Glory, Light, and Law: Redefining “Power” in the Doctrine and Covenants

For generations, society has been conditioned by Lord Acton’s cynical—and historically accurate—observation that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Because we see power abused every day to control, dominate, or exploit others, we naturally assume that giving anyone ultimate power would lead to ultimate tyranny. But does this hold true in the eternities? A notable new article over at the Latter-day Saint history blog, From the Desk, by historian Steven C. Harper, argues that the revelations of Joseph Smith completely upend this paradigm. Harper traces Joseph’s lifelong quest to understand “the power of godliness,” showing that in the Restored Gospel, absolute power doesn’t corrupt at all—in fact, it is the very definition of exaltation.

Does Absolute Power Corrupt? Joseph Smith’s Search for an Endowment of Power

A New Definition of Power

Harper takes the stance that Joseph Smith’s education in divine power began in the Sacred Grove, where he learned that the sectarian world had “a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” From that moment, Joseph spent his life learning what that missing power actually was.

The key insight is that God’s power looks little like the world’s power. It isn’t about coercion or gatekeeping.

The old maxim is wrong. Absolute power does not corrupt; the only beings who have absolute power are incorruptible…

What corrupts is our default instinct to use even a little power unrighteously—to control, dominate, or exploit others. It is the abuse of a little power that prevents us from ever being endowed with all of God’s power.

Through revelations like Doctrine and Covenants 88 and 93, the Lord gave Joseph an expanded vocabulary for this power. He defined it as light, life, truth, and law. “The glory of God is intelligence,” the revelation stated, equating divine glory directly with the power to give life and light to all things.

Glory = Power

Harper makes a fascinating exegetical move by showing how the words “glory,” “fullness,” and “power” act as synonyms in Joseph’s revelations. When we read Section 76 (the Vision of the Degrees of Glory), we aren’t just reading about where people will live; we are reading about how much power they are willing to receive.

Glory is the power of godliness. Fulness is all of the power of godliness. People who regain God’s presence “received of his fulness” and “he makes them equal in power” (D&C 76:94-95). Meanwhile, people who choose to receive some but not all of God’s power will receive a telestial or terrestrial degree of glory.

Harper applies this same lens to Doctrine and Covenants 132, noting that the command to “abide my law” to “attain to this glory” essentially means: “unless you receive my power, you cannot receive my power.”

The Pumpkin and the Corndodger

This paradigm shift was incredibly difficult for the early Saints to grasp. Harper includes a beautifully human detail about a frustrated Joseph Smith in 1844. Living on borrowed time, Joseph was trying to prepare the Saints to receive the full endowment of God’s power in the Nauvoo Temple, but they were still bogged down in tradition and distraction.

He was exasperated that the Saints still did not understand or truly desire what the Lord had been trying to give them. So Joseph used a metaphor they could feel. Teaching them to become endowed with the fulness of God’s power, he said, was like cutting through the knots in a hemlock tree with a corndodger for a wedge and a pumpkin for a hammer.

Joseph’s ultimate mission was to teach that God isn’t hoarding His power; He is desperately trying to endow us with it. Being endowed with power doesn’t make us tyrants—it makes us joint-heirs with Christ. For more on how Joseph Smith developed this theology through the crucible of Liberty Jail, the specific role of temple ordinances in receiving power, and why “receive” is the most important verb in the Doctrine and Covenants, head on over to the Latter-day Saint history blog, From the Desk, to read the full article by Steven C. Harper.

While you’re there, check out the new Spencer W. Kimball Quotes page!


Comments

9 responses to “Glory, Light, and Law: Redefining “Power” in the Doctrine and Covenants”

  1. To me, perhaps the most important part of all this is the importance of persuasion — in the Lord’s economy, the only way to get someone to do something in anything related to the gospel is through persuasion, kindness, love, and so forth — we cannot use rank, or office, or compulsion, or shame, or embarrassment, or callings. This includes “assignments” from “high-ranking” church officers to lower-ranking officers and members. The “higher-ranking” church officer must love the lower-ranking member enough to persuade him or her, and of course the persuasion has to be to the understanding/satisfaction of the lower-ranking member.

    Everything has to be by persuasion, not by command. I think we still have room for improvement among ourselves in this matter.

  2. Lord Acton was right about the natural man, as a lot of very “natural” men have demonstrated recently. God will only give his power to those who have experienced the mighty change of heart and been transformed into the image of Christ, who both taught and exemplified that the only legitimate use of power and authority is to serve others.

    It’s an interesting twist on who the celestial kingdom is for and why it’s not open to everyone unconditionally: it’s for those who can be trusted with God’s absolute power.

    ji, I think the example of Jesus is relevant to persuasion too. Jesus had no power to coerce his disciples. But he persuaded them to have faith (trust) in him, and then he often drew on that faith by giving them commandments without taking the time to persuade them that those particular commandments were necessary. Some local Church leaders probably draw on the faith of the members they oversee too much and should do more persuading. But it’s not inappropriate for them to ask members to trust them.

  3. RLD, Certainly, church leaders may endeavor to persuade members to trust them, but they should not demand or compel that trust — like the Lord says, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness, and pure knowledge, and without guile. You must not think that leaders are excused and may sidestep persuasion; indeed, I think this guidance from the Lord applies especially to leaders.

    That said, do you overstate your argument? Didn’t the Lord always take time to persuade his disciples, with long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, pure knowledge, and without guile? It is not beneath the dignity of a leader to persuade a lower-ranking brother and fellow church member; rather, I think that is exactly what he asks (but doesn’t demand) of us.

    Yes, I think we have room for improvement among ourselves in this matter. Of course, I say this from the very bottom of our church hierarchy, and I acknowledge that some higher in the hierarchy may have a differing opinion. I appreciate the OP’s invitation to re-visit our conceptions of power in light of the Lord’s way.

  4. There’s no indication Jesus told his disciples why he needed a donkey (Luke 19:29-31), let alone persuaded them that obtaining one would be a good idea. He just commanded, and they obeyed. The dynamic is particularly clear in Jesus’ last recorded conversation with Peter (John 21:15-17): by first asking Peter if he loved him and then commanding him to feed his sheep, Jesus was clearly asking Peter to feed his sheep because he loved him, not because he had persuaded Peter that feeding sheep was a good idea.

    The Sermon on the Mount definitely contains elements of persuasion, but it does not attempt to persuade us of every point. Sometimes it expects us to have the faith (trust) to obey first, and then we will be persuaded by the results.

  5. RLD, I take it, then, that you disagree with the inclusion of the word “persuasion” in the formulation in D&C 121:41? “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned…” I see all of these as essential elements to help a church leader avoid unrighteous dominion, and this formulation reminds leaders (well, at least those who read it) that they must be servants (see also Matt. 20:26-27).

    If you are trying to persuade me that a church leader can give commandments to lower-ranking members and expect their obedience, I don’t think you can succeed. I have heard this message taught before, and I don’t accept it. Instead, I would prefer for more church leaders to follow the formulation in D&C 121:41ff.

    My thesis is still that in the Lord’s economy, the only way to get someone to do something in anything related to the gospel is through persuasion, kindness, love, and so forth — we cannot use rank, or office, or compulsion, or shame, or embarrassment, or callings. Everything has to be by persuasion, not by command. I don’t think you are alone among us in your disagreement with me, so you are in good company. Indeed, but I would say sadly, many even among us seem to prefer the leadership approach of Matt. 20:25 over the approach in verses 26-27, and hence, maybe, D&C 121:39 comes into play.

    I appreciate the OP’s invitation to re-visit our conceptions of power in light of the Lord’s way.

  6. Not at all! But the example of Jesus does show that not every directive needs to be accompanied by an argument for why it’s a good idea. A ward should be persuaded that their bishop loves them, wants what is good for them, has some wisdom, and receives guidance from the Lord. Then he can draw upon that prior persuasion and give routine directions without having to make the case for them. That’s still persuasion.

    The bishop needs to be aware that his ward’s faith (trust) in him is a finite resource. He should make the case for his decisions whenever possible, especially when he knows they will try people’s faith (trust) in him. He also needs to continue to persuade people of his love and goodwill–you see this later in D&C 121 when a leader who is inspired to correct is directed to show an increase in love afterwards. It really is all about persuasion, just some of it is implicit.

    I would like to see more explicit persuasion in the Church–I really hope we’ll get more of a case for the changes to our second hour meetings, for example. But I don’t think our current practices are out of line with Christ’s example.

  7. RLD, I think perhaps we’re approaching this from different starting points, and so we are talking past each other. My starting point is the positive or affirmative duty incumbent on a church leader to use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, and so forth in his interactions with members. Yes, I think this is the right way for a church leader to lead. My focus in this thread is on the leader.

    Your starting point is somewhere else, perhaps the duty of members to obey their church leader? Or the unacceptability of a low-ranking member to have a thought about how the scripture applies to higher-ranking leaders? I am agreeing with the Lord in my assertion that persuasion is a duty of one who wants to be am effective church leader in the Lord’s way, but I do admit it is my personal observation that there is room for improvement among us in this matter — meanwhile, you feel current practices are compliant — yes, I think this is where we differ.

    Anyway, we’re talking past each other, so I will bow out and let you have the last word. I appreciate the OP’s invitation to re-visit our conceptions of power in light of the Lord’s way. Best wishes.

  8. Chad Nielsen

    I think it might be said that RLD is suggesting a broader conception of persuasion. I don’t think they are saying that current church leaders don’t need to use persuasion, so much as developing a relationship of trust is a long-term form of persuasion. That doesn’t equate to expecting blind obedience to every command.

  9. Chad Nielsen

    So, I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think you’re arguing different conclusions, but might be engaging in violent agreement colored by concerns about taking things to extremes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.