Prophets and Polity in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Taunalyn Ford

The congregation stood on March 22, 1980, as President Spencer W. Kimball entered the Salt Lake Tabernacle with his wife, Camilla, for a special Young Women fireside. I was a member of the choir that evening, and according to my journal, watching the prophet enter “brought tears to my eyes and to most everyone else’s.” After the meeting, I was able to walk down from the choir seats and shake the hand of President Kimball. I wrote in my journal, “I’ve never felt the spirit that strong. I was shaking all over and I couldn’t stop. I knew he was a prophet of God.”[1] This young teenage recollection of meeting the prophet reflects the high esteem that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold for those they sustain as “prophets, seers, and revelators.” Dialogue with Community of Christ colleagues has opened my mind to how the dynamic of prophets and polity for both “mountain” and “prairie” Saints has evolved over time.

This essay will briefly chart the origins and evolution of a few themes from a metaphorical prophet-polity DNA that I believe we share with our Restoration cousins. While not exhaustive, the themes I will address include the paradox in the relationship of prophets and polity; the concepts of conferences, councils, and common consent; the role of priesthood; and finally, prophets and polity in globalization.

Prophet-polity Paradox

Restoration scholars have identified a paradox in the history and structure of the Latter Day Saint movement, describing it as “both democratic and authoritarian.”[2] The paradox boils down to the “polarity of authoritarianism and individualism.”[3] Joseph and early Latter Day Saints struggled with the contradictory nature of an organization that centered on a prophet who spoke authoritatively as a mouthpiece for God to the church and the world while also relying on the freedom and even responsibility of members to receive their own personal revelation.

At the organization of the church in 1830, Joseph Smith “was seen as one prophet among potentially many.”[4] Competing claims of prophetic authority were addressed in September of 1830 when Joseph received a revelation that has become central to the polity of the Church of Jesus Christ.[5] An 1831 revelation declared that “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.” Oliver Cowdery, to whom the revelation was addressed, was compared to Aaron and called to “speak or teach by the way of commandment unto the church,” but he was not to “write by way of commandment” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 28:2, 4–6; see also CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 27:2a, c–d). A subsequent revelation to several elders promised, “If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge,” with no limitations but the precondition of asking (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 42:61; CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 42:17a). This “inexplicable contradiction” was the conundrum “at the heart of Joseph Smith’s Mormonism.” Joseph Smith was “designated as the Lord’s prophet, and yet every man was to voice scripture, everyone to see God.”[6]

Although biographers often emphasize his authoritarian style of leadership, Brigham Young also worked under this paradoxical balance of power.[7] According to John Turner, Brigham Young “often stressed that he wanted church members to receive revelations for themselves, but such divine promptings would confirm, not contradict or question, his doctrine and direction.”[8] Like Turner, observers may sometimes view the balance in the prophet-polity paradox from Brigham Young forward to the current president of the church as leaning in favor of “conformity and obedience” to prophetic authority, and there is some truth in that. I suggest, however, that while prophetic authority has been privileged and cherished among mountain Saints, and even regrettably sometimes at the expense of a “hospitable environment for those members more inclined to question,”[9] we should nuance the idea that all Latter-day Saints have surrendered their right to question and seek their own revelation.

President Dallin H. Oaks has articulated an interdependency between prophets and polity in the church today: “Our Heavenly Father has given His children two lines of communication with Him—what we may call the personal line and the priesthood line.”[10] President Oaks compared the personal line to the Protestant emphasis on “the priesthood of all believers,” and the priesthood line to Catholic or Orthodox insistence “that authoritative ordinances (sacraments) are essential and must be performed by one authorized and empowered by Jesus Christ.”[11] Oaks emphasizes balance as he cautions against relying too much on individualism that can erase the importance of divine authority or relying too much on priesthood authority at the expense of personal growth. In his first general conference address as prophet, President Russell M. Nelson admonished, “I urge you to stretch beyond your current spiritual ability to receive personal revelation.”[12]

Conferences, Councils, and Common Consent

Conferences, councils, and common consent are foundational in the prophet-polity paradox. Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints share this organizational DNA from what was initially a “Methodist pattern of quarterly conferences of elders.”[13] Joseph Smith built on this pattern of holding quarterly general church conferences, but he also organized ad hoc conferences or councils (initially synonymous terms) when needed. Although Joseph sometimes received revelations during the conferences of the early church,[14] conferences were originally more administrative.

Church polity under Joseph Smith has been compared to “an archeological site, containing layers of organizational forms, each layer created for a purpose at one time and then overlaid by other forms established for other purposes later.”[15] A division in the DNA distinguishing conferences and councils is an example of one of these geological layers. The minutes from the organization of the first high council in 1834 were canonized and elevated to the level of other revelations. The pattern continued when the Council of the Twelve was organized in 1835.[16] According to Richard Bushman, “At a moment when Joseph’s own revelatory powers were at their peak, he divested himself of sole responsibility for revealing the will of God and invested that gift in the councils of the Church, making it a charismatic bureaucracy.”[17]

Brigham Young led the Utah church as president of the Quorum of the Twelve until the First Presidency was organized in December of 1847.[18] Since that time the church has continued to be led by “prophets, seers, and revelators” who fill the councils of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. These general church councils are supported by the councils of Seventy and councils at the stake and ward levels. President Stephen L. Richards proclaimed, “The genius of our Church government is government through councils.”[19] Quorums and presidencies, including those of auxiliaries—Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School—have also functioned as councils. Auxiliary presidencies serve as members of general, stake, and ward councils. In this way, women have served in important leadership positions in general and local church government.[20]

The overarching principle of all these layers of leadership was that “all things shall be done by common consent in the church” (LDS Doctrine and Covenants 26:2; CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 25:1b; see also LDS Doctrine and Covenants 28:13–14; CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 27:4c–5a). The use of parliamentary procedure was another common cultural practice for church polity in the early nineteenth century. Today, common consent, also referred to as “sustaining,” is a fundamental practice in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The “business” of the ward, stake, or entire church takes place briefly at the beginning of sacrament meetings or stake or general conferences. Members raise their right arms to the square to support or oppose leaders, policies, and doctrine. Most of the work of discussion and decision-making is performed behind the scenes by councils. In the rare case of hands uplifted in opposition, members are asked to meet with their local leaders later to discuss their concerns. A vote in favor assumes that one sustains the motion with his or her “actions, faith, and prayers.”[21]

Priesthood and Polity

Priesthood is at the heart of the prophet-polity dichotomy.[22] For Latter-day Saints, priesthood connotes the entirety of God’s power as well as that portion of God’s power that is conferred on men who are ordained to priesthood office.[23] Priesthood is organized and hierarchical[24] yet subject to principles of righteousness[25] and delegated through conferral of keys or authority by the laying on hands by a priesthood officer.[26] According to the General Handbook, “Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood,” which are conferred upon his apostles.[27] Only the prophet or president of the church, “who is the senior Apostle, is authorized to exercise all these keys.”[28]

During my lifetime, I have witnessed changes to policies concerning the blessings of the priesthood (see next section) and increasing emphasis on the priesthood power that is delegated to women.[29] Although I have not been ordained to priesthood offices, I have always felt priesthood power and authority in my callings and covenants—particularly temple covenants. Hearing this truth affirmed of late is a source of strength and a confirmation of my own spiritual impressions.[30] Along with other Latter-day Saints, I believe that God determines who in the polity receives priesthood ordination and reveals this through the prophet.

Polity and Globalization

The tension in the prophet-polity paradox is most pronounced in the process of globalization. Latter-day Saint missionaries began a process of globalization in reverse as converts were commanded to gather to a centralized Zion as early as September 1830 (see LDS Doctrine and Covenants 28, 29:8; CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 27, 28:2c). Conceptions of Zion have evolved in the ongoing Restoration, encompassing places like Independence, Missouri; various city-stakes like Kirtland or Nauvoo; and regions like Deseret. The westward pull for mountain Saints began to lose momentum in the early 1950s. Out-migration and nascent globalization began under the prophetic leadership of David O. McKay, who instigated the building of stakes and temples outside the Intermountain West and encouraged members to build Zion in their own countries.[31] Internationalization was facilitated through an effort to correlate a “patchwork quilt of curriculum” into a unified message that could be exported outside North America.[32] What became known as priesthood correlation brought budgets, periodicals, and other programs under the centralized control of committees headed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve. Correlation efforts differed from those of other Christian denominations that prioritized indigenization in the post-colonial era.

Jehu Hanciles, professor of world Christianity, has argued, “Successful globalization requires at least two defining attributes: localization and multidirectional (reciprocal) transformation.”[33] Mormon studies scholars emphasize the “Americanness” of the global church because of this centralized priority of conformity under correlation. However, Latter-day localization has been mapped in many parts of the world despite the centralized culture of the church.[34]

Perhaps “the clearest example, to date, of multidirectional transformation” in Latter-day Saint globalization “is the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1978.”[35] The unidirectional top-down nature of the prophetic revelation had a counterbalance in the polity of the church in Africa and Brazil. Administering the church in areas where new members could not hold the priesthood or enjoy temple blessings presented complexities that the apostolic leadership of the church had been aware of since the 1940s. The commission to take the restored gospel to all nations “seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions.”[36] Reciprocity was evident because “non-Western realities contributed to a historic policy change”; however, the change “in turn had a profound effect on the growth of Mormonism in non-Western contexts.”[37] Such tensions in the prophet-polity paradox may be more evident in globalization,[38] yet the strength of church polity remains entwined in the individual convictions of Latter-day Saints who sustain prophets, seers, and revelators and thank God for a prophet.[39]

Prophets and Polity in Community of Christ

Matthew J. Frizzell

I was ten years old in the spring of 1984 when my father brought me to my first Community of Christ World Conference at the Auditorium in Independence, Missouri. My family is several generations Community of Christ, and attending World Conference was a pilgrimage. I didn’t know it would be the historic conference at which Doctrine and Covenants section 156 would be presented and passed.

Section 156 brought about two historic changes that continue to shape Community of Christ today. First, the church was called to build the temple in Independence, Missouri. This long-awaited temple would be “dedicated to the pursuit of peace. It [would] be for reconciliation and for healing of the spirit.”[40] Second, women were called to priesthood ordination.[41] The words of section 156 resonated with the clarity of both reason and revelation: “All are called according to the gifts which have been given them. This applies to priesthood as well as to any other aspects of the work” (CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 156:9b; emphasis added).[42] Women would be ordained to hold, express, and fulfill priesthood ministry.

Some church members expressed strong dissent to section 156 in the days and years following its approval. Some resolved to repeal or overturn the divine counsel in legislative sessions. I remember the flurry of strong emotions and parliamentary motions objecting to women’s ordination. Members debated and questioned the revelation, the prophet-president’s discernment and authority, and change itself. Even as a young boy, I felt (what I now know is) the Holy Spirit present and working amid the strong feelings and dissent. God’s liberation, the Spirit’s comfort, and compassionate tolerance for honest debate and mixed emotions in the body sustained the conference. It could be felt as we sang hymns, prayed, and worshipped. This was my first real experience with theocratic democracy, and the experience remains with me.

Polity is a term that properly belongs to politics. By politics, I mean the science and study of governance and rule. For churches, polity refers to how the church is organized and governed. Joseph Smith III defined the Restoration as a “theocratic democracy.”[43] My testimony of the 1984 World Conference depicts theocratic democracy in motion. Theocracy refers to the divine origin and structure of prophetic leadership and priesthood. Priesthood members are called to office, and priesthood orders meet in quorums. Democracy governs through the membership’s shared authority, which rules by common consent. Common consent defines how a quorum, conference, and church as a whole act as a body. A member of the priesthood may share in both theocracy and democracy within the church. In their roles and ministry offices, priesthood members act as priesthood. In quorums and conferences, these same members have voice and vote to discern, debate, and consent or dissent within the church. Theocracy and democracy, therefore, comingle and coexist. Both principles are manifested through leadership, governance, and the church’s response to the Spirit and to God’s direction in relation to the world in which we live and serve.

Common consent holds Community of Christ polity together. God’s call to act by faith in common consent is drawn from Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants 27:4c, which counsels that “all things must be done in order and by common consent in the church.”[44] Common consent does not mean blind obedience to church authorities. Nor does it mean an implicit expectation that we agree on every issue, or that agreement is a sign confirming God’s authority in the church or an individual’s righteousness.[45] Community of Christ honors faithful disagreement.[46] Common consent is dynamic; it ebbs, flows, and evolves. Living under the principle of common consent is a process, sometimes felt as a struggle or tension that dwells within theocratic democracy. Our scriptures depict wrestling and struggling with God as a faithful response to and the nature of a covenant life with God.[47] The Holy Spirit dwells, speaks, and works through prophetic voices and within the hearts of people in this process and its tensions. We worship, sing, debate, listen, discern, and reason together in prayer, study, and faith. In a living covenant, the search for common consent liberates and binds us to God and each other.

Priesthood

Within our polity, theocracy concerns the church’s prophetic leadership and its priesthood structure. Before ordination, would-be priesthood members in Community of Christ are called by other priesthood members and approved administratively.[48] Then the individual and priesthood call are sustained by common consent through democratic action of the congregation or appropriate conference. A call to priesthood office is for life unless another priesthood call is initiated and accepted. A priesthood member may also be released from the priesthood voluntarily, involuntarily, or by suspension or superannuation. No one in Community of Christ holds priesthood office by divine right (like age or family lineage) or progression of membership or other office. Since Jesus’s call to follow asks us for a whole-life response, priesthood roles are defined by spiritual and administrative functions of church polity.

Ordination to priesthood liberates and binds some priesthood members to administer the sacraments.[49] Priesthood calls mean that some members carry out specific ministerial responsibilities, such as peacemaking, teaching and family ministry, missionary work, spiritual leadership, and administration.[50] In Community of Christ, Aaronic Priesthood members are ministers of presence. Melchizedek Priesthood members provide sacramental ministry[51] and serve in a variety of administrative roles and functions within the church. All are called by God according to their giftedness, but not all serve in priesthood.

The priesthood is led by the First Presidency, a quorum consisting of two counselors and one prophet-president. The name prophet-president reveals the combined governance structures of theocracy and democracy. The prophet’s role is theocratic. It is to spiritually discern God’s will and lead the church according to God’s spiritual direction. The prophet is the only priesthood member responsible for discerning God’s will and presenting letters of divine counsel to the whole church, which may be presented for consideration and inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants.[52] In the prophet’s role as president, the prophet-president, along with two counselors, presides over World Conference. Currently held every three years, World Conference is the church’s highest democratic legislative body.[53]

Conferences

Globally, Community of Christ is organized primarily into geographical fields, mission centers, and congregations. Mission centers are usually geographical organizations of congregations[54] led by a mission center president appointed by the First Presidency and democratically sustained by the mission center at a conference.[55] Like World Conference, mission centers hold conferences and can legislate. Individual congregations also confer in what are sometimes called “business meetings.” Any baptized member of the congregation has voice and vote. Congregations are led by a democratically annually elected pastor or presiding elder.[56]

National and field conferences of multiple mission centers meet and legislate for special purposes in Community of Christ. Examples include conferring about diverse ethical and cultural matters, such as same-sex loving relationships. Section 164 of the Doctrine and Covenants identifies national and field conferences, which I discuss at the end of this essay.

Globalization, Diverse Cultures, and Challenges to Polity and Common Consent

In the 1960s, Community of Christ more than doubled its international presence.[57] As the church expanded into diverse cultures, the Community of Christ identity, mission, and organization faced new and old challenges. Church missionaries’ encounter with polygamy in East India and Nigeria in the 1960s is emblematic of these challenges. Cultural and religious diversity remain challenges for church governance and common consent in Community of Christ as a world communion today. Such diversity shapes our understanding of scripture and religious authority, morality and ethics, and our doctrine and identity.

In 1967, an apostle on mission in India stood in the waters of baptism. A man in a polygamous marriage waded into the water, pleading to be baptized.[58] The apostle refused to baptize him. Community of Christ history, identity, and teaching were founded on a rejection of polygamy in the early Restoration movement.[59] This wasn’t the first time missionaries had encountered polygamy in cultures abroad,[60] but this reencounter with polygamy required informal and formal consideration as the church began to expand. The First Presidency, Council of Twelve, and members and priesthood held discussions about evangelism and polygamy in other cultures, but little was initially published about these dialogues. These dialogues weighed how to understand indigenous cultures and non-Christian peoples, the real consequences to families and plural wives if men abandoned them, and the redemptive purposes of the gospel.[61] Consideration of these issues eventually grounded the church’s position on polygamy. The search for common consent led leaders to accept baptizing persons in polygamous marriages, but with conditions. Previous marriages would be tolerated, but members engaging in new polygamous relationships after baptism risked loss of membership.

Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants section 150 addressed this situation,[62] shaping how common consent in discerning gospel and cultural issues occurs today. Specifically, section 150 affirms that Christian marriage is monogamous. Section 150 also affirms global evangelism, naming apostles as “the chief witnesses of the gospel” called to interpret and administer the gospel in the circumstances in which people are found (see CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 150:10a–11b).[63] Section 162 affirms the church’s democratic polity and the body’s role as a “prophetic people” (see CofChrist Doctrine and Covenants 162:1a, 2c).[64] Under the direction of their spiritual authorities, a prophetic people discern God’s will for the “time and in the places where [they] serve.”[65] Adopted in 2010, section 164 urges Community of Christ to further “develop cultural awareness and sensitivity” (7a) and clarifies the role of World Conference to address “fundamental principles of ethical behavior and relationships within the church” (7b). Further, national or field conferences are for “broader dialogue, understanding, and consent” on pressing issues in nations for the “restoring work of the gospel to move forward with all of its potential” (7d).

Response to Matthew J. Frizzell

Matt’s reminiscence of the 1984 RLDS World Conference reminds me of my own experience attending some of the sessions of Community of Christ World Conference in 2019. The gathering lasted nine days and brought together elected delegates from congregations all over the world. It was lovely to be among friends from Community of Christ at this important gathering, but what I most admired was the emphasis on listening. The general church leaders listened to the individual delegates, who spoke from microphones set up in stations around the Auditorium in Independence. Delegates and leaders were encouraged to listen to the voice of the Spirit and “the body of Christ” and then vote accordingly. Official minutes of the conference noted, “World Conference is necessary for conducting church business and discerning divine direction as a prophetic people.”[66] I saw this in action, and it put into relief the purpose of conferences early in Restoration DNA.

The most obvious difference between Community of Christ World Conference and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints general conference is that World Conference is a “democratic legislative body,” and Latter-day Saint general conferences are semiannual “worldwide gatherings” in which “Church leaders from around the world share messages or sermons focused on the living Christ and His gospel.”[67] Interfaith dialogue reveals elements present in our own tradition that we may have taken for granted. Observing the equivalent of general conference for Community of Christ as a legislative body and not simply a series of meetings caused me to think about how we as Latter-day Saints sometimes take for granted the significance of our sustaining vote as well as the hours of work that are done behind the scenes in councils. President Nelson’s description of this revelatory process is illustrious: “In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling!”[68]

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland once began a televised general conference address by sharing a picture of a baby named Sammy. He noted that the baby’s hands were busy holding his bottle when it was time to sustain the prophet, but in the next picture, Sammy’s chubby little leg was in the air. Elder Holland said, “Sammy gives entirely new meaning to the concept of voting with your feet.”[69] In all seriousness, however, this method of voting has been practiced in the Restoration from its earliest days. The choice of members to walk away in both Restoration churches has most often been the democratic rejection of theocratic authority. Likewise, the power that holds the Restoration polity together is the vote of the uplifted hand by individual members.

What I found to be particularly unique at Community of Christ World Conference was the welcoming of dissenting voices and debate. Matt’s description of “the Holy Spirit present and working amid the strong feelings and dissent” may seem foreign to Latter-day Saints, who are encouraged to express opposition privately with local leaders. Matt quoted an official statement from his church leaders in 2013: “Community of Christ honors faithful disagreement.” Matt charts the dispersion of prophetic and priesthood power in the ordination of women, the authorization of members to act as a “prophetic people” in discerning cultural adaptations, and finally the allowance of making differing decisions in “national or field conferences.”

In Latter-day Saint doctrine, high value is placed on maintaining unity, avoiding contention, and sustaining leaders. Matt noted in our conversations that Community of Christ was initially a collection of dissenters and that the “Brighamites” were a collection of followers. These different approaches to navigating conflict in the polity have roots in the prophetic innovations of Nauvoo. I have been fascinated and slightly disoriented when hearing a Community of Christ colleague refer to the “dark days of Nauvoo” or express discomfort with the hymn “Praise to the Man.” Likewise, I admire the respectful curiosity these same colleagues extend when seeking to understand Latter-day Saint temple theology and other post-Kirtland doctrines that we value in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Regardless of our differing views of Joseph the Prophet, I believe the fruit of our dialogue has been to envision Restoration polity less as two sects of a religious movement and more as parts of the body of Christ.[70]

Response to Taunalyn Ford

In my experience, ecumenical dialogue is always enlightening. It has a way of confirming some assumptions and shattering other prejudices. Discussing polity is particularly interesting in ecumenical dialogue because polity is unique to each faith community. Polity shapes how we experience our religious beliefs and practices by the way they are structured into a shared communal life.

For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ, polity is even more interesting because we share so much of it. As Joseph Smith Restoration traditions, we share formative history, scriptures, language, and polity itself. Both churches are led by prophet-presidents and lay claim to common consent. Our priesthood offices and structures parallel one another but are lived out differently.[71] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ governance structures of councils and conferences are similar, but their representation and character are not the same. Compare a general conference in Salt Lake City with a World Conference in Independence, Missouri—they feel different. Taunalyn’s and my opening stories shed light on those differences. Her general conference story affirms her spiritual experience meeting a divine prophet. My story affirms my experience of God’s presence amid open conflict and dissent. These stories indicate cultural differences between our churches. Recognizing differences in culture is significant because church culture and church polity interact in a way that is like how skin and soft tissues hang on and give shape to skeletal structure. As organizational polity and culture interact, they influence and shape the body, as well as one another. The two work together dynamically over time to make a whole.

In dialoguing with Church of Jesus Christ friends and scholars, the similarities and differences between our faith movements are always obvious and felt. In my response, therefore, I want to focus on two themes that intersect in Taunalyn’s and my essays: the representation and role of authority and the challenges of globalization. One marks a contrast between our churches, and the other a commonality.

The representation and role of authority in our faith traditions marks a difference. Both churches have a hierarchical priesthood with prophet-presidents at the top. Both churches are governed by layers of organization utilizing councils and conferences. But the role and representation of authority in these structures differ.

In addition to women’s roles in temple ordinances, Taunalyn lists women’s auxiliaries—Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School—among the organizations that function as councils within the Utah-based church. Under Community of Christ’s definition of polity, I agree with Taunalyn. As I dialogue with Latter-day Saint colleagues, it’s clear that women and women’s organizations are vital to their church’s organization and function.

In contrast, women’s organizations in Community of Christ have declined significantly in light of evolving gender roles in the church. When women began to be ordained to priesthood office in the 1980s, they initiated a process of integrating into priesthood and the leading quorums, councils, and sacramental life of the church. I think many church members recognize that the inclusion of women in these quorums and councils parallels a change in the representation and role of authority in Community of Christ.[72] I believe it’s fair to generalize that the nature of authority in Community of Christ has evolved to become less hierarchical and more relational. In a few generations, the nature of calling and authority has become less focused on calling to office and more focused on priesthood function and calling as they relate to the person’s individual giftedness.

How does this compare to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That deserves longer discussion. Within the tradition of the mountain Saints, the role and authority of women is a rich and expanding discussion. But there’s no doubt that the role and representation of women in priesthood marks a difference between our churches’ polities and cultures.

Despite differences, both churches enter the twenty-first century facing the challenges of globalization and expansion into new cultures. Taunalyn is an expert in this area. She helpfully explains that in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the concepts of Zion have evolved over time. The pull inward to gather has evolved with a call outward to global expansion and mission. A similar evolution in Zionic mission has taken place in Community of Christ. As both churches enter the twenty-first century, they face difficulties bringing Restoration faith to new cultures in a way that maintains each church’s unique identity. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this challenge has been managed through priesthood correlation. Taunalyn also explained how globalization shaped the change to her church’s priesthood ban in 1978. Globalization has meant Community of Christ has also faced its own US-centrism, racial biases, and justice issues as it has listened to and learned from new cultures. This trend continues today. Community of Christ’s approach to the challenges of cultural diversity has also led to increased discernment in the church’s leading quorums and has been handled through its open canon. The questions of how to maintain Community of Christ culture and identity in nations and cultures the church has expanded into, and has been in for decades, also continue.

Conclusion

Joseph Smith III defined Community of Christ polity as theocratic democracy. In 1844, Joseph Smith declared, “I go emphatically, virtuously, and humanely for THEODEMOCRACY.”[73] The DNA is shared regardless of modern genetic characteristics. A major conclusion from our dialogue is that globalization creates challenges for both churches in navigating the prophet-polity dynamic. If polity and culture interact and evolve, introducing Restoration faith to new cultures will continue to put pressure on church polity and its authorities to maintain Restoration faith’s unique identity, tradition, and practice. That means our Restoration churches will have to grapple with our roles in colonialization, indigenization, and decentralization of church authority for the sake of the gospel in the earth’s far-flung places. To mediate these challenges, theocratic democracy will be put to the test. In the end, the globalization of Restorationism depends on its polity—theocratic democracy—to bring divine will together with democratic authority in both harmony and dissent.

Notes

[1] Taunalyn Ford, journal, in author’s possession.

[2] See Terryl Givens, People of Paradox (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). See also Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 153; Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991); Michael Hubbard MacKay, Prophetic Authority: Democratic Hierarchy and the Mormon Priesthood (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2020); and Thomas O’Dea, The Mormons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).

[3] Givens, People of Paradox, 14.

[4] D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 7–8. See also Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 118–22.

[5] See LDS Doctrine and Covenants 28, Cof Christ Doctrine and Covenants 27, and The Joseph Smith Papers. Hiram Page’s revelations through his seer stone had convinced the members in Fayette, including Oliver Cowdery and members of the Whitmer family. “Oliver Cowdery and the Whitmer family began to conceive of themselves as independent authorities with the right to correct Joseph and receive revelation.” See Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 120.

[6] Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 175.

[7] See John G. Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012); Givens, People of Paradox, 17; Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985).

[8] Turner, Brigham Young, 414

[9] Turner, Brigham Young, 412.

[10] Dallin H. Oaks, “Two Lines of Communication,” Ensign, November 2010, 83.

[11] Oaks, “Two Lines,” 84.

[12] Russell M. Nelson, “Revelations for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives,” Ensign, May 2018, 95. President Nelson concluded this admonition by quoting the promise of the Lord in LDS Doctrine and Covenants 42:61: “If thou shalt [seek], thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge.”

[13] Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 251.

[14] Revelations given in general or “special” conferences: LDS Doctrine and Covenants 1, 21, 38, 42, 52, 67, 70, 75, 82, 84, 88, and 96. Other revelations that were received just prior to or just after a conference include LDS Doctrine and Covenants 20, 28, 29, 30, and 31.

[15] Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 253.

[16] See section heading for LDS Doctrine and Covenants 102..

[17] Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 257–58.

[18] Church History Topics, “First Presidency,” https://abn.ChurchofJesusChrist.org/study/history/topics/first-presidency.

[19] Quoted in Ezra Taft Benson, “Church Government through Councils,” Ensign, May 1979, 87. See also Michael Magleby, “To Sit in Council,” 50–53.

[20] The precedent for women serving in presidencies began with the establishment of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo in 1842. In August of 2015, women began to sit on three executive councils at the general level; see Sarah Jane Weaver, “Women to Take Part of General Church Councils,” Church News, August 19, 2015.

[21] See also Church History Topics, “Common Consent,” https://www.ChurchofJesusChrist.org/study/history/topics/common-consent.

[22] “Priesthood would grow into one of the defining principles of Mormonism. Despite Protestant aversion to the term, Joseph continued to expand priesthood down to his final days in Nauvoo.” Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 159. See also LDS Doctrine and Covenants 107.

[23] See also Dale G. Renlund and Ruth Lybbert Renlund, The Melchizedek Priesthood: Understanding the Doctrine, Living the Principles (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018), 147. Richard Bushman emphasizes that “though kindred in spirit, priesthood government went far beyond classical republicanism or idealized monarchy in bringing people to God. Priesthood government sought to redeem people, not just serve their interests. Priests were godly teachers rather than protectors of the people’s rights. Priesthood government was redemptive.” Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 268.

[24] See LDS Doctrine and Covenants 107.

[25] See LDS Doctrine and Covenants 121:36.

[26] See LDS Doctrine and Covenants 107. See Joseph Smith Papers glossary, “Keys,” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/keys.

[27] These include the keys of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, the keys of the gathering of Israel, the keys of the Abrahamic covenant, and the sealing keys restored by Elijah; see LDS Doctrine and Covenants 110. See General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 3.0, ChurchofJesusChrist.org; LDS Doctrine and Covenants 13; 27:12–13; 110; 128:9–10.

[28] See General Handbook, 3.0.

[29] See General Handbook, 3.2 and 3.4.3.

[30] See Russell M. Nelson, “Spiritual Treasures,” Ensign, November 2019, 76–79; Dallin H. Oaks, “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2014, 49–52. See also Barbara Morgan Gardner, The Priesthood Power of Women: In the Temple, Church, and Family (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019).

[31] See Taunalyn F. Rutherford, “‘Her Borders Must Be Enlarged’: Evolving Conceptions of Zion,” in Raising the Standard of Truth: Exploring the History and the Teachings of the Early Restoration (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020), 181.

[32] See Matthew Bowman, The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith (New York: Random House, 2012), 194.

[33] Jehu Hanciles, “‘Would That All God’s People Were Prophets’: Mormonism and the New Shape of Global Christianity,” Journal of Mormon History 41, no. 2 (April 2015): 35–68, 43.

[34] For instance, I argue for localization and hybridity among Latter-day Saints in India. See Taunalyn Ford Rutherford, “Conceptualizing Global Religions: An Investigation of Mormonism in India” (PhD diss., Claremont Graduate University, 2018). See also Marjorie Newton and others on Maori/Mormon hybridity; Marie Vinnarasi Chintaram, “The Challenge of Hybridity: Mormonism in Mauritius, 1980–2020” (master’s thesis, Utah State University, 2021); Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye, “A Tale of Three Primaries: The Gravity of Mormonism’s Informal Institutions,” in Decolonizing Mormonism: Approaching a Postcolonial Zion, ed. Gina Colvin and Joanna Brooks (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2018), 229–62.

[35] Hanciles, “‘Would That All God’s People Were Prophets,’” 59.

[36] See Church History Topics, “Priesthood and Temple Restriction,” https://abn.ChurchofJesusChrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction.

[37] Hanciles, “‘Would That All God’s People Were Prophets,’” 61.

[38] Hanciles, “‘Would That All God’s People Were Prophets,’” 61.

[39] See Wallace F. Bennett, “We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet,” in Hymns (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985), no. 19.

[40] Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants 156:5a. The temple was completed and dedicated April 17, 1994.

[41] It is noteworthy that 1984 was also a pivotal year for women in ministry for Southern Baptists. Responding to second-wave feminism and the women’s equality movement, America’s churches became polarized over the role and authority of women in ministry. The affirmation of women’s ordination in the RLDS Church stands in sharp contrast to the action of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, June 12–14, 1984, at which the “Resolution on Ordination and the Role of Women in Ministry” was passed. This resolution affirmed that “man [is] the head of woman,” that the “New Testament does not mandate that all who are divinely called to ministry be ordained,” and that women are encouraged to serve in all aspects of church life “other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination.” See the “Resolution on Ordination and the Role of Women in Ministry,” https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-ordination-and-the-role-of-women-in-ministry/. For a brief history of women’s ordination, see Nancy Ross, David Howlett, and Zoe Kruse, “The Women’s Ordination Movement in the RLDS Church: Historical and Sociological Perspectives,” Mormon Studies Review 9 (2022): 15–26.

[42] Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants 9c addresses women in priesthood specifically: “Therefore, do not wonder that some women of the church are being called to priesthood responsibilities.”

[43] Clarifying theocratic democracy, Community of Christ governance documents state that the church “was brought into being by divine initiative, is guided and administered by divine authority, is sustained by the light of the Holy Spirit, and exists for divine purposes. In response to divine initiative, members share responsibility for governing the church.” “All things must be done in order and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith” (Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants 27:4c; LDS Doctrine and Covenants 26:2). See Church Administrators’ Handbook (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 2005), 5. For commentary on the meaning of theocratic democracy as Restoration church governance, see Maurice L. Draper, “Theocratic Democracy-Restoration Church Government,” Saints’ Herald, December 1, 1968, 800–801, 814; December 15, 1968, 842–44.

[44] LDS Doctrine and Covenants 26:2.

[45] “Common consent is a goal that all decision-making processes in the church seek to achieve. It is not confined to one specific process. In common consent, there is general agreement that a decision has been made by the appropriate person or body, that all relevant perspectives have been considered, and that the process used to arrive at the decision fosters the spirit of community within the church. Common consent is a central element in the polity of the Community of Christ, but its definition has always been somewhat elusive. On one hand, it means something more than majority rule, but it means something less than full unanimity on the course of action to be taken. Perhaps the definition of common consent is elusive because common consent is, above all, a goal to be achieved. Depending on the prevailing culture and the operational context, a number of methods might be used to achieve this end.” See Church Administrators’ Handbook, 6.

[46] See World Church Leadership Council, “Faithful Disagreement Definition and Principles,” Community of Christ, March 2013. Available at http://www.latter-dayseekers.org/uploads/7/9/3/8/79384866/faithful-disagreement-definition-and-principles.pdf.

[47] The archetype of wrestling with God and God’s blessing is depicted in the stories of Israel’s origins, especially Jacob’s wrestling with God, represented as a man or angel, until daybreak in Genesis 32:22–32. This pattern of wrestling and struggling with God as the nature of Israel’s relationship with God into and through covenant is depicted in the wilderness, Israel’s challenges under royal rule, and Israel’s relationship to the prophets.

[48] In practice, details on the process of calling members to the Aaronic, Melchisedec, and High Priesthood vary in Community of Christ. The following is not an exhaustive explanation of priesthood calling but provides insight on select aspects of priesthood calling. Generally, elders of the Melchisedec Priesthood call other elders and members to the Aaronic Priesthood. Aaronic and elder calls are approved by mission center presidents and sustained by the appropriate body. Members of the Council of the Presidents of Seventy call elders to the office of Seventy. As a general principle, members of the High Priesthood call members to the High Priesthood. Callings to specific offices of the High Priesthood vary. Apostles call evangelists. The First Presidency calls bishops. The prophet-president calls apostles, counselors to the First Presidency, and members of the Presiding Bishopric.

[49] Deacons and teachers in the Aaronic Priesthood cannot administer sacraments. Priests are also of the Aaronic Priesthood and may baptize and serve Communion, or the Lord’s Supper. The Melchisedec Priesthood offices of elders, quorums of seventy, and the High Priesthood (high priests, evangelists, order of bishops, Council of Twelve, and First Presidency) may administer all sacraments of the church except evangelist blessings. The evangelist blessing is a sacrament only evangelists may administer. The sacrament of evangelist blessings was known as “patriarchal blessing” until the ordination of women in 1984.

[50] For an overview of priesthood offices, orders, and quorums of Community of Christ, see Church Administrators’ Handbook, “Quorums and Orders,” 21–26, “Priesthood and Ordination,” 27–33.

[51] Supported by priests who can baptize, lead Communion, marry, and ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

[52] The Doctrine and Covenants is considered modern-day scripture for Community of Christ. For inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants, a letter of counsel from the prophet-president must be presented for consideration at a World Conference and then approved. In Community of Christ, sections of the Doctrine and Covenants have been both added and removed over the life of the church. Removal or relegation of a section of the Doctrine and Covenants by conference action is very rare. However, the addition and removal of scripture from canon is an example of the shared authority and function of theocratic democracy within the Reorganized Church.

[53] As presider over World Conference, the First Presidency executes the will of the conference as passed through its legislation. The First Presidency, like all priesthood quorums, may bring legislation to the World Conference for consideration. Lower conferences, committees, and caucuses (such as the Youth Caucus or Mass Meeting of Elders) may also introduce legislation at World Conference. Lower conferences are described below.

[54] Community of Christ is a global communion present in over sixty nations but numerically small. As a result, in places with a high concentration of church members, mission centers may consist primarily of congregations in one metropolitan area. In areas where members are widespread, a mission center may consist of an entire country or part of a continent. A mission center may have ten Community of Christ congregations or over one hundred.

[55] Most often, the mission center president is an elder or member of the High Priesthood.

[56] Note that pastors or presiding elders are democratically elected. This differs from mission center presidents, who are appointed and sustained, and the general officers, who are called and sustained by the World Conference.

[57] Prior to 1960, the church’s international presence was primarily in Canada, Europe, Australia, and Tahiti. Like many other American churches and institutions, the RLDS Church was transformed by the wave of US globalization in the latter twentieth century. The effects of globalization on the Restoration gospel continue to be felt and have had both transformative and schismatic consequences. Much has been written about the transformation of the RLDS movement. See Roger D. Launius, “Coming of Age? The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the 1960s,” Dialogue 28, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 31–57; and W. Grant McMurray, “History and Mission in Tension: A View from Both Sides,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 20 (2000): 34–47. On the international expansion of the RLDS Church, see Maurice L. Draper, Isles and Continents (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1982). For more recent research on RLDS international expansion, see Dima Hurlbut, “Gobert Edet and the Entry of the RLDS Church into Southeastern Nigeria, 1962–1966,” Journal of Mormon History 45, no. 4 (2019): 81–104; David Howlett, “Why Denominations Can Climb Hills: RLDS Conversions in Highland Tribal India and Midwestern America, 1964–2000,” Church History 89, no. 3 (September 2020): 633–58; and David Howlett, “The Community of Christ (RLDS Church): Structuring Common Differences in the Philippines,” in Palgrave Handbook of Global Mormonism, ed. R. Gordon Shepherd, A. Gary Shepherd, and Ryan Cragun (New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2020), 655–76.

[58] For an account of this encounter with polygamy in Nigeria and India during international expansion, see Maurice L. Draper, “Polygamy among Converts in East India,” Courage 1 (December 1970): 85–88.

[59] For an excellent account of RLDS apologetics regarding Joseph Smith Jr.’s involvement with polygamy and its importance in RLDS identity, see David J. Howlett, “Remembering Polygamy: The RLDS Church and American Spiritual Transformations in the Late Twentieth Century,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 24 (2004): 149–72.

[60] Draper notes that his discussions concerning polygamy prior to the incident in East India in 1967 focused on the polygamous practices previously known in Nigeria. See Draper, “Polygamy among Converts,” 87.

[61] See Alma R. Blair, “RLDS Views of Polygamy: Some Historiographical Notes,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 5 (1985): 18. See also the considerations of Verne Deskin’s opposition to the official statement on baptism of polygamous persons in “You Are Involved with Polygamy,” Courage 1 (December 1970): 89–92.

[62] Section 150 of Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants was presented and approved at World Conference in 1972.

[63] The commission to interpret and administer the gospel in the circumstances and conditions in which people are found is stated in theological language: “The church must be willing to bear the burden of their sin, nurturing them in the faith, accepting that degree of repentance which it is possible for them to achieve, looking forward to the day when through patience and love they can be free as a people from the sins of the years of their ignorance. To this end and for this purpose, continue your ministry to those nations of people yet unaware of the joy freedom from sin can bring into their lives. In this way they will be brought to a knowledge of the teachings of my gospel and be made ready and willing to help spread the message of reconciliation and restoration to other worthy souls” (para. 10b–11a).

[64] Section 162 was presented in 2004.

[65] Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants 162:1c states, “As a prophetic people you are called, under the direction of the spiritual authorities and with the common consent of the people, to discern the divine will for your own time and in the places where you serve.” Adopted in 2010, Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants 164 gives further direction concerning the role of ethical principles and national or field conferences to “provide opportunities for broader dialogue, understanding, and consent.”

[66] Official Minutes of Business Meeting, April 13, 2019, https://www.CofChrist.org/common/cms/resources/Documents/2019WCMinutes-April13.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2022.

[67] https://www.ChurchofJesusChrist.org/learn/general-conference.

[68] Nelson, “Revelations for the Church,” 95.

[69] Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Message, the Meaning, and the Multitude,” Ensign, November 2019, 6.

[70] For example, I experienced some difficult life changes while working on this chapter with Matt. I was blessed by Matt’s patience, compassion, and discipleship in addition to his brilliant scholarship. He was both colleague and a ministering brother to me.

[71] For example, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, men in good standing enter the priesthood as part of their personal and spiritual development. In Community of Christ, individuals enter the priesthood only when a call is initiated by other priesthood members. Community of Christ also ordains women to offices traditionally held only by men in the Church of Jesus Christ.

[72] It is important to note, however, that my reflections regarding women’s ordination and evolving gender roles do not apply equally across cultures and congregations of Community of Christ. Our discussion of the challenges of globalization and polity must include how gender and authority are expressed differently throughout a global church. They vary by culture as well as social convention. Likewise, ordination of women and women’s authority in ministry vary across congregations and cultures in Community of Christ.

[73] Joseph Smith, “The Globe,” Times and Seasons, April 15, 1844, 5:510, emphasis in original.