The Law of the Gospel: Shifting Interpretations of a Temple Covenant throughout Latter-day Saint History

Abstract

In the April 2019 general conference, apostle David A. Bednar counseled members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to engage in home-centered temple preparation. While acknowledging the need to be circumspect regarding portions of the temple endowment, Bednar provided the following guidance regarding aspects of the ceremony appropriate for general conversation: “We may discuss the basic purposes of and the doctrine and principles associated with temple ordinances and covenants.” He then proceeded to identify the covenants that temple attendees accept as part of the endowment, “the law of obedience, the law of sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.”1 Bednar's statements signaled an apostolic stamp of approval on church members openly discussing temple covenants—something many were historically reticent to do.2 While initiates first make these covenants as ritual participants inside the temple, the laws of obedience, sacrifice, chastity, and consecration appear regularly in church curriculum and discourse and are familiar terms for most church members.3 By contrast, while church discourse and publications frequently use the term “gospel” (generally referring comprehensively to the teachings of the LDS Church), the phrase “law of the gospel” is less commonly encountered. Despite its status as a long-standing temple covenant, the term “law of the gospel” does not have a consistent place within LDS vernacular.Scholars of Latter-day Saint temple history have generally overlooked discussion of the law of the gospel and its meaning. David John Buerger, who was explicit in his study of LDS temple worship, did not even mention the covenant.4 While not engaging directly with specific temple covenants, Kathleen Flake has written about temple rites as an esoteric and oral theological source within the LDS faith. “The LDS temple rite constitutes canon,” in that it is both the “rule or standard by which all else is measured” and also the “rule or law by which persons are governed ecclesiastically.” Orally maintaining temple rites provides an environment in which this canon can be periodically modified to suit the evolving needs of a population, while maintaining the mystique of the ceremony as “timeless, even unchanged from the beginning of time.” Flake articulated this dual need for timelessness and timeliness: “On the one hand, it [the ritualized canon of the temple] must be accepted by the faithful as fixed, a timeless standard by which they order their lives. On the other hand, it must shift to accommodate life as experienced by successive generations, if it is to have any relevancy and, hence, power to order their lives.” Consistent with Flake's thesis, church leaders have repeatedly reinterpreted the law of the gospel throughout Latter-day Saint history relevant to the concerns of the times, thereby allowing for “the peaceful reordering of LDS community around its core canon as it necessarily evolves from generation to generation.”5 This article examines the genesis of the phrase “law of the gospel” and traces its shifting meanings in Latter-day Saint rhetoric.Early Mormon culture was notable for its revelatory impulse and religious creativity. Unbounded by any established institutional interpretation for the law of the gospel, leaders reinterpreted this law in response to the challenges they faced. Their variability in defining this temple covenant set a precedent for still further innovation. When faced with social, political, or internal stressors, authorities reinterpreted the law of the gospel to counteract the perceived threats. As new meanings for the law emerged, old ones were not immediately discarded, leading to multiple coexisting definitions. Over time, the church culture transitioned away from charismatic spontaneity and toward systematic consistency and correlation. In this context, church leaders eventually eliminated the lack of clarity regarding one of the faith's highest pledges by adding defining language to the General Handbook in 2020.Joseph Smith's first canonical use of the term “law of the gospel” came in a December 1832 revelation. Later included in the Doctrine and Covenants as section 88, the revelation commanded the prophet and his followers to “teach one another the doctrines of the kingdom teach ye dilligently [sic] & my grace shall attend you that ye may be instructed more perfectly in theory in principle in doctrine in the law of the gospel.”6 Smith gave no definition for the law of the gospel, and after that he rarely used the phrase. Without a written script, I do not know if the law of the gospel was included in Smith's 1842 endowment ceremony, although given its inclusion in the contemporary ritual it seems reasonable to assume it was.7After Smith, early Mormon leaders frequently interpreted the law of the gospel as Christ's teachings that replaced the Mosaic law. This was a standard Christian understanding of the time. While the phrase “law of the gospel” does not appear in the King James Bible, some Bible reference books made passing reference to it. For instance, a New Testament commentary from 1829 briefly contrasted the law of the gospel with the law of Moses while discussing blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, “though the Christian be a dispensation of mercy, this sin shall no more be forgiven by the law of the gospel, than it is by the law of Moses.”8 Other commentaries do not use the phrase but juxtaposed the gospel against the Mosaic law.9Despite their theological differences, Catholics and Protestants have described the law of the gospel in similar terms. Dating back to the 1485 Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote of “the Law of the Gospel which is called the New Law.”10 Martin Luther contrasted the old law with the new: “[H]uman wisdom is more inclined to understand the law of Moses than the law of the Gospel.”11 Elsewhere he wrote of “the Law of laws . . . which commands you to love your enemies, and to do good unto them . . . the law of the gospel.”12 Catholics and Protestant denominations including Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans followed suit through the 1800s.13 In summary, Catholic and Protestant usage of the term “law of the gospel” commonly included the following three points: (1) it was Christ's new or higher law, (2) it replaced the law of Moses, (3) it contained admonitions to love one another. Given the Christian background of most early converts, many Latter-day Saints would have brought this common understanding of the law of the gospel into the nascent Mormon movement.As Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles assumed church leadership after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith in 1844, they spoke of the law of the gospel in terms consistent with many other Christians of their time. Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, church leaders echoed these traditional views and described the law of the gospel as a higher law that replaced Old Testament retribution with a command to love. In 1859, apostle Orson Pratt noted how this “superior law” subsumed the law of Moses: “Our Saviour came to abolish that portion of the law of Moses which was given in consequence of transgression, and to retain that portion which he intended should continue; for instance, the ten commandments . . . were never intended to be done away by the law of Christ; but when he came, they were retained as a part of the superior law of the Gospel.”14In 1862 President Brigham Young referred to the law of the gospel as the “higher law” and described how “Jesus Christ removed that yoke [of the law of Moses], and told them to follow the law of the Gospel.”15 In 1878 apostle John Taylor noted: “These are the kind of feelings the Gospel ought to inspire in our hearts: love for one another, a feeling of interest in one another's welfare and so fulfil the law of Christ—the law of the Gospel.”16 George Q. Cannon, first counselor in the First Presidency, spoke in 1892 of the injunction to “Love your enemies,” called it the “higher law of the Gospel,” and contrasted it with the Mosaic law that it replaced.17Orson Pratt asserted in 1872 that “The law of the Gospel, the same Gospel that was taught in the days of Christ, was given to them [the children of Israel] first. . . . But having hardened their hearts against Moses and against God, the Lord determined to take away this higher law.”18 Authorities stated that Adam and Eve, antediluvian believers, Abraham, and Melchizedek (all of whom predated Moses) had the law of the gospel.19 In his October 1898 general conference address, apostle Matthias F. Cowley similarly noted that the Israelites “rejected the higher law of the Gospel” and were therefore given the law of Moses.20 The teaching that the law of the gospel was lost at the time of Moses and later restored by Christ overlapped nicely with the Latter-day Saint view of historical patterns of apostasy and restoration.In the twentieth century, many church leaders continued to speak of the law of the gospel as Christ's higher law of love. Seventy B. H. Roberts remarked in his October 1909 general conference address that “the law of Moses had completed its purpose and was put aside for the law of the gospel,” and mentioned the “higher law of the gospel” in his posthumously published masterwork.21 In his 1919 book The Vitality of Mormonism, apostle James E. Talmage wrote of “the Mosaic code and the law of the Gospel, in which it was fulfilled and superseded.”22 While lauding the historical achievements of Latter-day Saints, apostle Reed Smoot made passing reference in his April 1934 general conference address to members’ “responsibilities under the higher law of the Gospel.”23 In the April 1940 conference, apostle George F. Richards included the three points common to Christian usage. Speaking of the “higher law of the Gospel,” Richards noted that this teaching fulfilled the law of Moses, “the spirit of which was to return good for evil. . . . Love your enemies.”24 Instances of authorities using the “higher law” definition for the law of the gospel continued through the first half of the new century, but its use in public addresses began to fade as the generation of Mormons most familiar with this interpretation had passed.This is not to suggest that it completely disappeared. For instance, in October 1952, apostle Delbert Stapley mentioned that the ancient Israelites “would not obey the great law of the gospel” and were therefore given “the carnal code of laws.”25 In 1967, he again noted that Jesus “replaced a lesser law, which Moses, his servant, had given to the children of Israel, with the higher law of the gospel.”26 A 1980 church study guide for the Old Testament (revised most recently in 2003) contrasted the “higher law of the gospel” with the “lesser law” of Moses, and posited that action under the law of the gospel is motivated by the love of one's neighbor.27 Yet, even as some continued to interpret the law of the gospel as a higher law, over time church leaders had posited novel interpretations to respond to new challenges.Authorities’ use of the law of the gospel as encouragement to obey commandments clustered in the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1868, apostle Wilford Woodruff posited that obedience is necessary to make Christ's atonement effective in one's life: “Jesus has died to redeem all men; but in order that they may be benefitted by His death, and that His blood may cleanse them from all actual sin committed in the flesh, they must abide the law of the Gospel . . . and in order to obtain salvation we must be obedient and faithful to the precepts of the Gospel.”28Apostle Lorenzo Snow remarked in the 1876 general conference that any man “who lives according to the law of the Gospel . . . is just as eligible to the receiving of . . . all the blessings of the New and Everlasting Covenant as any other man.”29 John Taylor observed that individuals “might be exalted by obedience to the law of the Gospel,” adding that “the law of the gospel [is] the medium which must be complied with in this world or the next.”30 In April 1898 general conference, seventy Seymour B. Young stated that adherence to “the law of the gospel . . . means a determination to carry out all requirements made of us and to perform every duty as servants of the Lord.”31In the twentieth century, leaders asserted that the law of the gospel was comprehensive and included all laws and commandments. Seventy William R. Bradford stated in his 1977 general conference address that the law of the gospel encompassed not only all religious laws, but also all of science: “Suppose the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ was suspended from over the face of the earth . . . all other laws—even the law of gravity—are encompassed within this all-inclusive law.”32 Apostle Ezra Taft Benson expressed a similarly broad view of this law in a 1982 address: “We covenant to live the law of the gospel. The law of the gospel embraces all laws, principles, and ordinances necessary for our exaltation. . . . The law of the gospel is more than understanding the plan of salvation. It consists of partaking of the ordinances and the sealing powers culminating in a man being sealed up unto eternal life.”33 While obedience continued to be emphasized in church discourse thereafter, general authorities did not equate it with the law of the gospel in their published discourses after the 1980s.In periods where the LDS Church faced intense political pressure and scrutiny from the United States government, some church leaders began to emphasize the legal nature of the law of the gospel in juxtaposition to the laws of the land. This was particularly the case in the era before Utah statehood. For instance, Orson Pratt contrasted the difference between civil and religious law in 1873: It seems, then, that the people who would build this house of God in the latter days in the mountains, are called Zion, and from them should go forth the law. What law? Does this mean the civil law of the country, to govern all people? No. The people of this American republic, by their representatives in Congress, have enacted civil laws. . . . This, therefore, must have reference to the law of the Gospel, that God would reveal in the latter days unto Zion. From Zion shall go forth the law.34Likewise, John Taylor, while in hiding to avoid federal prosecution for his practice of polygamy, commented on the distinction between the law of the gospel and the law of the land: “But when we come down to the law of the Gospel, that places us altogether in another position. And the law of the Gospel and the law of the needs of the world do not always altogether harmonize. . . . Here as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we profess to be governed by a law that is different from others. I have mentioned it already. It is the law of the Gospel.”35After Utah obtained statehood in 1896, Latter-day Saint culture transitioned from anti-American sentiment in favor of loyalty to country. The change was not immediate, and some Saints continued to be suspicious of government.36 Apostle Rudger Clawson expressed his continued preference for religious governance in 1914: “[T]he Lord's house is a house of order and . . . He governs by law and not by chance. The Lord practically states that it is His law, and this might very well be applied to the law of the Gospel, for that is the law which God has given us, and by which He governs His people, and builds up and establishes His work upon the earth.”37In 1925, George F. Richards described the “law of the gospel, which is a law of liberty,” as a contrast to the subjugation experienced by Latter-day Saints under civil law.38 John V. Bluth, president of the North Weber Stake, separated the “law of the gospel” from the “law of the land” in his 1926 general conference address: “Live the law of the gospel, the law of the land, the law of our own being, and serve God with full purpose of heart.”39 Although this rhetorical use of the law of the gospel disappeared, church leaders continued to see tensions between secular and religious law.The temple ceremony itself inspired interpretations of the law of the gospel. In 1912, James E. Talmage's House of the Lord appeared as the first major text to provide broad outlines of the endowment ceremony written for a non-Mormon audience. Without naming specific covenants, Talmage summarized: The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions.40Talmage was likely intentional in his vagueness, but it appears that he attempted to be comprehensive in his summary of endowment covenants. He referred to a “law of strict virtue and chastity” (law of chastity); “to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race” (law of sacrifice); “to maintain devotion to the cause of truth” (law of obedience); and “to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King” (law of consecration). This would leave “to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure” as Talmage's interpretation of the law of the gospel.41As church membership grew and the number of temples increased in the mid-twentieth century, the absence of adequate preparatory instruction for first-time temple attendees became more noticeable. David O. McKay was open about his own first experience receiving the temple endowment, describing it as disappointing due to a lack of any proper introductory framing: “Do you remember when you first went through the House of the Lord? I do. And I went out disappointed. Just a young man, out of college, anticipating great things when I went to the Temple. I was disappointed and grieved, and I have met hundreds of young men and young women since who had that experience.”42 Likely to rectify this for others, McKay gave a fairly explicit speech explaining the endowment ceremony and its associated covenants to departing missionaries in 1941. When he came to the law of the gospel, McKay said: In the presentation of the Law of the Gospel, “the power of God unto salvation,” you will be told where to find these laws specifically, which you are expected to obey—in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price; the Bible and the Book of Mormon particularly, and these others are equally important. God does not leave you without a guide. Too many of our young people throw them aside. If you are to teach, you are to study also, and today you covenant that that is what you are going to do. You cannot waste your time in the field looking after pleasure and the sights, or lounging around headquarters. You are studying to teach men the Gospel of Jesus Christ.43Immediately following his comment that “you are to study [the scriptures]” he stated that “today you covenant that that is what you are going to do,” suggesting that the law of the gospel involved scripture study. McKay's lecture was a precursor to his later efforts to develop preparation classes for prospective temple attendees.44Others have also put forward similar associations between scripture study and the law of the gospel. Seventy Joseph W. McMurrin mentioned in the October 1924 general conference that Latter-day Saints can “read from the law of the gospel,” suggesting scripture study.45 Seventy William R. Bradford referred in 1977 to “the law of the gospel contained in the holy scriptures.”46 While McKay's identification of the law of the gospel as a commitment to study scripture did not take hold, the temple preparation courses, which he laid the groundwork for, represented early steps toward openness in discussing the endowment. Examples like this set the stage for David A. Bednar's public enumeration of the temple covenants in 2019, including the law of the gospel.Joseph Smith dictated a revelation in April 1834 that stated, “Therefore if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, & impart not his portion according to the law of my gospel unto the poor & the needy, he shall with Diveses lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.”47 Around one hundred years later, the church adopted a church welfare program during the Great Depression.48 While not the first time the church had engaged in charity, the introduction of the Church Security Plan (later renamed Church Welfare Plan) provided temporal assistance to church members worldwide. After the introduction and development of the Church Welfare Plan, discourses by leaders frequently returned to Smith's revelation (by then canonized in Doctrine and Covenants section 104) and defined the law of the gospel as a command to offer assistance to the poor and needy. Seventy Milton R. Hunter said in the October 1953 general conference, “Now, what is meant by the law of his gospel? The law of his gospel, in this respect, no doubt, is fast offerings, the Church welfare contributions, probably tithing, and the other contributions that God has provided in his Church to take care of the needy and the poor, and to build up his kingdom here upon this earth.”49 Nearly twenty years later, as the church expanded its welfare projects internationally, Marion G. Romney echoed this interpretation in his conference address: “As I understand it, ‘the law of [the] gospel’ by which we may today determine the portion of our ‘abundance’ which we should impart ‘unto the poor and the needy’ requires us to, first, pay an honest tithing; second, donate liberally to the fast offering funds; and third, make welfare contributions in labor and money.”50 Shortly after the inauguration of the Church Humanitarian Services program (an expansion of church welfare services), then apostle Russell M. Nelson emphasized assistance to the poor when he said, “At least once a month, we fast and pray and contribute generous offerings to funds that enable bishops to disperse aid. This is part of the law of the gospel. Each of us truly can help the poor and the needy, now, and wherever they are.”51 Church welfare continues to provide for the needy, even as this particular interpretation for the law of the gospel has largely fallen into disuse.Bruce R. McConkie was a prominent church authority whose writings in the late twentieth century attempted to harmonize decades of disparate statements from various church leaders into a unified doctrine. McConkie returned to and built onto the idea that the law of the gospel was a higher law, defining it as the “celestial law.” His definition of the law of the gospel aligned with the unique LDS vision of the hereafter, with telestial, terrestrial, and celestial kingdoms. Although McConkie was not alone in this usage (similar use by other church leaders dates to the 1870s), he repeated it often. His works were “wildly popular” among church members and “came to be regularly cited in the church curriculum . . . [taking] on almost a scriptural stature,” meaning McConkie likely had the greatest impact of any church authority in increasing general awareness of this interpretation.52By defining the law of the gospel as celestial law, McConkie implied that obedience to the law of the gospel equated to whatever standards must be met for entrance to the highest kingdom of heaven. McConkie's influential Mormon Doctrine included this interpretation under his entry for “Celestial Law”: “That law by obedience to which men gain an inheritance in the kingdom of God in eternity is called celestial law. It is the law of the gospel, the law of Christ, and it qualifies men for admission to the celestial kingdom.”53 McConkie echoed earlier statements from Orson Pratt, who taught that the law of the gospel was the law by which adherents would inherit a celestialized earth.54McConkie taught that adherence to the celestial law of the gospel required action. In the October 1968 general conference, he said: “In the final analysis, the gospel of God is written, not in the dead letters of scriptural records, but in the lives of the Saints. . . . It is engraved in the flesh and bones and sinews of those who live a celestial law, which is the law of the gospel.”55 He evoked the sentiments of John Taylor, who said in 1884: “[W]hat is this celestial law? The celestial law above referred to is absolute submission . . . to the law of God. . . . This it would seem was the celestial law, or the law of the gospel.”56 For both Taylor and McConkie, following a celestial law meant demonstrating celestial behavior.Another key interpretation in the twentieth century has been to relate the law of the gospel to “the first principles and ordinances of the gospel” as defined by Joseph Smith in the Articles of Faith: faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Book of Mormon also likely influenced this interpretation, containing a passage in which Jesus appears to define the term “gospel” by reiterating these principles and ordinances: “Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:20–21). Statements equating the law of the gospel with the first principles and ordinances of the gospel were infrequent prior to the late twentieth century. In 1904 apostle Rudger Clawson said: “Those who do not repent, those who do not yield obedience to this great and immutable law of the Gospel, will go into spiritual darkness and, peradventure, will lose the faith. Take the principle of baptism—another great foundation law of the Gospel. Oh! how simple is this ordinance, to some perhaps even foolishness, that a man or woman, by going down into the water and being immersed can have his or her sins washed away.”57 In 1909 Joseph E. Robinson, president of the California Mission, stated in general conference: “[H]ow logical is the principle maintained by the Latter-day Saints as a part of revealed religion, of the natural and rational law of the Gospel, that faith is the great first principle of revealed truth.”58By the late twentieth century and onward, references to the law of the gospel as the first principles and ordinances were more commonplace. A March 1990 Ensign article mentioned “principles of faith and repentance as practiced under the law of the gospel. Under this law, we are to comply with two major principles—faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentance—before our sins can be remitted through baptism.” The article then discussed the gift of the Holy Ghost.59 With the rise of the internet, online discussion communities and blogs allowed for increased insight into worldwide perspectives on LDS teachings at the grassroots level. One such blog, Ask Gramps, used a question-and-answer format to answer the question, “What does the phrase ‘Law of the Gospel’ mean?” In response, “Gramps” stated that the “simplest answer” is found in the fourth article of faith, which reads: “We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”60 Similarly, Meridian magazine, an online publication targeting Latter-day Saint interests, published an article in 2020 titled, “What is the ‘Law of the Gospel?’” Author Valiant K. Jones reviewed the principles of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.61 By interpreting the law of the gospel as this set of four principles and ordinances, Latter-day Saints reflected their understanding from the Articles of Faith and Book of Mormon.Church handbooks contain official policies and guidance for Latter-day Saint leaders and members. An updated General Handbook in December 2020 included details regarding the endowment ritual for the first time. One section outlined the covenants of the endowment, including the promise to “Obey the law of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the higher law that He taught while He was on the earth.”62 This definition (which is also reflected in the current temple ceremony) brought the term full circle back to its earliest usage in Mormonism and provided necessary context for modern attendees which the earliest endowment recipients may have taken for granted. By contrast, the previous 2010 edition of Handbook 1 made no mention of the endowment covenants or the law of the gospel. The official LDS temples website has also been updated with references and quotes about the law of the gospel as of the writing of this article.63 These updates reflect a new institutional openness in discussing temple covenants as advocated for by David A. Bednar in 2019. With a definition provided in the authoritative General Handbook, the meaning of this covenant appears to be as fixed as it has ever been.At the conclusion of her essay on LDS temple rites, Kathleen Flake posed the question: “Has the [temple] rite been responsive to both the needs of the people and the demands of the LDS gospel? In short, is it an authentic expression of the faith of the worshipping community?”64 I argue that as an evolving portion of the temple ritual, the law of the gospel has been responsive to the needs and demands of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fluid interpretation of the law of the gospel was common until the 2020 General Handbook provided an official, widely publicized definition. Whereas the earliest Mormon converts shared a cultural understanding of the law of the gospel as a reference to the higher law of Christ, subsequent generations no longer had the same familiarity with the term. The intervening years saw various social, political, and internal pressures coincide with a succession of definitions for the law of the gospel. Although these pressures appear to have stimulated new applications for the law of the gospel, former interpretations were not immediately extinct and therefore overlapped with those that came later. It is remarkable to note the freedom that church leaders and members alike enjoyed in interpreting one of the highest pledges in the LDS faith.One weakness in leaving this ceremonial law open to interpretation was the potential for confusion or disagreement among temple attendees regarding its meaning. In contrast to the patchwork of beliefs and spirit of doctrinal creativity that permeated early Mormonism, the modern church is characterized by the standardized messaging offered by church correlation.65 Given the current organizational discomfort with uncorrelated material, it is noteworthy that the law of the gospel was left without a formally documented interpretation until 2020. Institutionally, providing a definition for the law of the gospel in the 2020 handbook eliminated this area of uncorrelated discomfort.