A major topic of discussion and even debate among online Mormons involves what, exactly, one must believe in order to be considered a Mormon in good standing. Fortunately, several of our leaders have addressed this question in the past. Since the relevant statements have been made by a variety of individuals, with distinctive points of view, speaking in quite different situations at various points during our 170+ year history, it is perhaps not surprising that the results are not identical on details. Nonetheless, a broad picture emerges in which diverse systems of belief and even disbelief are compatible with full fellowship in our church.
One set of statements that makes this point in a particularly clear way comes from Joseph F. Smith’s testimony before the Reed Smoot hearings in the U.S. Senate (a document discussed to some extent in my previous post). Shortly before the point in his testimony where Smith, in effect, explains that day-to-day decisions in our church are not really governed by revelation, he talks about the question of the degree of belief necessary to retain full fellowship in the LDS church. (Note: once again, the Senate transcripts refer to President Smith as “Mr. Smith.” Evidently, the Senate record-keepers were reluctant to use Smith’s religious titles.)
Senator Overman: What became of those people who rejected the divine revelation; were they unchurched?
Mr. Smith: They unchurched themselves.
Senator Overman: Oh, yes. They were outside the pale of the church then?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
The Chairman: They unchurched themselves by not believing?
Mr. Smith: By not accepting.
Mr. Tayler: Then if you had a revelation and presented it to your people, all who did not accept it would thereby be unchurched?
Mr. Smith: Not necessarily.
Mr. Tayler: Not necessarily?
Mr. Smith: No, sir.
Mr. Tayler: I should like to have you distinguish between this answer and the one you just gave.
Mr. Smith: Our people are given the largest possible latitude for their convictions, and if a man rejects a message that I may give to him but is still moral and believes in the main principles of the gospel and desires to continue in his membership in the church, he is permitted to remain and he is not unchurched. It is only those who on rejecting a revelation rebel against the church and withdraw from the church at their own volition.
Senator Hoar: Mr. Smith, the revelations given through you and your predecessors have always been from God?
Mr. Smith: I believe so.
Senator Hoar: Very well. As I understand, those persons who you say reject one of the revelations but still believe in the main principles of the church are at liberty to remain in the church. Do I understand you to say that any revelation coming from God to you is not one of the main principles of the church? Does not the person who rejects it reject the direct authority of God?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. No doubt he does.
Senator Hoar: And still he remains a member of the church?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar: In good standing, if a moral man?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar: Although disobeying the direct commandment of God?
Mr. Smith: Would you permit me to say a few words?
Senator Hoar: Certainly. We shall be glad to hear you.
Mr. Smith: I should like to say to the honorable gentlemen that the members of the Mormon Church are among the freest and most independent people of all the Christian denominations. They are not all united on every principle. Every man is entitled to his own opinion and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so long as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the church. If a man assumes to deny God and to become an infidel we withdraw fellowship from him. If a man commits adultery we withdraw fellowship from him. If men steal or lie or bear false witness against their neighbors or violate the cardinal principles of the Gospel, we withdraw our fellowship. The church withdraws its fellowship from that man and he ceases to be a member of the church. But so long as a man or a woman is honest and virtuous and believes in God and has a little faith in the church organization, so long we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the church, though he may not believe all that is revealed.
I should like to say to you, in point, that a revelation on plural marriage is contained in [the Doctrine and Covenants]. If has been ascertained by actual count that not more than perhaps 3 or 4 per cent of the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever entered into that principle. All the rest of the members of the church abstained from that principle and did not enter into it, and many thousands of them never received it or believed it; but they were not cut off from the church. They were not disfellowshipped and they are still members of the church; that is what I wish to say.
Senator Dubois: Did I understand you to say that many thousands of them never believed in the doctrine of plural marriage?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir –
Senator Dubois: You misunderstand me. I do not undertake to say that they practiced it. I accept your statement on that point. But do you mean to say that any member of the Mormon Church in the past or at the present time says openly that he does not believe in the principle of plural marriages?
Mr. Smith: I know that there are hundreds, of my own knowledge, who say they never did believe in it and never did receive it, and they are members of the church in good-fellowship. Only the other day I heard a man, prominent among us, a man of wealth, too, say that he never had received it and could not see it. I myself heard him say it within the last ten days. (Senate Report of Smoot Hearing Testimony, vol. 1, pgs. 97-98)
Now, a few points of clarification and interpretation. First, the word “unchurched” has fallen somewhat out of use. As used in the transcript above, “unchurched” is a rough synonym for “excommunicated.” The relevant definition from the Oxford English Dictionary is: “Excluded from, deprived of, (the status of) a church.”
Second, Joseph F. Smith makes the now common mistake of claiming that only about 3% of Mormons lived in polygamy at the peak of the practice. Modern historical and demographic research has shown that this statistic is simply incorrect. More reasonable estimates are in the neighborhood of 20% (see, for example, Van Wagoner’s Mormon Polygamy: A History). It is somewhat unclear to me how President Smith derived the 3% figure, but it has become a standard mistake over the last century; President Hinckley has, on occasion, made the same error.
Third, in defining what a person must believe in order to be a Mormon in good standing, Smith uses the phrase “the main principles of the gospel.” This phrase is, on its face, vague enough that it could be made to include about as much or as little as one would like. However, in his subsequent comments, Smith gives this initially vague standard quite precise content. He explains that various behaviors can result in a loss of good standing, but he only really offers two criteria related to belief. An individual must believe in God and have “a little faith” in the church organization. Smith does not see these standards as requiring acceptance of everything the church leadership teaches. In fact, he explicitly states that rejection of the doctrine of plural marriage was a relatively common phenomenon among members in good standing. At the time (1904), plural marriage was a profoundly important part of the church’s teachings for most living members, and certainly for Joseph F. Smith himself. So even people who flatly reject important doctrines taught by church leadership are allowed to remain in full fellowship and good standing.
I find this inclusive view of Mormonism quite attractive–as, it would seem, did Joseph F. Smith.


Just a quick call-out to Justin’s treatment of this in the Wasp.
It would seem that Joseph F. had quite a handle on PR.
Ah, well. If I’d known that Justin had already handled this, I would have saved myself a lot of typing! Alas, his post was done back in my very early days of blogging, and it didn’t show up in the Google checking that I did on this material.
The idea that Smith was addressing only PR material in giving this response is somewhat problematic, though. Joseph Smith and other leaders have made similar statements, which continue basically to the present. Consider President Hinckley speaking to an Australian journalist in 1997:
But RT, given what dissenting intellectuals think of church promotion of intellectual dissent, shouldn’t that inform how we read Smith? That is contrast Hinkley’s comments in 1997 with how the Sunstone crowd reacted to Hinkley’s comments. Many said Hinkley was being disingenuous because of things like the so-called September Six.
I think the point is that we have to be careful in terms of how we read Smith’s notion of openness. I think there’s a tendency to downplay the PR aspects, read the comments in terms of what we’d have meant had we said it, and then interpret everything in terms of this principle. (I’m not saying you are doing this - just that it is common) I see the same thing in terms of Joseph’s “teach them correct principles and let them governor themselves.” It’s interesting to contrast how people understand Joseph when they read that comment with trying to reconcile it to Joseph’s actions in the 1830’s and 40’s.
Clark, I think it’s obvious that people’s actions and people’s principles sometimes don’t connect. Joseph Smith in practice certainly didn’t even begin to follow the idea of teaching correct principles and leaving the Saints to govern themselves. No leader of the church except Brigham Young ever made a more extensive effort to create institutions allowing for control of the Saints. But that doesn’t mean the principle was not sincerely held.
I think the same is true for President Hinckley. The fact that, under his watch, the church has probably allowed less dissent than during most of the rest of the 20th century doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t believe that we have freedom to dissent.
You see, I think people tend to unify their thoughts and actions more. The idea that one can simply disconnect ones words from ones actions seems to lead to unreliable ways of interpreting peoples statements. (IMO)
(Which, for the record, is not to say that a persons words ought be interpreted as completely harmonious with their acts - most of us hold ideals we don’t reach in our actions)
Clark, to think that people always do what they think they ought to is to claim that people are perfect. We know they aren’t. So we have to retain the interpretive possibility that people act differently than they mean to act.
In the case of the Hinckley quote, though, we see a bit of his thought process. The September Six and others are, evidently, covered by the statement, “Now, if they get off and begin to fight the Church and that sort of thing as one or two do now and again, we simply disfellowship them and go our way. But those cases are really very, very few.” So the key thing is the distinction between legitimate dissent, which is apparently okay or even encouraged, and fighting the church. To many this would seem a distinction without a difference, but Hinckley evidently sees a real difference there. If he’s principled about that, then his actions and thoughts match pretty well. But if this is a post hoc standard, then, well, he’s mortal.
RoastedTomatoes, you seem to have a penchant for garnering support for your views from statements made to unsympathetic or even hostile audiences. For reasons I mentioned on another recent thread, and as Justin B. quoted President Hinckley on that same thread, looking to such sources for doctrine is not a good idea. (Of course, this may be one of those cases where you wish freedom to disagree with the prophet. ;-> ) The rhetorical context is such that their statements are clearly shaded and skewed. If you could come up with quotes from statements directed towards the Church, it would be much more convincing.
The observed fact that people are not automatically kicked out of the Church for having different beliefs than the authorities does not imply that the prophets have ever thought there was such a thing as “legitimate dissent” within the kingdom of God. Rather, their messages to the Church (as opposed to the media) seem pretty consistent in considering dissent with the united voice of the leading quorums a shortcoming, and spiritually perilous. All Church members have all manner of “shortcomings” (in the leaders’ view) for which they are not kicked out, but this does not mean the prophets think such things are “legitimate” or “encouraged.” Taking President Hinckley’s media homage “thinking for themselves” to “encouraged dissent” is an unjustified leap, in my opinion.
Christian, it’s ironic that you’re now possibly taking quote about taking things out of context, ahem, out of context. Hinckley warned that media stories might have misleading, partial quotations from him. That’s obviously not a concern in the context of complete transcripts, such as the ones I have quoted here. Furthermore, he said nothing whatsoever about statements before Senate committees, so Joseph F. Smith’s remarks are included in any case. With respect to your arguments, I responded in the other thread. It seems to me that the very focused expectations of intra-church constituencies are at least as much of a biasing factor as any external missionary pressures. So statements to outsiders can probably be taken as seriously as anything else. I didn’t see a response to that argument from you.
In the interview quoted above, Hinckley seems entirely comfortable with the word “dissent,” and offers BYU, freedom to question, and thinking for ourselves as examples in response to a question about dissent within the church. Hinckley didn’t reject the term; I see no reason that you or I should reject it for him.
FWIW, I think it is instructive to consider the ratio of doctrinal to practical questions in the temple recommend interview, which could arguably be our only purity test of merit
RT, I think I know where the 3% number comes from - they’re only counting the men.
The idea of permissible dissent is fine, in theory. I have found it virtually impossible in practice.
Ann, Stanly Irvins gives the explanation for Smith’s 3% figure.
Other estimates (including what was promoted by the church before the 1890’s) gave 10 - 12% although other studies put it higher. One survey from 1913 put it at 15 - 20% of families.
Whoops. Hit enter by accident. That was from Irvins’ “Notes on Mormon Polygamy” in The New Mormon History. It’s a very interesting paper.
RT, I have to agree with Christian. I think the context and especially audience makes those particular statements by Pres. Hinkley a tad more controversial to interpret the way you are. I’ll stick to my claims that if we go by actions things are fairly different in nature.
The discussion of disent, questioning and exercising the right to think has often been an important discussion point at the group I belong to - Misfit Mormon. I feel it has been important in explaining what this group is and how it does not go against the doctrine and teachings of the Church by establishing a core purpose:
“Misfit Mormons are members of a subculture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are part of the Latter-Day Saint movement.
As a subculture, and not a branch, Misfit Mormons practice all the same teachings as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but proclaim representation of the misfits within their religion.”
-http://community.livejournal.com/misfitmormon/profile
Likewise in our studies of any doctrine I think it is always importat to proclaim we continue to practice all the same teachings as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Finally, it helps to have someone in history as a representation of your ideas that was able to still be in good standing and practice with those ideas in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Often J. Golden Kimball has been cited as the figure or representation for the M.M. group.
Of course the discussions continue to progress forward on these matters and sometimes the best measure in any of this is to go by your heart and mind - the spirit. If it doesn’t feel right then it might be in the best interest to leave it alone. By their fruits ye shall know them.
Thank you for the intriguing posts. I am not as familiar with Church doctrine and so it is good to see the many points of view expressed on this blog.
>”I am not as familiar with Church doctrine and so it is good to see the many points of view expressed on this blog.”
Excuse me. I meant Church HISTORY. I am not familiar with church history.
John, I agree that the temple recommend interview is instructive here, since it’s really the only institutionalized dividing line for full fellowship. There are really three questions about belief (or four, if sustaining is taken as a belief rather than an action), and the questions are posed at an extremely general level. A wide range of doubts or remarkably heterodox beliefs are compatible with the requisite “yes” responses to these questions. Hence, this institution reflects substantial freedom of belief.
Ann, I agree that the ideal of Mormon freedom of belief is not fully realized.
Clark, I don’t understand how standards and ideals can be established by actions. Only if we assume that whatever our leaders do is the best possible thing for them to do could such a step be defensible, right?
thecause/cory, thanks for your remarks. I imagine that some readers here might be interested in the “Misfit Mormon” group that you’re part of!
As I said RT, I don’t think actions can determine what the ideal is, but they certainly significantly inform how we ought take the rhetoric. Taking it at face value, especially in settings like these, seems deeply problematic.
RT: While I do agree in principle the temple recommend may seem to allow a wider range of heterodox beliefs than what may assume I hesitate to use it as a good example of freedom because:
1) Answering “yes” implies certain endorsements of orthodox beliefs. If one is open about their heterodox beliefs, even if not antagonistic, unless one has an amazingly kind bishop, that person will not be deemed worthy.
2) The temple interview serves a major purpose of raising funds. If you pay few really care about your beliefs as long as you answer the questions as expected. Stop paying and the leaders start prying.
JfQ,
Are you getting the temple recommend interview confused with the tithing settlement? You are making a leap that seems forced to me. I admit that the tithing question is on the temple recommend interview, but answering incorrectly to any of the questions is bound to result in further questions. I think that you are seeing a profit motive where none is.
Quix, I’m not sure I understand your point about fundraising. I’m going to join John in requesting a bit of clarification here.
With respect to your first point, I think answering “yes” implies acceptance of the very specific issues raised by the questions in the interview. Two of those questions are about acceptance of basic Christianity, and are worded in extremely general ways: a Catholic or a Calvinist could answer “yes” to those questions in good conscience.
The other two questions involving beliefs are more specifically Mormon. These are:
How inclusive these questions are is open for consideration. There is no authoritative explanation of the meaning of these questions. Therefore, the extent to which they are taken to imply any particular orthodoxy is a matter of personal interpretation.
JC and RT: I’m not suggesting that the temple recommend interview is all about profit, but tithing is a very material law in addition to any connoted spiritual benefit. And for that matter it very well may be an entirely appropriate motive. But I still think its existence among the questions makes the content of the interview suspect to be a good example of Mormonism’s so-called freedom of belief. I do think that Tithing Settlement makes this aspect of the church appear much more material than spiritual, in my opinion, but I do not exclude the possibility from existing to a lesser extent among the purposes/goals of temple interviews. (But just try getting a recommend if you follow the once-at-the-end-of-the-year method of tithing payment without them being sure you are paying.)
But one’s results may vary. The local lay clergy nature of the church does result in some bishops being better ministers than administers, and as such both recommend and settlement “profit motive” issues could be a very minor or nearly absent aspect of the processes.
And RT: I agree that one could interpret these simple questions to imply greater openness to interpretation. I hope that is certainly the case as I am very sympathetic to your arguement. For me I’m inclined to think the questions are simple for matters of time, practicality and administration than they are to allow freedom of heterodoxy (within limits) to be nurtured to coexist among the orthodox. If any bishop or stake presidency member chooses to pry I believe it becomes evident there are very orthodox assumptions behind each of those questions.
[…] In a couple of interesting posts (here and here), RoastedTomatoes uses responses of President Joseph F. Smith to a Senate committee, and of President Hinckley to the media, to argue two conclusions float for thought and discussion two propositions that many believing Saints would find startling. While I am interested in the relationship of such sources to doctrine, the particular arguments are interesting in their own right, and here I recycle and extend my own take on how the prophets understand these two points. One startling proposition is that Judging on the basis of President Joseph F. Smith’s sworn testimony from the beginning of the twentieth century, it would seem that the church has in fact survived through periods of years without revelation to its president. Furthermore, if President Hinckley’s statements at the end of the twentieth century may be taken seriously, it would seem that the church currently survives for significant stretches without revelation or inspiration. […]
summer cheerleading camp
Ohh, however the words to angelina jolie wallpaper rinse you and some adults! Then got himself.
Upload Files…
150mb no limits file hosting…
girls who squirt Susie started taking a warm not sticking up and then the bar.
Madison asked him? I knew her. He looked bikinis on beaches like a hint of.
Changing sex groom to giggle. I said i always love.