jerusalem, the literal return of the resurrected Jesus Christ, and the literal destruction of the wicked, are all themes in Mormon doctrine alluded to in the lesson materials. This literal interpretation of scripture—especially the Revelation of John—all speak to the Christian fundamentalism found within the Mormon faith.
Substitutionary Atonement
Finally, the last teaching heavily emphasized in the lesson manuals this week is the necessity of Christ’s substitutionary atonement. Specifically, Mormons teach a theory of atonement termed “penal substitution,” which argues that Christ was punished in place of sinners so that the demands of justice could be met and God could forgive sin. Penal substitution is highly characteristic of fundamentalist Christianity, so much so that many modern Evangelical churches include it as an article of faith. However, the implications of this penal substitution model of atonement are different for Trinitarian Christians than for nontrinitarian Mormons because in the trinitarian model it is God himself that takes the punishment for sinners in order enable their forgiveness. In the Mormon model, God requires another—Jesus—to be punished for all humanity, rather than enduring the punishment himself. This makes the Mormon version of God more merciless and cruel. In either model, Trinitarian or Mormon, God’s power to forgive appears to be limited by the need for someone to be punished, which suggests that God is not all-powerful after all. Many have asked, if God makes the rules, why can’t God just choose to forgive whomever God wants? In Mormonism, God doesn’t make the rules, but is subject to them.
Another facet of the substitutionary atonement model that Mormonism shares in common with Christian fundamentalism is the doctrine of humankind’s innate depravity resulting from the Fall of Adam. The thesis here is that because the “natural man” is prone to selfish desires, all people sin and are deserving of divine punishment. Important to this doctrine is the idea that individuals are helpless to overcome the effects of sin themselves, and are thus dependent upon Christ’s substitutionary atonement on their behalf. That is, no matter what any individual might do, they are incapable of redeeming themselves from their mistakes, and so Christ was required to suffer for their sins that they might access forgiveness through His grace.
The message that Christ’s substitutionary atonement is required by the depravity of humanity resulting from “The Fall” is conveyed in each of the lesson manuals—most especially the lesson for the youth—which is entitled: Why Do I Need the Atonement of Jesus Christ?
Young Men and Young Women President Ezra Taft Benson taught: “Just as a man does not really desire food until he is hungry, so he does not desire the salvation of Christ until he knows why he needs Christ. No one adequately and properly knows why he needs Christ until he understands and accepts the doctrine of the Fall and its effect on all mankind.” As you studied Doctrine and Covenants 29 this week, you may have noticed the Savior’s description of the Fall and how we are redeemed from it. To introduce today’s discussion, you could invite those you teach to list on the board anything they know about the Fall of Adam and Eve. For instance, what do they learn about the Fall from D&C 29:36–50? What evidence of the Fall do we see around us? Come, Follow Me — Youth Lesson Materials, 28 March 2021
The youth lesson also includes this video highlighting how the world is depraved and broken and that there can be no happiness or redemption without Christ:
These messages about humanity’s depravity and helplessness to do good without the atonement of Christ come with a great deal of shame for one’s own mistakes. This is compounded with the teaching that Christ literally suffered for each person’s sins and that your actions caused his suffering. Furthermore, members are taught that in order to benefit from Christ’s atoning sacrifice on their behalf, they must become worthy and maintain that worthiness, else His suffering on their behalf was for naught. Every time one makes a mistake and fails to live up to these standards of worthiness, the messaging of human depravity and penal substitution amplify feelings of shame and worthlessness. This can lead to a cycle of self-flagellation and loathing that is incredibly damaging to one’s mental and spiritual well being.
Another fantastic lesson analysis! Thank you!
Nailed it again in week 2!
Ha! You’ve caught it still in draft form! I’m still working on it as I type this. In true Mormon fashion, I always procrastinate preparing on my “Sunday School lessons” until Saturday night.
Week 3 is great!
I can absolutely relate to the TikTok video in week 4. It lead to anxiety and depression that was relieved when I had my faith crisis.