Over the past year and a half I have spent time researching among the historical sources about the visit of Moroni to the young Joseph Smith. The opportunity for close research enabled several experiences that culminated this week in connection with the 200th anniversary of Moroni’s first visit:
- An article in the Liahona magazine about the visit and its impact,
- A shorter summary with a focus on Lucy Mack Smith’s reaction for the book Revelations in Context,
- An interview with Church Historian and Recorder Elder Kyle S. McKay for the Church News Podcast,
- A newspaper summary of the interview in the Deseret News.
- All of the above was part of a campaign that included social media posts by President Russell M. Nelson and Elder Gary E. Stevenson.
Originally published in From the Desk, by Jerry Winder, February 8, 2023
Making Sense of Patriarchal Blessings
A patriarchal blessing is not meant to be the only communication you ever receive from God. Rather, it is an invitation to ask God for more light and understanding.
Patriarchal blessings have been given in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the time of Joseph Smith. In addition to declaring a person’s lineage, the blessings can also serve as a source of guidance and comfort. In this interview, historian Keith Erekson shares patriarchal blessing examples from history and offers perspectives on how to understand them.
Read the book by Latter-day Saint historian Keith Erekson, Making Sense of Your Patriarchal Blessing.
What is a patriarchal blessing?
A patriarchal blessing is a priesthood ordinance that is not required for salvation, but which can provide an extremely helpful gift of personalized direction, guidance, comfort, and protection. The words of the blessing are recorded by a scribe and archived by the Church.
The term patriarchal blessing is commonly used to refer to both the ordinance and the resulting text.
How is it different from receiving personal revelation?
Personal revelation is communication from God to a specific individual. The ordinance that bestows the blessing provides one form of personal revelation by generating a written text. Subsequently, the acts of reading, remembering, and pondering the promises in the text can serve as a catalyst for additional personal revelation through the Holy Spirit.
The exact wording is less important than the ideas and concepts.
How is a patriarchal blessing like a doorway?
A patriarchal blessing is not meant to be the only communication you ever receive from God. The text itself is not intended to answer every question you will ever have. Rather, it is an invitation to ask God for more light and understanding.
The promises in a blessing point us to more revelation, discovered in scripture and through the communication of the Holy Spirit.
If you assume that your patriarchal blessing is the end of the conversation, then you may incorrectly expect it to provide answers to every problem you encounter. However, if you treat your blessing as the beginning of a lifelong conversation, as the doorway to further enlightenment, you will turn to it for guidance and direction that extends beyond the specific words on the page.
How can ambiguity in our patriarchal blessings be a good thing?
Blessings are divine expressions from a Heavenly Father whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts and who communicates through symbolism and promises with multiple fulfillments.
If we attempt to fix the meaning of the blessing narrowly onto a specific detail in our own understanding, then we close our minds and hearts to so much more that God can reveal to us.
Acknowledging ambiguity is an act of humility that prepares us to learn more.
What can we learn from Makenna Myler’s blessing?
Makenna Myler grew up as a Latter-day Saint with aspirations to run in the Olympics and influence others by her good example. Because running formed such a significant part of her life—thousands of hours and miles of training—she assumed her patriarchal blessing would mention it.
She knew other Latter-day Saint runners whose blessings did mention running, so she looked forward to receiving her own guidance about running and being a role model.
But the blessing did not include a word about running.
She kept running, and succeeded in high school and college, but wondered about the omission in her blessing for more than a decade. She married and, while nine months pregnant, she ran a mile in 5:25 and the video went viral!
She did receive the opportunity to run and be an example, but the path did not go through the Olympics.
She expressed her awe in God’s higher thoughts by saying:
He just connects the dots differently than you would.
Makenna Myler
She also discovered how to think differently about her role in making things happen. “I learned that you get to take action into your own hands,” she noted. “He is not going to tell you, and that was a big switch for me.”
How is my patriarchal blessing like the Liahona?
Lehi’s compass was prepared by God in a manner that was both simple and “curious.” Sometimes it showed Lehi and his family which direction to travel. Other times the ball contained additional messages that appeared and changed from time to time.
It worked according to their faith and did not work when their faith and diligence waned.
President Thomas S. Monson invoked this important metaphor, saying, “Your patriarchal blessing is to you a personal Liahona to chart your course and guide your way.”
Like the Liahona, your patriarchal blessing came to you from heaven in a way that is both “curious” and miraculous. Your blessing points you toward God, but it is not a GPS device that identifies every turn or delay. Further, your blessing can provide new understanding as you exercise faith and diligence each day.
What is the benefit of paying attention to the concepts and symbols in our blessings?
We can gain more from our blessings if we understand that they are given in language that is conceptual and symbolic. One patriarch explained that when a patriarch “places his hands on your head to give you a blessing, Heavenly Father, through the promptings of the Holy Ghost, gives the patriarch ideas, concepts, and sometimes even specific words for you. The patriarch then includes those concepts and ideas in your blessing.”
Elder John A. Widtsoe elaborated:
Different men express the same idea in different words. The Lord does not dictate blessings to them word for word.
John A. Widtsoe
Therefore, the exact wording is less important than the ideas.
How did Gordon B. Hinckley receive more than one fulfillment to his patriarchal blessing?
An eleven-year-old Gordon received a patriarchal blessing that promised, “The nations of the earth shall hear thy voice and be brought to a knowledge of the truth by the wonderful testimony which thou shalt bear.”
Like other young men, he assumed this promise referred to future missionary service, so he was not surprised to be called to England. At the end of his missionary service, he traveled home through the European continent and the Eastern United States.
Arriving home in Salt Lake City, he reflected:
I had borne my testimony in London; I did so in Berlin and again in Paris and later in Washington, D.C. I said to myself that I had borne my testimony in these great capitals of the world and had fulfilled that part of my blessing.
Gordon B. Hinckley
Of course, the Lord meant so much more by that promise! His later call to the Quorum of the Twelve, to the First Presidency, and as President of the Church meant that President Hinckley would spend decades traveling the world and bearing his testimony.
How was George A. Faust’s blessing fulfilled?
George A. Faust was told in his patriarchal blessing that he would be blessed with “many beautiful daughters.” He married Amy Finlinson, and they became the parents of five sons—but no daughters.
Many years later at a family reunion, one of their sons, President James E. Faust, observed his father’s granddaughters “ministering to the young children and the elderly, and the realization came to me that Father’s blessing had been literally fulfilled; he has, indeed, many beautiful daughters.”
Blessings are not predestined to occur.
Your patriarchal blessing may contain promises that extend to your children and grandchildren. This idea runs counter to the modern notion that we are radically separate individuals who live in our moment, and everything revolves around us.
In God’s eyes, we are part of a great family that stretches across time and space. Some of the promises in your blessing may be fulfilled by others. By the same measure, some of the promises given to your ancestors may be fulfilled through your experiences.
Are patriarchal blessings conditional?
All of the promises made by the Lord in scripture are conditioned upon our obedience to His teachings and commandments. President James E. Faust applied this principle to blessings:
By their very nature, all blessings are qualified and conditional, regardless of whether the blessing specifically spells out the qualification or not. Each blessing is absolutely qualified and given upon the condition of the faithfulness of the recipient.
James E. Faust
Some of the promises may also depend on the agency and actions of others, such as promises that a person will get married, stay married, or have children.
If you look closely, you will see that your blessing identifies specific conditions that need to be met for your promises to be fulfilled. The conditions may be listed all together at the beginning or end of the blessing, or they may be scattered throughout the text. They may appear as general statements of guidance or direction. They can also appear as formal if-then statements. Some conditions may be actions that every child of God should do; others may be specific to your life and your character.
If you meet the general condition of faithfulness and the specific conditions outlined in your blessing, then the promises will be fulfilled in the Lord’s way.
It’s supposed to make you know what it is God has in store for you.
How does straying from the church affect a patriarchal blessing?
Some examples from sacred history suggest a range of possibilities. Sometimes the blessings are reserved for a person who recommits. After Jesus was crucified and resurrected, Peter and the Apostles returned to their familiar habits of fishing. The Resurrected Lord appeared again to call them back to His ministry, and they appear to have picked up where they left off.
Other times the promises are modified. In the early days of the Restoration, the Saints settled in Independence, Missouri—a place the Lord had designated as Zion and promised to the Saints—in anticipation of the Second Coming.
Then they were driven from their homes “in consequence of their transgressions.” Those particular Saints never did return to their homesteads but were “chastened and tried.” For them, “the work of the gathering” continued later in “holy places,” in Nauvoo and elsewhere. Today different Saints reside in the same area, with a temple nearby. Any other fulfillments for this promise await a future day (Doctrine and Covenants 101:2, 4, 64).
If you have strayed and returned, then the questions of if or how your promises will be fulfilled become personal mysteries for God to reveal to you.
How intentional should we be in trying to fulfill blessings?
The promises and blessings are not predestined to occur. The fulfillment of the promises depends on your faithfulness and righteousness, and maybe even the faithfulness of others. President Dallin H. Oaks counseled:
Do not rely on planning every event of your life—even every important event. Stand ready to accept the Lord’s planning and the agency of others in matters that inevitably affect you.
Dallin H. Oaks
The promises in your blessing are fulfilled “according to the faith and diligence and heed” given (1 Nephi 16:28).
What if I’m disappointed by what my blessing doesn’t say?
Because God wants to reveal more to us, we need not worry about the things we don’t know right now. In fact, not knowing seems to play an important part in the process of our spiritual growth.
When asked about making sacrifice, Adam responded, “I know not, save the Lord commanded me” (Moses 5:6). And omissions are not necessarily significant. Your blessing does not purport to identify every stopping point on your journey.
Finally, if the Restoration of the gospel continues to be ongoing, then so too can our grappling with the meaning of a patriarchal blessing. The unfinished nature of both the blessing’s meaning and the longer-term process of enlightenment form the very marrow of what it means to live a life of faith.
To persist with Christ-centered faith, hope, and charity in the absence of easy resolution or consolation is what each of us is called to do.
What does Henry B. Eyring say about a patriarchal blessing being a comfort?
President Henry B. Eyring explained that “a patriarchal blessing is whatever the Lord wants it to be for you,” adding that we should “not expect it to be comforting” and “it’s not supposed to make you feel sweet.” Rather, “it’s supposed to make you know what it is God has in store for you.”
So, “if it’s a warning, take that. If it’s comfort, take that. If it’s direction, take that.” (“How Can I Get Comfort from My Patriarchal Blessing?” Face to Face with President Eyring and Elder Holland, Palmyra, NY, March 4, 2017.)
What if promises in my patriarchal blessing seem impossible?
In some cases, you may need to seek peace in the face of promises that seem impossibly beyond reach. You may have to hold on to the promises, even as others around you criticize you and encourage you to give up. You may have to accept some uncertainty, knowing it will only be temporary, though the timeline for its resolution remains unclear.
All promises are conditional, though some may appear to require intervention beyond your control, such as international agreements or significant changes in policies and practices.
One of the titles for Jesus Christ that appears in the New Testament refers to His ability to fulfill even the most impossible-seeming promises—He is a “high priest of good things to come” (Hebrews 9:11).
Leading People Towards a Patriarchal Blessing | An Interview with Keith Erekson
by Leading Saints | Dec 10, 2022
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
In this podcast, Kurt and Keith discuss receiving and engaging with patriarchal blessings.
Highlights
2:00 Introduction and new book about understanding patriarchal blessings
6:00 Patriarchal blessings are so unique and a special part of our religion
8:00 The history of patriarchal blessings
11:45 Why a patriarchal blessing? Comparing baby blessings and patriarchal blessings
16:00 Apocryphal things people say about patriarchal blessings
18:15 Can we share our patriarchal blessing?
19:45 Be careful about your expectations of your blessing. Some blessings can be very specific and others very general.
23:00 How can Bishops help youth prepare for a blessing?
26:00 Is patriarch an official title?
27:00 Request your direct ancestors or direct descendants blessings
32:40 Keith’s thoughts on lineage. Sometimes we take the lineage too literally or as if it’s biological. Our lineage is a spiritual and a symbolic connection.
37:30 Mysteries of God are just things that He knows and we don’t know. Oftentimes we make it into more than it is, like something magical and spooky.
38:00 Our patriarchal blessing is an invitation from God to learn more about you and your relationship with Him. Our blessing is like a doorway to learn more. It’s not a destination.
40:40 Real vs rumor. It’s a rumor that Joseph Smith’s bloodline is a literal bloodline to Ephraim.
42:30 Keith’s book would be great for the person that just got their patriarchal blessing
45:00 Oldest and youngest blessings in history
46:00 Keith’s favorite stories of patriarchal blessings
49:50 Things that Keith is working on for church history. Joseph Smith Papers, last volume of Saints, Eliza R. Snow sermons, journals, and more.
52:15 Final thoughts on patriarchal blessings
Links
Incorrect Quotes, Urban Legends, and Magical Thinking at Church | An Interview with Keith Erekson
Making Sense of Your Patriarchal Blessing
Real vs. Rumor: How to Dispel Latter-Day Myths
Read the TRANSCRIPT of this podcast
Listen on YouTube
It’s autumn in an election year, which means it’s rumor time. During the next few weeks, the chances increase dramatically for hearing a member of your family tell a story that goes something like this: Latter-day Saints all belonged to one political party until Brigham Young went around and split congregations down the middle aisle, with those on the left assigned to be Democrats and those on the right as Republicans. Or, maybe a member of your church congregation will tell you about a time when neighborhoods across Utah were divided into two parties, home by home.
From Wallace Bennett to more contemporary politicians, sundry versions of this story have served as both punchlines and benign tales to make sense of how the West became more Republican. But, upon investigation, these stories aren’t just surprisingly hard to verify, they act to obscure the richer and more complicated political history of transition that not only involved religion but larger national partisan forces and personal conscience.
The fact that so many of these tales of arbitrary divisions persist today speaks to an ongoing quest for political meaning in a world increasingly defined by tribalism and party polarization.
The first step to tracing the origin of any story is to look for details that can be linked to specific sources. But many of these stories are frustratingly vague. Which church leader divided a congregation into opposing political ideologies? Where? When?Report ad
A dive into the histories of Utah politics reveals few details about any specific event. Only in digging around in the fringes of folklore did I encounter two relevant rumors: One man in Beaver, Utah, allegedly left an affidavit testifying to such a division, but when critic Josiah Gibbs tracked it down more than a decade later, the document turned out to be somewhat mundane. So Gibbs simply filled in the gap by inventing a congregational division sermon that “would doubtless have continued as follows.”
A second potential source, Joseph Nelson, former head of the Saltair Corporation, was supposedly present when his ward was divided, but the closest we can get to this account is thirdhand knowledge.
Though the details about congregations or neighborhoods being arbitrarily split along partisan lines are hard to pin down, the rumors strongly indicate — something was going on in Utah politics in the early 1890s.
“Utah’s local political parties knew they needed to blend into the national party system if they ever hoped for favors, protection, and statehood.”
Latter-day Saint congregations in the 1800s grew against a backdrop of changing political parties. The church emerged after the nation’s first party system had witnessed the triumph of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party over the Federalists, and early Latter-day Saint votes in the 1830s and 1840s sometimes swung between Democrats and Whigs, with a general tendency toward the Democrats.
The Whig Party soon disintegrated and a new party — Republicans — became the primary opposition to the Democrats. But because Republicans expressly targeted polygamy for eradication and worked 30 years toward that end, the Saints were left with little practical choice in voting if they wanted to maintain their way of life. So they became even more closely aligned with Democrats until most of the Democrats seceded from the nation during the Civil War. In the resulting vacuum, Republicans dominated national politics and the Saints attempted to remain aloof.
When a growing population of non-Latter-day Saint voters in Utah organized the Liberal Party in the territory in 1870, the Saints responded by organizing the People’s Party to protect their local interests. The People’s Party dominated most Utah elections over the next two decades with the vigorous support of the Deseret News. When the end of Reconstruction gave faint new life to Democrats in 1876, both of Utah’s local political parties knew they needed to blend into the national party system if they ever hoped for favors, protection and statehood.Report ad
But how?
The first attempt played out at the grassroots level. Utah’s Democratic Party was organized in 1890 and a local Republican Party followed the next year. In May of 1891, leaders of the People’s Party conferred with the First Presidency, who shared the desire for statehood and encouraged them to dissolve the local party — urging their members to join the national parties. But most Latter-day Saints still remembered the Republican Party’s more than 30-year legislative onslaught against polygamy and the church, so they quickly filed into the Democratic Party.
That year Democrats won two-thirds of the seats and Republicans won none. Even a newly called member of the Quorum of the Twelve — Anthon H. Lund — ran unsuccessfully as a Republican in Sanpete County. The Southern-based Democrats remained markedly weaker on the national landscape and any hope for statehood would require Republican assistance. Republicans had admitted four new states in the West in 1889, and they ratcheted up their aspirations for economic development and imperial expansion.
Leaders of the new statewide political parties as well as church leaders of the time hoped that a more even distribution of party affiliation in the territory would make statehood more likely. For their part, church leaders hoped for neutrality in principle, and parity in practice.
They asked prominent Democratic church members to refrain from active politicking. They also encouraged some of their number to publicly align with Republicans, including both counselors in the First Presidency, four members of the Twelve, and three prominent Relief Society and suffrage leaders. Finally, president of the church, Wilford Woodruff, permitted Republican church leaders to recruit while traveling on church business.
“Leaders of the new statewide political parties as well as church leaders of the time hoped that a more even distribution of party affiliation in the territory would make statehood more likely.”
The man in Beaver, rumored to have remembered a congregational division, actually kept a diary that provided a more tempered view of the approach he witnessed. Elders Francis Lyman and Abraham Cannon of the Quorum of the Twelve convened a meeting to encourage affiliation with Republicans for “those who had not already declared themselves Democrat and could conscientiously do so.” When Lyman got excited in his pitch to meeting attendees, Cannon intervened by saying, “don’t go too far.”Report ad
In a time of shifting national party strength, the dissolution of local parties, and the looming danger of perpetuating former faith-based divisions, church leaders urged parity for the sake of statehood, but also adherence to conscience.
Over the coming decade, Democratic national policies would cripple local farmers and launch a lengthy recession, thus swaying even more Utahns toward the Republican fold.
As affiliations shifted, Latter-day Saints increased politically partisan attacks on each other that employed the same either-or zeal common to sectarian preaching — dueling op-eds, calculated hit pieces, claiming Jesus as a Democrat and Lucifer as a Republican.
The sudden surge of partisan vitriol led President Woodruff to plead at the April 1892 general conference, “Don’t throw filth and dirt and nonsense at one another because of any difference on political matters.” Today, the church has publicly stated that it’s “neutral in matters of party politics,” while encouraging church members to participate in the political process in “an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.”
So why is the congregational division story retold so often? And what might this story tell us about other rumors that circulate amongst us?
In the first place, the story’s structure is very simple. There is one actor and one simple action carried out in a concrete setting — a church leader divides a congregation in half. Next, the simple story about the past conveniently maps directly onto something of interest in the present — the two modern political parties. Finally, the simplified and present-oriented story offers an explanation of why things are the way they are — it entices us into thinking we know what things mean, especially as we look toward the future with uncertainty. And all the better that this story ends with a snappy little punchline, making it memorable to hear and gratifying to retell.
“But there are dangers in telling oversimplified stories.”
But there are dangers in telling oversimplified stories. This one misrepresents the past by omitting complexities, such as the strange and forgotten local parties — Liberal and People’s — as well as the Saints’ tortured relationship with the Republican Party. It also invents the entire setting of a congregational divide.Report ad
In the end, omission and exaggeration become tools for sharpening present partisan division, making storytellers unwitting pawns in the false cultural script that Americans are equally divided and diametrically opposed. These blinders then hamper our ability to work together to improve our communities and our lives.
Looking back from our era of intense polarization, we might be telling the wrong story. Perhaps, rather than an oversimplified tale about congregations divided down the aisle, we’d be better off remembering Wilford Woodruff’s call to unity in the face of political partisanship.
Originally published in the Deseret News, October 23, 2022.
Pioneer Day is a time for stories. Each year, storytellers surface in sunrise devotionals, around campfires and at family dinner tables to regale with tales about noble ancestors, weary travelers and hard-working community builders. Such storytelling goes back to the pioneers themselves, who sang that “soon [they’d] have this tale to tell.”
But the pioneers’ music also cherished truth as “the fairest gem” and “the brightest prize.” Most had converted to a new faith, which also necessitated leaving behind family and traditions and homelands for the cause of truth. This year, may we honor the sacrifice of these pioneers by telling stories that are true, complete and unvarnished.
The truth
We begin by observing that truth alone is not enough. Many deceptions operate by pairing a little bit of truth with other errors. Our best pioneer stories might invoke a phrase used in the courtrooms of many nations — we seek “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Indeed, a modern revelation teaches that “truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come,” with the added warning that “whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:24–25; emphasis added). Our best pioneer stories will present the entire truth by including all that we can and removing the errors that creep in over time.
The whole truth
Most stories do not contain the whole truth. True facts get omitted and forgotten over time. For example, tellings of the arrival of Brigham Young’s vanguard company usually omit that three of the participants were enslaved Black men — Green Flake, Hark Lay and Oscar Crosby. Audiences watching speakers on devotional stages flanked by United States flags have forgotten that the Salt Lake Valley formed part of Mexico in 1847 and that what is now the state of Utah was already inhabited by approximately 20,000 Indigenous people.
Frequently, the most insidious challenge to the whole truth is oversimplification. Storytellers imagine the past as a simpler and safer time, like the scenes in a Norman Rockwell painting. Complexity and individuality are often victims of oversimplified storytelling.
Consider the last film version of a pioneer story that you watched. Chances are, the story focused on a family or two in a single pioneer company. Most likely, the story’s protagonists pulled a handcart alone across a barren landscape. You watched them struggle uphill, shiver in the blowing snow, ration their food and weep at the graveside of their infant child. Perhaps you, too, shed a tear, before rejoicing at a scene of dramatic rescue.
The complete history of the pioneers turns out to be far richer and far more interesting. An estimated 70,000 people crossed the Plains, and the mortality rate for the group was only slightly higher than the national average at the time. One-third of the companies made the trek without a single death! Many of the pioneers came from different countries and spoke different languages. Sometimes they could not even understand one another; other times they disagreed with each other; sometimes they carried nationalistic or racialized stereotypes about one another. They had to lay aside their own prejudices and weaknesses to forge a multinational, multilingual and multiethnic community of Saints seeking a common cause of Zion.
The complete history of the Pioneer Day holiday often omits its own growth, from a devotional with a feast of thanksgiving in 1849 to an official state holiday today. The subsequent additions of old-timer reunions, rodeos, sporting events, high rates of traffic fatalities, and pie and beer reflect the truth that public celebrations evolve with ongoing needs and interests.
Nothing but the truth
Many stories also contain exaggerations or distortions that get added later. Snowbanks deepen, pathways run uphill, fish grow longer, the ordinary gets romanticized. I’ll hasten to add that not all perpetrators and retellers of exaggerated pioneer stories possess nefarious motives. Some seek to honor an ancestor or inspire faith. Others just want to teach a lesson or make themselves look important or informed. Some myths arise out of ignorance or from a well-meaning intention to fill in the gaps.
Many pioneer exaggerations connect to the handcart. Of the roughly 400 organized pioneer companies, only 10 were handcart companies. Of those 10, eight made the journey without significant incident. Yes, the companies led by James G. Willie and Edward Martin did suffer dramatically more, including a mortality rate more than five times the national average, but theirs was a very narrow case. Nonetheless, the handcart has emerged in movies, artwork, statues, parades and music as the singular visual representation of the pioneer experience. To make the handcart the symbol for the entire pioneer experience, and to make snowstorms the norm for 20 years of overland travel, is a stretch of the truth by any measure.
One particularly exaggerated story recounts an old man in the corner of a Sunday School classroom who declared that no member of the ill-fated Martin handcart company ever left the Church. The alleged old man died in 1906 and the alleged hearer did not share the story until 1943. A complete list of Martin Company members has not survived, but of those who were known to belong to the company, at least four later left the Church — two would move to Iowa and join the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now Community of Christ, while another took his family all the way back to England where he became a Baptist minister.
It’s a long story
Many pioneer stories do contain true facts and meanings. I think this is one reason why people can feel internal confirmations about them — because there is truth in them. Exaggeration can also make people feel angered by such stories — because there are errors in them. Because stories usually contain truth mingled with exaggeration, it is shortsighted to try simply to debunk them by turning them into myths. Instead, we should carefully analyze their contents. We should cherish what is correct (the truth), recover what has been omitted (the whole truth), and remove what was added later (nothing but the truth). Then we should serve another slice of pie while telling pioneer stories that are more than true.
Originally published in the Church News, July 14, 2022.
Ensign College Devotional | February 1, 2022
In my time working with Church history, I have listened to thousands of questions from people who struggle with concerns, doubts, and feelings. Sometimes the questions strike near the heart of the Church’s message, such as the accounts of the First Vision or the translation of scripture. Others stem from something that might seem weird or uncertain, such as the strangeness of polygamy or the prohibition on the participation by Black Latter-day Saints in priesthood and temple ordinances. There may be deeply personal experiences with a domineering male who makes Heavenly Father seem distant, or with witnessing friends be excluded or insulted for being gay or of a certain race. Maybe it’s a little of all of these and then some.
One thing I have observed is that many questions invoke the existence and role of living prophets. Sometimes the connection is stated directly, “If he was a prophet, then how could such-and-such happen?” Most often the connection remains unstated as an underlying concern about trust. During the past half century, we have, as a society generally, abandoned our trust in leaders, in experts, in institutions, even in superheroes. So it is certainly no surprise that suspicion of prophets would abound in latter-days long prophesied to be populated by “false prophets” who “shall deceive many.” Losing trust is one of the perils of our “perilous times.”[1]
There is a story in the Old Testament that offers insight into our relationship with living prophets. Naaman was a successful military commander, a mighty warrior who also suffered from a skin disease. When he learned of the prophet Elisha’s reputation as a healer, Naaman approached Elisha according to the customs of his time—he brought a letter of recommendation from his king, arrived in a flourish of horses and chariots, and offered gifts of silver, gold, and clothing.[2] He also expected Elisha to behave the same way as other healers in their culture—by calling aloud, waving his hand, or enacting some other ritual performance. But Elisha defied Naaman’s expectations by refusing the gifts and sending a simple message to wash seven times in a nearby river. Naaman reacted in a fury, he became “wroth” and “went away in a rage.”[3] Fortunately, for both Naaman’s health and our instruction, his servants talked him into trying the treatment, and it worked! So here is the insight: Naaman’s instant rage surfaced when his expectations were challenged. He protested by saying, “I thought that for me he would surely come out.”[4] Yes, Naaman needed to humble himself, but the root problem was neither the prophet nor his prescription; it was the expectations Naaman brought to the encounter.
What expectations do we have about prophets? How are our expectations influenced by our upbringing and culture? Do we simply assume things that are actually incorrect? Could the instant rage that thrives today on social media, on cable news, and in face-to-face interactions be calmed by examining our expectations? Admitting the errors in our own thinking is sometimes the most difficult part of understanding Church history because it takes humility to change our expectations and assumptions after we learn they are incorrect. What incorrect expectations about prophets do we need to abandon?
Perhaps the most common oversimplification of living prophets posits an either/or of being inspired or uninspired, “called of God” or “just a man.” A revelation given on the day the Church was organized can improve this simple binary. If you ever visit the Church History Library, you will see the beginning of the message emblazoned on the wall in the lobby, “Behold, there shall be a record kept among you.” The instruction went on to explain what kind of information should be found in the record—“in it thou [Joseph] shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church.” And what should we expect of this prophet? Three things. Joseph will be considered a prophet “through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, Being inspired of the Holy Ghost.”[5] Prophets cultivate relationships with each of the three members of the Godhead and understanding these relationships helps dispel common misunderstandings of their work.
“Through the will of God the Father”
First, we should observe that there are other cultural models for prophets in our midst. Many traditions present prophets as a sphinx, a riddler, or a soothsayer. Another flavor is that a prophet must be a lone voice who speaks out against all evil and oppression. Yet another version surfaces as a pundit on cable news who, immediately after a natural disaster, pins blame for the catastrophe on the sins of some enemy group. Thus, without thinking, some Saints come to expect prophets to act like these other models in our culture—to speak in anonymous riddles, denounce every wrong, or offer harsh condemnations. Then, if prophets speak too clearly in favor of vaccination,[6] or if they fail to stand with or against the Internet’s outrage of the day, or if they offer kindness instead of criticism of refugees, some turn away in rage like Naaman.
A second unhelpful expectation comes not from ignorance of culture but in awareness of it. Because prophets live in times and places they are inevitably shaped by their surroundings. Therefore, some wonder how to trust in a person who is influenced by culture? But this is an impossible expectation. Culture combines the language, customs, knowledge, and experiences of individuals and families and societies, so how can any human not be touched by their culture? Nephi explained that God speaks to prophets (and all of us) “according to their language, unto their understanding”—in other words, our cultures.[7] Experiences in Church history show us that prophets interact with their cultures—Joseph Smith used seer stones, debated Protestant preachers, and joined a prominent social club; Joseph F. Smith pondered about the afterlife while the ravages of World War I sent so many people to it; Russell M. Nelson counsels us to “lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice” in a global society long built on discrimination across multiple divisive categories.[8] Prophets participate in their cultures as do you and I, and the way we all progress is by following God in our cultures.
Another unhelpful expectation is that we “follow the prophets” best by imitating their every deed. I have met people who began to raise pigeons because Thomas S. Monson did or who learned how to ski because President Nelson does. Prophets do not urge us to follow or imitate them, but to follow and imitate the Savior. George Q. Cannon served as a counselor in the First Presidency to Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow. “Do not,” he counseled, “put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us.”[9] We must not elevate the childhood game “follow the leader” into a false template for human imitation. Stated another way, the prophets do not teach us to “follow them” but to “Hear Him!”
One seemingly simple expectation is the idea that prophets receive revelation only by kneeling alone and asking for it. Many revelatory experiences certainly happened this way, but it is not the only way prophets receive inspiration. Joseph Smith also received revelations with other people—Moroni appeared to him and the Three Witnesses, and he and Sidney Rigdon viewed into the heavens together.[10] As the Lord directed Joseph to establish the First Presidency (1832), high councils (1834), and the councils of the Twelve and the Seventy (1835), the process of receiving revelation for Church governance expanded from individuals to the collective deliberations of councils. Today most of the ecclesiastical activities of the Church are administered by three Executive Councils comprised of members of the Twelve, Seventy, Presiding Bishopric, and the presidencies of the women’s organizations. Elder Quentin L. Cook recently explained that “the council process refines things and perfects them, and the council setting allows great power and purpose to come into them.”[11] Such power and purpose comes as decisions are made in unanimity “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost” and become “the will of the Lord.”[12] If we expect revelation to come only to individuals in solitary prayer, then we will miss many of God’s modern dealings with living prophets.
Prophets act “through the will of God the Father” because He calls them. They are not self-appointed riddlers or pundits, nor are they somehow exempt from their cultures. Through God’s will they become authorized to teach us about God so that we increase our faith and trust and commitment to follow God, not them. Prophets learn the will of God through their individual exertions and also by counseling together.
“Through the . . . grace of your Lord Jesus Christ”
Why do prophets need the second qualification—“the grace of [our] Lord Jesus Christ”? For the very same reasons that you and I depend on His grace—to forgive our sins, succor our infirmities, mitigate our shortcomings, expand our capabilities, turn our weaknesses into strengths.
Because one function of prophetic councils is to promote unanimity, their existence also dispels the expectation that prophets never disagree with each other. Prophets bring different perspectives drawn from personal experiences. Sometimes, in extreme cases, the differences prompt disputes, such as when Paul called out Peter or when Joseph Smith and his brother William, who was an apostle, broke into a fistfight. (Incidentally, it might challenge one of your assumptions about Joseph to learn that his friends had to intervene, pulling William off to find Joseph “on the floor, barely able to move”).[13] Most of the time, the differences of opinion serve to bring all perspectives on issues into the discussion. President M. Russell Ballard has explained the value of this process: “None of the Twelve are shrinking violets,” he said. “We each have strong personalities. So when we are unified in a decision, you can rest assured that we have counseled together and come to that decision after much prayer and thoughtful discussion.”[14] Because errors arise when this process is not followed, modern prophets increasingly speak publicly of this unanimity, such as when they announce proclamations together or make significant changes in church practices.[15]
One very unhelpful expectation is that prophets don’t make mistakes. The only person to live a mistake-free life was Jesus Christ. For their part, prophets are well aware of their own shortcomings—Moses worried about his inadequacies in speaking and Moroni felt the same about his writing. Joseph Smith declared, “I never told you I was perfect,” and he reported his errors and published his divine rebukes. President Nelson observed of all General Authorities: “We recognize them as instruments in the hand of the Lord, yet realize that they are ordinary human beings. They require haircuts, laundry services, and occasional reminders just like anyone else.”[16] Elder Jeffrey R. Holland added that “imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.”[17] Latter-day Saint doctrine does not include a provision that a prophet is infallible.
We should also not expect that prophets do not get tricked. Isaac’s son Jacob came in disguise to claim his brother’s birthright blessing, and Jacob later was led to believe his son Joseph has been killed.[18] A series of dastardly forgeries in the 1980s fooled nearly everyone, from historians to document dealers to Church leaders.[19] After losing the Book of Mormon manuscript, Joseph was told simply, “You cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous” (D&C 10:37). The message was not “one day you will learn how to identify the wicked,” just “you cannot.” Later in his life Joseph was deceived by persons brought into his inner circle of confidence.
Of course, it is possible to cite instances when prophets disagreed, made mistakes, and got tricked, but those actions are incomplete without understanding that prophets serve “through the . . . grace of [our] Lord Jesus Christ.” His “grace is sufficient” to bring them to unanimity, refine their souls, and succor them. He is “merciful, and gracious, [and] longsuffering.”[20]
“Being inspired of the Holy Ghost”
Another expectation often assumed of prophets is that they know everything about the future, with the implication that they are just waiting for us or toying with us. While it is true that God reveals some of His secrets to prophets, and that some prophets including Moses, Enoch, and Nephi received sweeping visions, that does not mean that every prophet knows everything about everything.[21] Nephi went after the plates “not knowing beforehand the things which [he] should do.” Peter received a vision about unclean food and only later understood it to be about proclaiming the gospel. During his First Vision, Joseph was told not to join any churches without being instructed what he should do.[22] God has emphasized throughout scripture that “[His] ways [are] higher than [our] ways” and that there are “hidden things which no man knew.” Our expression of belief that “God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God” means that we also believe the current prophets do not yet know some “great and important things.”[23]
Not only do prophets not know everything, but the things they do know are not always spelled out for them. Sometimes, yes, the will of the Lord is unmistakably clear, but like every Latter-day Saint, prophets must also study, ponder, pray, and wrestle. As the “mouthpiece” of the Lord, they do not simply open their mouths and the word of God flows out. Sometimes revelation has come as dictated wording, but prophets also receive inspiration, feelings, and impressions that they then must put into words and actions. Sometimes they explore paths that don’t pan out—Nephi first asked for the plates and then offered to purchase them, Joseph Smith followed financial leads that failed to materialize, the means and methods of missionary work have changed over time.[24]
So what about the idea that the prophet will never lead the Church astray? The wording in this expectation comes from a statement made by Wilford Woodruff when announcing the end of plural marriage, but over time additional assumptions have been attached— that the practices of the Church should never change, and that following prophetic counsel should cause no suffering. But the practices of a living Church led by the Living Christ are supposed to change – line upon line as part of the ongoing restoration.[25] Isn’t that why we say we need a living prophet? And instead of a free pass from suffering, discipleship routinely involves trials and refinement. What did Sam get for following the counsel of his prophet-father Lehi and brother Nephi? Beaten up, his life threatened, his property stolen, and a family copy of the scriptures.[26] The promise of Jesus to His disciples is not freedom from pain, but that all pains and sorrows and afflictions will, like the sting of death, be “swallowed up” in His power and love and grace.[27] In its complete original context, Wilford Woodruff’s teaching emphasized that the prophet would not lead people “astray from the oracles [or revelations] of God and from their duty.”[28] Prophets will not lead us away from their true witness of Jesus Christ, from His revelations, or from the path to follow Him.
Because prophets act and preach by the Spirit, we have a duty to seek the Spirit to understand and receive their message. Brigham Young worried that Latter-day Saints would “have so much confidence in their leaders that they [would] not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him.”[29] George Q. Cannon added that “when men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken.” Therefore, he counseled, “seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves.”[30]
Prophets work to be “inspired of the Holy Ghost” because they do not know everything, because they gain light and truth from the Lord line upon line, and because the promise of the Holy Ghost is to show them—and us—“all things what [we] should do.” If there are trials along the way, we trust God’s promise “that [we] should suffer no manner of afflictions, save it were swallowed up in the joy of Christ.”[31]
“Upheld by . . . the Church”
We should rightly expect prophets to be called through the will of God and the grace of Jesus Christ and receive ongoing guidance through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.[32] As we do so, we can, like Naaman, shed incorrect expectations and assumptions about prophets that both impede our ability to be blessed and prompt divisive anger. Because so many of today’s questions about historical or social matters involve the nature of prophets, we can dissolve present concerns by re-examining our own incorrect notions. Naaman changed his thinking to accept his servants’ reasoning that simple tasks are better than “some great thing.” Because, as the Book of Mormon prophet Alma observed, these “small means in many instances doth confound the wise,” we who seek to avoid deception in our perilous times must not miss one more lesson about prophets.[33]
As the Doctrine and Covenants was going to press, an inspired instruction explained that prophets are to be “upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church.”[34] This counsel echoes another Old Testament story in which Aaron and Hur literally held up Moses’s hands to ensure that Israel prevailed in its battle.[35] Today, we “Let God Prevail” by upholding the prophets with confidence gained through the companionship of the Holy Ghost, with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and through prayer to God our Father.[36] Joseph Smith implored the Saints, “I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost.”[37] Wilford Woodruff added, “I am dependent upon the Lord and upon the prayers of the Saints, the same as my brethren.”[38] To the well-known musical expression of “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet” we must also add “We Ever Pray for Thee, Our Prophet Dear.”[39]
I testify that God calls good and fallible and humble prophets to help us in our day. He instructs, and forgives, and guides them so that they may point us to hear Him. That the Lord’s prophets may have the will of God, the grace of Jesus Christ, and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that we may uphold them through our confidence, faith, and prayers is my prayer. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Notes
[1] Joseph Smith-Matthew 1:9; 2 Timothy 3:1.
[2] See 2 Kings 5:5-9, 15-19.
[3] 2 Kings 5:11, 12.
[4] New Revised Standard Version 2 Kings 5:11, emphasis added.
[5] Doctrine & Covenants 21:1-2.
[6] See Jon Ryan Jensen, “First Presidency Urges Latter-Day Saints to Wear Masks, Be Vaccinated,” Church News, August 12, 2021; Trent Toone, “Timeline: Church Leader Actions and Statements on Wearing Masks during Pandemic,” Deseret News, August 12, 2021.
[7] 2 Nephi 31:3.
[8] Russell M. Nelson, “Let God Prevail,” Ensign, November 2020, 94.
[9] George Q. Cannon, in Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, ed. Jerreld L. Newquist 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1974), 1:319.
[10] See Doctrine & Covenants 17; 76.
[11] Quentin L. Cook, in Sydney Walker, “Video: Elder Cook Explains the Roles of 3 of the Church’s Executive Councils,” Church News, December 20, 2021.
[12] Doctrine & Covenants 68:4; see also Doctrine & Covenants 107:27.
[13] See Galatians 2:11-21; Acts 15; Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, vol. 1, The Standard of Truth, 1815-1846 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2018), 230; see also 223, 225-227, 229-231.
[14] M. Russell Ballard, “Be Still, and Know That I Am God” (CES Devotional for Young Adults, San Diego, CA, May 4, 2014).
[15] For recent examples see Russell M. Nelson, “Hear Him,” Ensign, May 2020, 88–92; Quentin L. Cook, “Deep and Lasting Conversion to Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” Ensign 48, no. 11 (November 2018): 8–12. For a case of rejecting the advice of a council, see Saints, vol. 2, No Unhallowed Hand, 1846-1893 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2020), 256-263.
[16] Joseph Smith, in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 522; Russell M. Nelson, “Honoring the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 1993, 39. See also Moses; Ether 12:23-25; JS—H 1:28–29; D&C 3:6–7; 24:2.
[17] Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lord, I Believe,” Ensign, May 2013, 94.
[18] See Genesis 27:6–10; 37:31–34.
[19] See “Hofmann Forgeries,” Church History Topics (2021).
[20] 2 Cor. 12:9; Exodus 34:6. See also Ether 12:41; Doctrine & Covenants 17:8; 2 Chron. 30:9; Doctrine & Covenants 128:19.
[21] See Amos 3:7; Moses 1; 7; 1 Nephi 13-14.
[22] See 1 Nephi 4; Acts 10; Joseph Smith-History 1:17-20.
[23] Isa. 55:9; D&C 101:33; Article of Faith 9.
[24] See 1 Nephi 3; Doctrine & Covenants 111.
[25] See 2 Nephi 28:30; Article of Faith 9.
[26] See 1 Nephi 3-4.
[27] See Mosiah 16:7-8; Keith A. Erekson, Real vs. Rumor: How to Dispel Latter-day Myths (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 215, 227.
[28] Wilford Woodruff, Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah (included with Official Declaration 1).
[29] Brigham Young, “Remarks,” Deseret News, February 12, 1862, 257.
[30] George Q. Cannon, in Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, ed. Jerreld L. Newquist 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1974), 1:319.
[31] 2 Nephi 32:5; Alma 31:38.
[32] After announcing the prophets’ relationship with the Godhead, Doctrine & Covenants 21 goes on to emphasize that Church members should “give heed” to the prophets, “walking in all holiness” and “in all patience and faith” (Doctrine & Covenants 21:4-7).
[33] 2 Kings 5:13; Alma 37:6.
[34] Doctrine & Covenants 107:22, emphasis added. For the pre-publication context, see “Historical Introduction” to “Instruction on Priesthood, between circa 1 March and circa 4 May 1835 [D&C 107],” p. 82, The Joseph Smith Papers. See also Doctrine & Covenants 43:11-12.
[35] See Exodus 17:8-13.
[36] See Doctrine & Covenants 121:45-46
[37] Joseph Smith, “Discourse, 7 Apr 1844” (Times & Seasons); see also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (1976), p. 342.
[38] Wilford Woodruff, in Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 200.
[39] William Fowler, “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet,” Hymns, 19; Evan Stephens, “We Ever Pray for Thee,” Hymns, 23.
The Church News provided generous coverage and many photos of the address; its text was released without citations; a video of the entire devotional is available at ChurchofJesusChrist.org.
