Sustainable Charisma
Prophetic Checks and Balances
Revelation is both divine and dangerous. A glance at quorum consensus, common consent, and perhaps even faithful complaint suggests just how the Restoration—understood through both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)—has learned to add guardrails to ongoing revelation.
German sociologist Max Weber is well known for his analysis of the tension between charismatic authority and bureaucratic authority. He viewed them as distinct, and often opposing, forms of leadership and organization. Charismatic authority, rooted in the perceived exceptional qualities of an individual leader, stands in contrast to bureaucratic authority, which relies on formal rules, procedures, and a hierarchical structure. The Prophet Joseph Smith represented both the charismatic and the bureaucratic elements of early Church leadership, although it is probably hardest to ignore the charisma of a founder inseparable from the movement they founded. After Joseph Smith’s death, the question facing the restorationist tradition was how does the faith movement continue without its founding leader?
Comparing the development of both Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we note that both institutions have developed guardrails to protect against abuses of charismatic prophetic authority. Community of Christ had experiences that led them to be wary of that authority, and they rely on a stable scriptural canon, democratic process, and reigning in ecstatic expressions of gifts of the Spirit as a result. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, leaned into the bureaucratic nature of the leading quorums of the Church. The story of the 2015 policy of exclusion is an example of the ways in which the law of common consent also has an impact within the hierarchical structure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And while prophecy is a specific type of revelation aimed at discerning the future, the issue here—whence does prophecy draw its authority—can be profitably examined by looking at the nature of revelation as a whole.
The reason that checks on prophetic authority are necessary is that by nature, revelations are imperfect. There are, as I see it, two components to the process of recording revelatory texts. First, there is the revelation itself, a process Joseph Smith described through statements like “you must study it out in your mind,” rather than simply asking with no thought beforehand (D&C 9:7–8), and that understanding comes “by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). Joseph Smith also described how the “Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence” and that it works by “expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge.” Further, the “Spirit of Revelation” was characterized by “pure intelligence flowing unto you” and “sudden strokes of ideas.” Such an ecstatic experience of revelation indicates a mental engagement with the Spirit to discern the will of God rather than a word-for-word dictation by the Lord, whispered in the prophet’s ear.
In the second part of the process, the revelator works to capture the revelation that God disclosed to them in words. Rather than a stenographer’s record of the Lord’s word, the resulting written document is only an approximation of the revelation itself.1 That is why President Brigham Young “supposed there has not yet been a perfect revelation given, because we cannot understand it, yet we receive a little here and a little there. . . . When God [speaks], he always speaks according to the capacity of the people.”2 This indicates that the dictated revelations are filtered through human minds and show the influence and limitations of that filter.
There is the story of Joseph Smith’s early 1830 revelation about the Canadian copyright for the Book of Mormon that, while apocryphal, gets at the point I’m trying to explain. Joseph Smith and the early Latter-day Saint movement were under pressure for cash, and he hoped that they would be able to franchise the copyright to raise money. The missionaries went out, in accordance with the revelation, but were unable to secure the copyright. After their failure and return, David Whitmer recalled that Joseph Smith recorded another revelation that explained the failure by stating “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.”3 This striking quote underscores the need to domesticate charismatic revelation. If unchecked, revelation can sometimes mislead; a people led by revelation need ways to check that revelation.
The years following the deaths of Joseph Smith Jr. and Hyrum Smith in June 1844 provide many examples of different branches of the Restoration failing due to unchecked charismatic revelation. The Latter-day Saints who would later coalesce into institutions like the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have been called the Mormon Diaspora in the years 1844–1860, and they faced a repeated pattern during those years: A charismatic successor would emerge who mimicked the prophetic actions of Joseph Smith and gained a following, then eventually went off the rails with bizarre doctrines, polygamy (after building a following on an anti-polygamy platform), or excessive demands for money. While some followers would remain loyal to each of these charismatic leaders, most became disillusioned and sought out other paths to follow.4
Richard L. Saunders has observed that these repeated disappointments with charismatic leaders led to an emphasis on ways to constrain that charisma within the Reorganization. “The Reorganization was one group able to transition away from charisma . . . and began a move toward democratic controls on the position and role of prophet and president of the church—the charismatic role that remained essential to Latter Day Saint theology and social identity.” Because the “charismatic tradition alone was not a sufficiently viable foundation on which to build and sustain a church,” the Reorganization used three different tacks to constrain that authority. First, they began “reigning in the presence of spiritual gifts practiced among the laity, such as declarations of prophecy, visions, and speaking in tongues.” Second, by “holding conferences seeking common ground and beliefs” between independent congregations, “participants instituted a second check on Mormonism’s prophetic/charismatic tradition by standing firmly upon a sectarian version of American democratic liberalism.” And third, “adherence to a stable canon became key to churchly authority in the late diaspora,” as they agreed on a set of basic scriptures and only added documents approved by the church conferences.5
The structure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has also provided means to constrain the charisma of individuals. Saunders noted that “it is helpful to see the breakup of the church” after the death of Joseph Smith as being, in part, due to “tension over the charismatic/prophetic versus the corporate or priestly traditions within the church.” Brigham Young, in effect, was “arguing that the quorums of the church—not individuals—held the rights to lead and govern the kingdom.” The nature of quorums and councils—especially the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve—has led to requirements for acceptance of revelations and prophetic discourse by those groups and by the Church more broadly. This has allowed for greater stability, though often at the expense of rapid change.
Among the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency, consensus is required for something to be accepted as policy or official doctrine. For example, in the 1860s, the First Presidency issued a proclamation that stated (with Elder Orson Pratt specifically in mind), “No member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve.” More recently, President James E. Faust added that “this requirement of unanimity provides a check on bias and personal idiosyncrasies. . . . It ensures that the best wisdom and experience is focused on an issue before the deep, unassailable impressions of revealed direction are received. It guards against the foibles of man.”6
The law of common consent in the Church is another important guardrail. In the Doctrine and Covenants, it is stated that “all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith” (D&C 26:2; see also D&C 28:13). Saints in the Church only receive revelation after they have processed and accepted it as a collective. As J. Reuben Clark put it, “The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” Given the emphasis on obedience in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, the law of common consent is less democratic in practice than in Community of Christ.7 The latter tends to seek out agreement and consensus through discussion at conferences. By contrast, the participatory methods driving revelations and prophetic pronouncements in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, save the congregational sustaining vote, are often less direct. The story of the 2015 policy of exclusion is an example of this process.
In November 2015, information about a new update to the leadership handbook for the Church was leaked to the press. The update included a policy wherein natural or adopted children living in a same-sex household could only be allowed to be baptized once they are eighteen, disavow the practice of same-sex cohabitation or marriage, and stop living within the household (similar to children from polygamous families). In addition, the handbook stated that participating in a same-sex marriage fell under the definition of apostasy.8 The discovery of the policy was met by an outcry, both within and without the Church, particularly regarding the exclusion of children from the Church based on their parents’ actions.
The senior leaders of the Church were aware of the opposition to the policy and initially responded by explaining their experience in evaluating options that led to the policy. Russell M. Nelson—the President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time—stated that the policy was the result of prophetic revelation to President Thomas S. Monson:
This prophetic process was followed . . . with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. . . . We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson.
Four years later, however, President Nelson reversed the policy. He offered an explanation in a meeting at BYU:
The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord’s guidance and to plead with Him in behalf of His children who were affected by the 2015 policy. We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep—for whatever reasons—we weep. So, our supplications to the Lord continued. . . .
As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy.
The reaction of members against the policy caused Church leaders to consider changing the policy, leading to deep consideration and eventual reversal.
While not often discussed in the language of common consent, this does seem to be an example of what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. mentioned when he stated that “The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” Thus, it serves as an example of something that was initially accepted by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as revelation, but ongoing discomfort from the general membership of the Church led them to continue seeking revelation.
Recognizing this does not neutralize prophetic counsel, nor suggest that we can change something we disagree with simply by gathering enough like-minded members to protest it. We can continue firmly committed to honoring the sacred role of a prophet even when we might personally feel dismay at a policy or disagree with its implementation. The decision to reverse the policy remained in the hands of the First Presidency rather than in the hands of the general Church membership, and rightfully so. As President Russell M. Nelson observed, however, “good inspiration is based upon good information.” The discomfort of Church members was information that contributed to their decision to revise the policy.
In the same way that checks and balances built into the US Constitution are designed to prevent one branch from holding unchecked power, the necessity of consensus in leading councils in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints functions to prevent a prophet-president from exercising excessive authority, with common consent influencing the deliberations of those quorums.
In the wake of Joseph Smith’s death and the subsequent fragmentation of the Latter Day Saint movement, different groups charted distinct paths in navigating prophetic authority. Community of Christ responded to repeated disappointments with charismatic leaders before their official reorganization by constraining prophetic authority through democratic structures. In contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintained prophetic leadership through hierarchical quorums, but instituted safeguards that require unanimity among the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for new doctrines or revelations to be adopted. While continuing to affirm a theology of ongoing revelation, the Church limits individual authority through a council-based model and the law of common consent. Though both traditions value divine guidance, their contrasting approaches reflect different solutions to the same fundamental challenge: how to preserve the power of prophecy and revelation while protecting the church from its potential misuse by imperfect people.
Chad L. Nielsen is an amateur historian and theologian of the Latter Day Saint movement. He is the author of Fragments of Revelation: Exploring the Book of Doctrine and Covenants and has been published in a variety of forums.
Art by Gaston La Touche. Pardon in Brittany, 1896. Art Institute of Chicago.
See Chad Nielsen, Fragments of Revelation: Exploring the Book of Doctrine and Covenants (By Common Consent Press, 2024), 23–39; Steven C. Harper, “‘That They Might Come to Understanding’: Revelation as Process,” in You Shall Have My Word: Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants, edited by Scott C. Esplin, Richard O. Cowan, and Rachel Cope (Religious Studies Center; Deseret Book, 2012), 19–33, https://rsc.byu.edu/you-shall-have-my-word/they-might-come-understanding-revelation-process.
Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845, p. 171–172, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/council-of-fifty-minutes-march-1844-january-1846-volume-1-10-march-1844-1-march-1845/173. Spelling and punctuation modernized for clarity.
David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: By the author, 1887), 31. Stephen Smoot and Brian C. Passantino have noted that “Thanks to the recovery of the original text of this revelation—which, for example, clearly stipulates the conditional nature of the Lord’s promises on the faithfulness of both those addressed in the revelation and the inhabitants of Kingston—we can reasonably say that Whitmer’s negative assessment of this matter is not warranted.” (Stephen O. Smoot and Brian C. Passantino, Joseph Smith’s Uncanonized Revelations (Religious Studies Center; Deseret Book, 2024), 33.)
See, for example, William Marks, who associated with James J. Strang and Charles B. Thompson before becoming involved with the Reorganization (Cheryl L. Bruno and John S. Dinger, Come Up Hither to Zion: William Marks and the Mormon Concept of Gathering (Greg Kofford Books, 2024), 135–216).
Richard L. Saunders, “Revelation, Scripture, and Authority in the Latter Day Saint Diaspora, 1840–1870,” in Open Canon: Scriptures of the Latter Day Saint Tradition, edited by Christine Elyse Blythe, Christopher James Blythe, and Jay Burton (University of Utah Press, 2022), 39–61.
James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation,” Ensign, November 1989, 11, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/10/continuous-revelation?lang=eng. See also Neil Andersen, “Trial of Your Faith,” in Conference Report, October 2012, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng.
See Nielsen, Fragments of Revelation, 91–101.
See Daniel Woodruff, “LDS church to exclude children of same-sex couples from membership,” 2KUTV, November 5, 2025, https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-membership.
 | A guest post by
|