Inside the Latter-day Saint faith there is little room for critical thinking, individualism, or external validation. From a young age you are taught to follow the Prophet, obey your parents, study the scriptures, to learn line upon line, and to trust in God’s plan that you signed up for before you came to earth. There is no need for you to philosophize or dive deep into the unknowns as you are given your knowledge by God through a living prophet that tells you he will do the hard work for you instead. All you have to do is to just follow him, believe in him, and have faith that he is the only one with the authority to do so. In this paper I will show how authority within the LDS Church keeps its members from developing into philosophers and theologians by teaching them that theology and critical thinking will make believers more worldly and distant from the divine guidance of their religious leaders for spiritual direction.
Authority Keeps Theology on the Outside Theology is described in many different ways by many different authors. David Ford defines it as, “at its broadest as thinking about questions raised by and about the religions”
(Ford,3) Louis Midgley describes it as, “to seek understanding of God’s reality, to describe divine things rationally, and to elaborate the present meaning of past manifestations of God, whether theoretically, practically, descriptively, or critically.”
(Midgley,1475) James Faulconer on the other hand takes a different approach and calls theology prophetic revelation in his paper titled “Rethinking Theology” as he describes it as, “the continuously revealed word of God.”
(Faulconer, 175-199) Latter-day Saints believe that their current Prophet continues to receive revelation from God and that this was restored to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1829. Each prophet since Smith has been able to receive revelation from God which has been passed down to their current Prophet today. Since continuing revelation is a key part of the LDS religion, dogmatic theology really has no place inside the tradition as it can always be replaced by new revelation. Faulconer warns Latter-day Saints that, “theologizing by those who are not prophets may put the kingdom at a distance by making talk about the gospel merely talk about our own learning.”
(Faulconer, 175-199) This opinion of Faulconer is not a new one inside the Latter-day Saint faith, it is actually one expressed often by those in authority. Keeping members disciplined and blindly following the words of their prophets and leaders, members gather to listen to their prophet and other leaders of the church twice yearly as they deliver sermons over a two day period. This event is televised all over the world to reach as many members as possible. The Prophet, and the other 14 highest ranking officers in the church also identified as prophets, will captivate the audience and each member will listen intently to each of the words that they think are written just for them. They hope revelation will come and that divine words will be spoken that they can hold onto for another six months until the next conference. They are fully aware that their current prophet can reveal new things, even if it means contradicting a prophet from the past.
Current Latter-day prophets have not made any major revelations like the Prophet Joseph Smith did in his day. We can easily count the number of official revelations that have been added to the open canon of the LDS Church since then. Gordon B. Hickley, a Latter-day Saint prophet, gave the following quote in an interview in 1997. “Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer.”
(Hinckley) Since not a lot of new revelation has been revealed, each statement made by prophets old and new have been dissected over the years by church members. With an impressive collection of conference talks on many different topics given by many different prophets past and present, members can study their words and can easily go down rabbit holes that lead to misinformation as canon has changed over the years with no set doctrine or theology in place. In an effort to keep things current and members on the right track, the current prophet has what Robert Millet calls “prophetic prerogative”
(Millet, 2009) in his paper titled “Defining Doctrine”. Millet describes this as the ability to edit sermons of the past, giving prophets divine editorship to weed out the doctrine that is no longer taught, and giving sticking power to doctrine that has, “endured the test of time, that continued to be taught by Church leaders in later generations, would generally bear the mark of truth.”
(Millet, 2009) Some examples of this would include the Adam-God doctrine that was taught during Brigham Young's time and had to be edited out of the conversation as it was false and led to many problems as members believed it long past the time it was talked about. Nathan Oman mentions Bishop Bunker of Bunkerville Nevada in his paper titled “Truth, Doctrine, and Authority”.
(Oman, 2009) This bishop was excommunicated in the 1880s for teaching the doctrine of the Adam-God theory to his congregation after the rest of the Church stopped teaching it. Because of open canon, revelation was received around 30 years later by the First Presidency and they issued a Doctrinal Exposition titled “The Father and the Son”
(Improvement Era, 934-942) which replaced the Adam-God theory altogether with this new official revealed doctrine. Since revelation replaced the outdated Adam-God theory, even if it once was doctrine, it now no longer had a place in that same realm.
Another example of doctrine that has been rewritten is the idea that people with black skin were less worthy, fence sitters in heaven, and not part of the “chosen lineage”. This was another idea that caught on during the early days of the Church and was very hard to write out of the narrative. The topic of Black people not being part of the LDS faith for a long time is a part of history most leaders would rather forget than remember. Joseph Smith let Elijah Abel, a young Black convert, join the early church in 1830, as well as Jane Manning James who joined in Illinois some years later. These two Black Latter-day Saints were not the only ones who joined the growing church as Joseph Smith and others welcomed them with open arms. Elijah Abel was given the priesthood by Joseph Smith as he himself did not see a problem with Black people having that authority. Years after the death of Joseph Smith, Latter-day Saints began to theorize about the hierarchy of lineages. With the belief that God had restored his one true Church back on the earth again through Joseph Smith also came the belief that they, Latter-day Saints, were from the chosen line that would be gathered with the gathering of Israel in the last days. Joseph Smith had taught them about life before they came to earth, a premortal life, where they were righteous, noble, and followed God’s plan for them. “To the Prophet Joseph Smith it was revealed that we are all literal spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents. He received a revelation of information once made known to Moses. Intelligences were organized before the world was, and among these were many great and noble ones, such as Abraham and Moses. God stood in their midst, saw that they were good, and chose them for responsibilities on earth and throughout eternity.”
(Brown, 1124) With this knowledge they started to see themselves, and the color of their skin, more righteous, and part of this royal blood line that God talked about in the premortal life. Brigham Young officially instituted a policy restricting Black men from holding the priesthood as opinions differed on chosen lineage and who was eligible and worthy. With this new ban in place came a lot of speculations over the years as to why Black men could not hold the priesthood. Many church leaders would share their words and opinions over the pulpit and members would take these words as doctrine and a lot of misinformation was spread this way. All of what was said by past prophets and leaders has now been rewritten to make the past history seem more like personal opinion and not prophetic infallibility. In 1978 a new revelation was given to Spencer W. Kimball, the Prophet at that time, that lifted the ban preventing Black men from holding the priesthood inside the Latter-day Saints faith.
Joseph Smith himself declared that, “a Prophet is not always a Prophet, only when he is acting as such.”
(Smith) This declaration from the original founder of the Church shows that even back then there was confusion of what was supposed to be revelation and what was opinion. Since Smith has uttered those words, other church leaders have made similar statements regarding prophetic infallibility. D. Todd Christofferson declared that, “Not every statement made by a church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church.”
(Christofferson, 86-90) Since the LDS Church does not have an official canon, and continuing revelation can change the wording on the canon that is currently in place, Armand Mauss, a renowned sociologist of religion who studied the LDS faith in depth, presented a “Scale of Authenticity” by which we can gauge what can be seen as official doctrine at any given time. Brian Birch explains this scale in detail in his paper titled “Beyond the Canon: Authoritative Discourse in Comparative Perspective.”
(Birch)Mauss’ Scale of Authenticity Canon doctrine is what is currently being taught as revelation within the Church and as such is the most important doctrine. The scriptures, this includes the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctrine of Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, are also considered part of the most important doctrine taught within the Latter-day Saints tradition. Official doctrine would include statements from the Prophet, the First Presidency, official Church publications, and curriculum currently being taught within the Church. Since the Church has open canon the next prophet can change any of the official doctrine at will when he comes to power making this level of doctrine hold less authority on the scale. Finally there are two more categories which include authoritative doctrine and popular doctrine. Authoritative doctrine is all the literature and talks given by Church authorities and educators over the years. In 1983, a disclaimer had to be added to all books published by the Church stating that, “the views expressed in this book do not represent the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
(1983 Letter) With so many books published by so many different Church leaders putting their own opinion into their work, the Church could no longer control what was being put out there for members to read. In the past prophets had to rewrite and edit doctrine that was no longer taught inside the faith with new revelation, or it had to be written out of the narrative all together. Now with this disclaimer, the Church could just say this was the personal opinion of the author and not official Church doctrine and there would be a lot less rewriting and editing later on when doctrine would change. Popular Doctrine includes all the literature containing folk theology and doctrine that circulated among the membership that was never officially adopted by the Church. This would include the racist theological beliefs that Black individuals were from the cursed line of Cain, the Adam-God theory, the three Nephites from the Book of Mormon that still wander the earth today, the opinion that God will restore the Adamic language before the second coming, the King Follett Discourse, and more. With almost 200 years of revelation and doctrinal changes that is a lot to keep track of to know which particular policy or doctrine is accurate and currently being used and which one is outdated or has been replaced. The changes alone from Joseph Smith's time to today when it comes to the Word of Wisdom, Polygamy, and the Temple ceremony are significant to name just a few. There are many other changes that are less noticeable that I want to point out just to show you how they fly under the radar. Many Church leaders gave talks on the topic of divorce such as David O. McKay, Spencer W. Kimball, and John A. Widtsoe. Their words were given during General Conference and while they were speaking as Prophets and Apostles. Back in the 60s and 70s their words on divorce were harsh and not very eloquent. For example David O. McKay wrote, “When one puts business or pleasure above his home, he that moment starts on the downgrade to soul-weakness. When the club becomes more attractive to any man than his home, it is time for him to confess in bitter shame that he has failed to measure up to the supreme opportunity of his life and flunked the final test of true manhood. No other success can compensate for failure in the home.”
(McKay, 5) If you were to look up the official Church stance on divorce today all of these past Prophets and Apostles words are replaced by much more neutral wording, talks given by more recent prophets, and scripture references. Another example of this is when we look up homosexuality. J. Reuben Clark, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Boyd K. Packer, and N. Eldon Tanner, to name a few, wrote very strong words about homosexuality in the 60s and 70s. Church leaders perceived homosexuals as depressed, unhappy, sinful, and in need of repentance.
(Brough,157) In 2006 the official position of the Church changed and the word homosexuality was removed and substituted by same-gender attraction. “The Church does not have a position on the causes of … susceptibility or inclinations … related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions - whether nature or nurture - those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.”
(Bergera, 418) The previous statements written by the Prophets and Apostles in the 60s and 70s are no longer up on the Church website, they have been edited out of the narrative.
Follow the Prophet In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson, gave a talk to the membership of the church titled, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.”
(Benson, 1980) He would become the next Prophet five years later. Over the years the focus on listening to authority would increase even more. The very first point he mentions is that the Prophet is the only man that can speak for God in everything. He is making sure that all members stay aware of this fact as this is a very important matter within the Church as the Prophet is the man that can change doctrine and has as we have seen. The second point is that the Prophet is more vital than the scriptures. A living prophet today can rewrite and edit what was written all those years ago if God comes to him and gives him a revelation to change it. Number three on his list was that a living prophet was more important than a dead prophet. Again here the Prophet today can rewrite history if God wants him to and as we have seen by some of my examples above, a lot of prophets seem to do so in a sense. His fourth point quickly after that tells us that the Prophet can never lead his people astray. His fifth point is that a prophet is not required to have any sort of earthly training to be a prophet as God will be his mentor. He warns that there will be those out there who may feel that they may be more qualified on certain topics than the current prophet and this may be why members are not encouraged to become philosophers and theologians because they would be able to understand more than the current prophet when it comes to religion or philosophy. Number six on the list is that the Prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” for his words to become scripture. He goes on to say that some people may argue with the Prophet if they don’t agree with some of the things he is asking the members to do. This leads into number seven which is that the Prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. He quotes Harold B. Lee here, another former prophet, “You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life… Your safety and ours depends on whether or not we follow… Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” A man with authority telling its members that if they don’t listen and follow everything their prophet tells them they could be in danger and put their fellow neighbors, members, and family members in danger as well is a great tactic to keep members in line and keep them from thinking for themselves. Number eight on his list is that the Prophet is not limited by man’s reasoning. Here again you are told to put your entire trust in God and the Prophet even if you might not understand why at times. Number nine and ten go together as nine is that the Prophet can receive revelation on temporal and spiritual matters and ten is that the Prophet may give advice on civic matters. I think this is an interesting idea as I personally believe in separation of Church and State and don’t believe that those two should ever mix. The Church has a lot of power and I have seen LDS authority use that power to make sure the Equal Rights Amendment was not passed in Utah in 1975. They again used that authority within the Church to rile up members to vote against proposition 8 in California in 2008 as they did not want same-sex marriage to become legal there. Number 11 on the list reads that the two groups who have the most difficulty following the Prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. Again this is a reference to if you think you know more than the Prophet you are not in harmony with the teachings of the gospel. Number twelve reads that the Prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or be worldly. Number thirteen just states that the Prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency, the highest quorum in the Church. And finally number fourteen states that if you follow the Prophet and the First Presidency you will be blessed and if you reject them you will suffer. After hearing all that, who would not want to obey and follow the Prophet's words because you are told the alternative means suffering.
Theology Can Be Beneficial “Active Mormons are surrounded by church teachings and ideals at every turn: the time commitments required of a faithful Saint make the religious social sphere the primary sphere in his or her life, creating an arguably insular LDS culture wherein children and converts are gradually and completely oriented to social norms and regulations. At church meetings, LDS doctrine is continually taught and reinforced beginning at 18 months of age (through simplified “nursery” lessons) and continuing through adulthood, using Church-published manuals to organize lessons around pre-approved doctrine or themes. Moreover, through ubiquitous use of media such as Church-sanctioned magazines, books, pamphlets, and videos, the Church gains a pervasive presence in the lives of active members, constantly reaffirming the doctrine and standard of the Church in all areas of life.”
(Avance, 12) Since philosophy, theology, and critical thinking are not part of the curriculum within the Latter-day Saint church, it always amazes me when I meet new people who discover Plato and Aristotle for the first time and are in awe. Philosophy is all about being curious about the world and asking the right questions and then trying to answer them. The most complex philosophical questions never seem to change over the years as we never seem to be able to answer them. Theology is the same in a sense where we are trying to understand God, human beings, and how it all fits together. The fact that Latter-day Saints “don’t do” theology is something they should look into as there are many conflicting issues within the faith that could benefit from some critical studies involving more than revelation. Stephen Davis wrote a paper titled “Philosophical Theology for Mormons: Some Suggestions from an Outsider.” One of the points he brings up is logical consistency. He points out that not all the doctrine within the Church is consistent with each other. There are conflicting principles and statements here and there which can make sense when you can change your doctrine at will and you have been doing this for almost 200 years. Davis points out that the Church has two ways in which it changes doctrine, officially and unofficially. When revelation is received, it can officially make a change and the new doctrine takes over for the old doctrine. Unofficially, when Church leaders decide to stop teaching something that is believed by most members, they don’t make an announcement, they just stop. I pointed this out above with my examples on divorce and homosexuality. There were never any announcements made that the views of the Church changed on those topics, you would only know this if you were to search for it. Another part of this that Davis points out is that church leaders should distinguish between normative doctrine and traditional, but not permitted doctrine. As I pointed out earlier again, Mauss has a scale for this which we can look at which would put the traditional doctrine all the way at the bottom with the folk beliefs and hopefully members will know the difference between the doctrine currently taught and doctrine that is just talk.
Davis gives us three reasons why he thinks Latter-day Saints don’t like theology. The first is that they don’t want to concern themselves with academic problems and would rather deal with down-to-earth problems. Number two is that the scriptures are more important than dealing with theology. Third, revelation and open canon, would make theology useless as it would just override anything theology could come up with. Latter-day Saints have always been taught to study from the best books and get an education, so I don’t understand why academic problems would be a concern. In my personal opinion I believe Church leaders don’t want their members to think critically, develop theories of their own and study the deep questions that philosophers have been studying for years. But this is exactly what they should be studying because this kind of thinking would, “help Latter-day Saints understand their own religion, help settle internal disputes as to what church doctrine is and what is not, and enter into informed dialogue with non-Mormons and assist Mormon scholars whenever necessary to defend Mormonism from criticism”
(Davis, 2007) according to Davis.
James Faulconer points out in his paper titled “Performative Theology: Not Such a New Thing” that studying the scriptures inside the Latter-day Saints church, understanding the history behind them, and reflecting on them in a scholarly way, can be a form of theology.
(Faulconer, 1-24) Many members read the same scriptures multiple times in their lifetime hoping to gain new insight each time they read the same passages. Benjamin Huff compares Latter-day Saint learning to Theology in a one-room schoolhouse.
(Huff, 2004) Every member continues to learn throughout their life, line upon line, precept upon precept with the goal that in the end they are all unified in one faith. Each Sunday, members gather together to study the scriptures and discuss doctrine with other members who may not have their same level of knowledge. Huff calls the scriptures messy and polyphonic (layered) in his paper, and advocates for studying the scriptures together with those of all levels of knowledge to gain a better understanding than you would studying alone. This could be considered a form of philosophizing with others as you dive deeper into the meaning behind what you are reading and thus bring the scriptures into theology.
When it comes to Davis’ third point about the LDS Church having revelation and open canon and thus not being able to have theology, he addresses that by stating that this should not be a barrier but that it should just be treated how doctrine is being treated inside the LDS Church today. When things change, the current theological statements can be indexed with the old doctrine or they can be revised alongside with the changes that were made.
Theologians and Critical Thinkers Need Not Apply Latter-day Saint members should be able to weigh their prophet's words and personally filter out the components they believe they want to follow in their lives. They should be able to use their own critical thinking to study their scriptures, doctrine, and other components of their religion. They should be able to raise intellectual questions about their faith and their leaders without fear of discipline. A culture wherein philosophy and intellectually stimulating conversations can be had would be beneficial as discipline, group thinking, and blind obedience only keeps members from reaching their true potential in life. Past theologians such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, and many theologians today are worth studying as they can enlighten us in so many ways.
Sources:
Avance, R. (2010). Worthy “Gods” and “Goddesses.” Journal of Religion & Society, 12.
Benson, Ezra T. (1980) Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. Brigham Young University address
Bergera, G. J. (2007). Statements of the LDS first presidency: A topical compendium. Signature Books. Page 418 sexual relations
Birch, Brian D. Beyond the Canon: Authoritative Discourse in Comparative Perspective (could not locate anymore information online for citation)
Brough, R. Clayton (1980) His Servants Speak: Statements by Latter-day Saint Leaders on Contemporary Topics, chapter 32 homosexuality, page 157
Brown, Gayle O. (1992) Premortal Life. Encyclopedia of Mormonism V.3 Macmillan, page 1124.
Christofferson, D. Todd. (2012) “The Doctrine of Christ,” Ensign, May, 2012, 86-90.
“Compass Interview with Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley,” Compass, November 9, 1997, transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs.hinckley.htm.
Faulconer, J. E. (2020). Performative theology: Not such a new thing. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 53(3), 1–24.
Faulconer, J. E. (2007). Rethinking theology: The shadow of the apocalypse. The FARMS Review, 19 (2007)(1), 175–199.
Ford, David (2003) Theology: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3.
Huff, Benjamin. (2004) Theology in the One-Room Schoolhouse. Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology Conference 2004.
Joseph Smith Collection, Box 1, Folder 5 Church History Library
Letter to General Authorities, March 22, 1983, LDS Church History Library.
McKay, David, O. (1964) President of the Church, CR, April, 1964, pp 5
Midgley, Louis. C. (1992) Theology. Encyclopedia of Mormonism V.4 Macmillan, page 1475.
Millet, Robert L. (2009) Defining Doctrine: A Response to Loyd Ericson. Element Vol. 5 Issue 1 (Spring, 2009)
Oman, Nathan B. (2009) Truth, Doctrine, and Authority. Element Vol. 5 Issue 1 (Spring, 2009)
Stephen, T. Davis, (2007) Philosophical Theology for Mormons: Some Suggestions from an outsider. Element Vol 3. Issues 1 & 2 (Spring & Fall 2007)
The Father and the Son. (1916) Improvement Era, 934-42
[Paper written for PHIL 490R class UVU Summer 2024]
aB . 2024 . All Rights Reserved
