A few years ago, if someone had asked me when the restoration of the gospel took place, I would have racked my brain to come up with the dates that correspond to the first vision (1823), the translation of The Book of Mormon (mostly 1829), the restoration of the priesthood (1829), the organization of the church (1830), and the establishment of temple ordinances (1836-1846) and probably failed to come up with any of them. I think it’s easy to think of Joseph Smith as “the prophet of the restoration”, and simplify the whole thing to something that happened during a period of just over two decades in the 1800s.
While it is true that this was a significant and accelerated period in the reestablishment of Christ’s church, I have come to believe that we do ourselves an injustice, and miss out on some important ideas, when we look at the restoration so narrowly.
I’d like to explore three questions about the restoration that have been on my mind lately.
Question 1- Do we acknowledge the hand of God and appreciate those who felt and followed His spirit during the centuries before what we call “the first vision” and sufficiently recognize inspired people doing God’s work outside the church?
I recently listened to a Mormon History Guy podcast from 2014. In it, Robert Millet, a respected LDS scholar, recalls a time when he was speaking to students at Harvard Divinity School. After the speech, a member of the faculty prefaced his questions by saying, “I have a great difficulty even taking seriously any person or people who dismiss 2000 years of Christianity out of hand.” Dr. Millet considered this to be a moment not only of embarrassment but of deep reflection. He found himself thinking, “Do we really believe that?” He recalls it being a sobering moment, which led to days and weeks of pondering our beliefs about the meaning of apostasy and the nature of a restoration.
As Mormons do we ever fail to recognize and give credit to those who laid the necessary groundwork for the establishment of the LDS church—the courageous voices of the Reformation, the pilgrims who made great sacrifices for religious freedom, the founding fathers who built a nation where new ideas could flourish, and many, many others? I believe that God led and inspired these people long before he appeared to Joseph Smith.
Surely then, we can see the apostasy as a time when certain truths, keys, and powers had been lost, rather than supposing a complete lack of light and truth outside what we believe to be the restored gospel. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said in reference to D&C 1:30:
Because of this declaration of the Lord, we refer to this, His Church—our Church—as the “only true Church.” Sometimes we do this in a way that gives great offense to people who belong to other churches or who subscribe to other philosophies. But God has not taught us anything that should cause us to feel superior to other people. Certainly all churches and philosophies have elements of truth in them, some more than others. Certainly God loves all of His children. And certainly His gospel plan is for all of His children, all according to His own timetable.
Question 2- If we are guilty of disregarding the restoration that occurred before Joseph Smith or outside of our church, are we just as guilty of ignoring the ongoing restoration that has been a part of this church throughout its history?
In the April 2014 priesthood session of general conference, President Uchtdorf posed the question “Are You Sleeping through the Restoration?” He said:
Sometimes we think of the Restoration of the gospel as something that is complete, already behind us—Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he received priesthood keys, the Church was organized. In reality, the Restoration is an ongoing process; we are living in it right now. It includes “all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,” and the “many great and important things” that “He will yet reveal.” Brethren, the exciting developments of today are part of that long-foretold period of preparation that will culminate in the glorious Second Coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
In the podcast I referenced earlier, Dr. Millet went on to observe:
Unless we view the restoration as a work in progress, something that is underway—something that changes with time—we’re going to paint ourselves into a corner, and many of our young people, and for that matter older people, find themselves painted into a corner, believing things that no one ever really expected them to believe. We almost have inherited a Protestant mindset in terms of scripture and a Protestant mindset in terms of the restoration—if it changes in any way then there must be something deficient about it or wrong, and one of the things that was clear to me was that things change. I’m only 66 years old, but I can see a lot of changes when since I was a boy. Not in the way we baptize people and not how we ordain people and not the fact that there was a first vision and The Book of Mormon is divine and all of that, but even the way we look at certain doctrines, the way we focus on them, the way we emphasize them. Those things change.
I am currently ten years younger than Dr. Millet was when he made this statement, but I have also seen a great deal of change during my lifetime. What is surprising to me now is how little thought I gave to these changes as they happened, but how many differences I now recognize if I start listing them.
For example, earlier this week, while attending the temple, I thought through all the changes that I have seen there throughout the years. I have never been concerned about these changes because they always felt good to me. Each change made my experience more comfortable and spiritual, and for me, nothing valuable was lost.
Just a day after this temple visit, however, I listened to a man who had left the church and converted to a fundamentalist Mormon sect. He had lost his testimony in large part because of changes to the temple ordinances. He investigated and eventually joined a different church, primarily because they had retained what he considered to be the original ordinances.
I find it fascinating that people can experience and interpret the same changes and events in such vastly different ways. One member might lose faith because the church has changed too much, while another is offended because change isn’t happening quickly enough. Some who understand the complexities of early church history argue that the current church must be false if it differs from the nineteenth-century church, while others assume that church practices have always been the same and lose their testimonies when faced with proof that this isn’t the case.
It is only as I listen to the sentiments of those with differing views that I am coming to recognize what my own outlook has been. As far back as I can remember I have always expected and been comfortable with the idea of change within the church. I assumed that this was the reason for modern prophets and continuing revelation. The church has evolved at a pace that felt comfortable to me, and overwhelmingly I saw the changes as improvements and progress.
Until recently, I have been rather uneducated about church history, having failed to do much studying on the subject outside of church and seminary classes. Now as I’m delving deeper, I am discovering many things that I’ve never heard of or considered before. For me personally, these new revelations have been intriguing and insightful rather than disturbing. I realize I’m not that old, but I do think that having been an observer of a half a century of history has had an effect on my perception of the changes that happened before I was born. I like viewing the restoration as a gradual unfolding, and it makes sense to be that if the Lord is continuing, and will continue, to give us new light and truth, then we can’t expect current or past leaders to be perfect or have all the answers. This brings me to my final question.
Question 3- Do we struggle because the methods of restoring the gospel aren’t always easy to understand?
When we consider the events that marked the beginning of the Latter-day Saint movement, we find some seriously dramatic revelations, beginning with the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. There are also angels delivering instructions, plates, and keys. Joseph Smith doesn’t give many details of the translation process, but the only way that I can fathom the speed with which The Book of Mormon came into being is to picture some sort of spiritual download that was both efficient and clear. I believe in all of these events, and do not doubt that at times revelation and restoration come in direct and unambiguous ways; I feel, however, that usually, the process is more subtle. President Spencer W. Kimball stated it this way:
In our day, as in times past, many people expect that if there be revelation it will come with awe-inspiring, earth-shaking display. For many it is hard to accept as revelation those numerous ones in Moses’ time, in Joseph’s time, and in our own year—those revelations which come to prophets as deep, unassailable impressions settling down on the prophet’s mind and heart as dew from heaven or as the dawn dissipates the darkness of night.
Expecting the spectacular, one may not be fully alerted to the constant flow of revealed communication. I say, in the deepest of humility, but also by the power and force of a burning testimony in my soul, that from the prophet of the Restoration to the prophet of our own year, the communication line is unbroken, the authority is continuous, and light, brilliant and penetrating, continues to shine.
President Kimball is describing a gradual almost imperceptible form of revelation and seems to give it the same weight as the seemingly more miraculous type. I just heard an insightful quote that has recently come to light as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project. It is taken from the minutes of the Council of Fifty, and in it, Brigham Young is talking about the new translation of the Bible that Joseph Smith is working on. He explains how Church leaders receive revelation and how God speaks according to the understanding of His servants. He teaches:
“There has not yet been a perfect revelation given, because we cannot understand it, yet we receive a little here and a little there. [I] should not be stumbled if the prophet should translate the Bible forty thousand times over and yet it should be different in some places every time, because when God speaks, he always speaks according to the capacity of the people.” Furthermore, God had much yet to reveal to the Latter-day Saints. Brigham commented that he did “not know how much more there is in the bosom of the Almighty. When God sees that his people have enlarged upon what he has given us he will give us more.”
President Young opens the door for revelations that are not only continuing but which may be changing. It seems to me that not only would it change based on the capacity of the people, but also their present concerns, current challenges and the conditions of the world. Surely, the growth and worldwide expansion of the church requires new revelation from the Lord, as do ever-changing cultural norms, scientific discoveries, and advancing technology.
I’m not bothered by the disparities between the past and present church; instead, I see them as proof that the church is what it claims to be, a living and growing gospel. I expect and look forward to more changes in the future and I hope to play my part in this ongoing restoration.
