New Book!

 

 

 

THE "ONE MIGHTY AND STRONG"

        The activities of the “one mighty and strong” mentioned above play an immensely important role in the theology and expectations of Mormon fundamentalists even today.  Consequently, it is nearly impossible to comprehend the Mormon fundamentalist movement without understanding the history and duties of the “one mighty and strong.”  Of all scripture, no single verse is referred to more often by fundamentalists than D&C 85:7.[1] 

A History of Doctrine and Covenants Section 85 

Verse seven of D&C 85 was written by the Joseph Smith on 27 November 1832 in response to problems then occurring in Jackson County, Missouri.  A year and a half earlier, on 9 February 1831, Joseph Smith received the first of many revelations dealing with the law of consecration (section 42).  Soon the Saints in Jackson County attempted to implement it, but by the spring of 1833 their efforts faltered.[2]  A number of reasons have been cited to explain these failures including the observations that most of the participants were poor and some may have been guilty of coveting.[3]

          The presiding Church officer in Jackson County, Missouri in 1833, Bishop Edward Partridge, was responsible for receiving the consecrated properties on behalf of the Church and commissioned to then determine individual stewardships consistent with the guidelines in the revelations given through Joseph Smith.  Apparently some confusion and disagreements between him and others Church members led to difficulties and hard feelings.  As Timothy G. Merrill and Steven C. Harper assessed: “In anticipation of the impending Millennium, Latter-day Saints began to gather to Independence, [Missouri] zealously but not always sincerely, for some came with little or no intention of deeding their possessions to Bishop Partridge and in return receiving from him an inheritance sufficient for their needs (see D&C 42:29-33; 55; 51; 58:36).”[1]

          Joseph Smith responded to the problems through his November 1832 letter to W. W. Phelps, editor of the Evening and Morning Star, which the Church was publishing in Independence.  Phelps printed extracts of this letter, including the passage that mentioned the “one mighty and strong,” in the January 1833 issue.[2]  Over forty years later Orson Pratt would extract a portion of that letter to become section 85 of the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.[3]  Verse seven refers to: “I the Lord God will send one mighty and strong.”[4]

          Regarding this verse, non-Mormon historian William Shepard assessed: “Strangely we are not told whom this individual will be, when he is going to perform this wonderful work, what ‘setting in order means,’ and criteria by which we can determine if the ‘setting in order’ has been completed.  We are told that his individual will hold the scepter of power in his hand and he will clothed with light for a covering.  Both of these attributes have resulted in speculation regarding about what they mean.”[5] 

Interpretations of D&C 85:7 

          Although the reference to the “one mighty and strong” was included in the 1876 Doctrine and Covenants, it wasn’t until the turn of the century that individuals began to claim his identity, prompting a response from Church leaders.  Since 1905, several different interpretations have emerged regarding his timing, the scope of his duties, and whether his coming was inevitable or conditional.  The scripture (D&C 85:7) lists two responsibilities: (1) “to set in order the house of God, and (2) “to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God.”

          Perhaps the most common interpretation of this scripture by Church members involves the belief that the duties of the “one mighty and strong” were specific to Jackson County, Missouri in the 1830s and that his coming was contingent upon Bishop Partridge’s continued disobedience.  The next verse, verse eight, contains a warning:“While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.”  However, in an 1834 letter Oliver Cowdery quoted Joseph Smith saying that the threat of being “smitten” was conditional:  “Brother Joseph says, that the item in his letter that says, that the man that is called etc. and puts forth his hand to steady the ark of God, does not mean that any had at the time, but it was given for a caution to those in high standing to beware, lest they should fall by the vivid shaft of death as the Lord has said.”[6] 

          Proponents of this first approach believe that the coming of “one mighty and strong” was similarly conditional.  That it, if the Bishop in Jackson County in 1832 does not repent, then “I the Lord God will send one mighty and strong.”  In context, the logical person to have set Bishop Partridge straight would have been Church President Joseph Smith, not some mysterious being, “mighty and strong.”  However, Partridge apparently repented of his unnamed faults; and less than two years later on November 7, 1835, the Lord stated that He was “well pleased with my servant Edward Partridge... because of the integrity of your heart in laboring in my vineyard, for the salvation of the souls of men.”  This revelation, which was not canonized as part of the Doctrine and Covenants, also added that Bishop Partridge’s “sins were forgiven.”[7]

          In November 1905, the First Presidency, comprised of Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, detailed this view in the Deseret News

          Now, as to the “one mighty and strong,” who shall be sent of God, to “set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritance of the Saints.” Who is he? What position will he hold in the Church? In what manner will he come to his calling? We draw attention first of all to the fact that this whole letter to William W. Phelps, as well as the part afterwards accepted as the word of the Lord, related to the affairs of the Church in Zion, Independence, Jackson county, Missouri. And inasmuch as through his repentance and sacrifices and suffering, Bishop Edward Partridge undoubtedly obtained a mitigation of the threatened judgment against him of falling “by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning,” so the occasion for sending another to fill his station –“one mighty and strong to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints”—may also be considered as having passed away and the whole incident of the prophecy closed. [8] 

          William Shepard also shared this perspective:  “In my opinion, the weight of evidence suggests Joseph Smith’s references to the one mighty and strong were not intended to be a traditional revelation.  It appears to have been an inspired message with specific parameters, which were to be completed within a limited time period in Jackson County, Missouri.  The primary participants in this drama, Joseph Smith, William W. Phelps, and  Edward Partridge, considered the information about the one mighty and strong to refer to events in Zion in late 1832 and early 1833.  And after that time it was not an issue.”[9]

          A second interpretation of the role of the “one mighty and strong” was also embraced by Church leaders in 1905 and remains popular today.  It predicts that he will come in the future to accomplish both of his stated duties primarily (if not exclusively) in Jackson County.  In their 1905 epistle, the First Presidency also stipulated: “If, however, there are those who will still insist that the prophecy concerning the coming of ‘one mighty and strong’ is still to be regarded as relating to the future, let the Latter-day Saints know that he will be a future bishop of the Church who will be with the Saints in Zion, Jackson county, Missouri, when the Lord shall establish them in that land.”[10]  In addition, the section heading for D&C 85 in the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants states plainly: “One mighty and strong shall give the saints their inheritance in Zion” (italics mine) suggesting a definite future role for such a being.[11]

          Apostle Orson Pratt seemed convinced that the “one mighty and strong” would yet appear to administer specifically in Missouri:  “the time will come for the Saints to receive their stewardships, when they shall return to the lands from whence they have been driven; but the inheritances will not be given, until the Lord shall first appoint to the righteous dead their inheritances, and afterwards the righteous living will receive theirs” under the direction of “one mighty and strong.”[12]  His “special purpose [is] dividing to the Saints their inheritances”[13] so “that the Saints may receive their inheritances after they have consecrated everything in their possession.  Then we can build up a city that will be a city of perfection.”[14]

          It is clear that W. W. Phelps, to whom the letter was originally addressed, also possessed the view that the “one mighty and strong” would come to “Zion” in the future with specific duties and that his identity was Adam (the first man).  After quoting D&C 85:7-8, Phelps explained: “now this revelation was sent to me in Zion, and has reference to the time when Adam... comes at the beginning [sic] of our Eternal Lot[s] of inheritance, – according as our names are found in the [Book of the] Law of the Lord, while the fools that received the priesthood, like the fool that took his ‘one Talent’ and hid it; – or reached out to steady the ark, will find themselves where the rich man did – in hell, with plenty of fire– but no water.”[15]  (As mentioned, Mormon fundamentalists generally teach that Joseph Smith is the “one mighty and strong.”[16])

          Proponents of this second approach also recognize that before any “lots” could be assigned as “inheritances” in Independence, Missouri, the temple or “house of God” located there would have to be first “set in order.”  From the first scriptural reference to Jackson County, Missouri being the location of Zion - the New Jerusalem - the Saints learned that a temple would also be featured there.  Scripture received July 20, 1831 specified Independence, Jackson County, Missouri as “the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion” (D&C 57:1-2).  It also outlined: “Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse” (D&C 57:3).

          While some confusion over the meaning of the “house of God” seems to exist today, every other reference found in the Doctrine and Covenants to “house of God” is referring to a physical structure, a building, a temple of God.[17]  Similarly, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young used the phrase almost exclusively to refer to temples here on earth.[18]  This view contends that if read in context, the “house of God” mentioned is simply the temple to be built in Jackson County.  Furthermore, whether in 1832 or even today, prior to accomplishing his second duty to “arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints in Zion,” the “one mighty and strong” will need to first clearly designate the parcel of land whereon the temple or “house of God” will be built.  Then surveying can occur and available lots identified. 

          A review of an 1833 drawing of the plat of the “City of Zion” reveals that the “house of God” or temple will occupy two full city blocks in the very center of the downtown area.  This drawing shows additional blocks then fanning out in all four directions, each subdivided into private building “lots” or “inheritances.”  What is also obvious from the layout is that these surrounding blocks utilize the central temple plats as their point of reference.  All property lines throughout the city parallel the sides of the temple site blocks.  In other words, it appears that before any lots could be defined and mapped out, the central temple plats would need to be accurately identified and precisely surveyed (“set in order’) or the property lines of all surrounding blocks, “lots,” and “inheritances” might be skewed and geographically imprecise.

 

1833 Platt of Zion 

          Consistent with this interpretation, to “set in order the House of God” in Jackson County would entail more than simply surveying the land for the temple there.  It would also entail overseeing the actual construction of that temple facility.  Joseph Smith revealed that it would be very different from any other temple built in this dispensation in complexity and size.  Instead of one distinct temple edifice, the Prophet described a temple complex comprised of twenty-four different buildings[19] each bigger than the Kirtland Temple.[20]  Historian Richard Cowan explained: “For the next two years [after July 20, 1831 when D&C 57 was received], Independence, Jackson County, was a focal point of the Saints’ activity. Interest grew when, in June of 1833, Joseph Smith released his plan for the city of Zion. At the center of the mile-square city, he envisioned two large blocks containing 24 sacred ‘temples.’  These were to be assigned to the various priesthood quorums and were to serve a variety of functions.”[21]  The Prophet revealed the names to be given to each temple building: 

          The names of the temples to be built on the painted squares, as represented on the plot of the city of Zion, which is now about to be forwarded thither:  numbers, 10,  11, and 1 2, are to be called, house of the Lord, for the presidency of the High and Most Holy priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, which was after the order of the Son of God, upon Mount Zion, city of the New Jerusalem.  Numbers 7,  8,  9;  the sacred apostolic repository, for the use of the bishop.  Numbers 4,  5, and 6;  the holy evangelical house, for the high priesthood of the holy order of God.  Numbers 1,  2, and 3;  the house of the Lord, for the elders of Zion, an ensign to the nations.  Numbers 22,  23, and 2 4;  house of the Lord for the presidency of the high priesthood, after the order of Aaron, a standard for the people.  Numbers 19,  20 and 2 1;  house of the Lord, for the high priesthood after the order of Aaron, the law of the kingdom of heaven, messenger to the people.  Numbers 16,  17, and 1 8;  house of the Lord for the teachers in Zion, messenger to the church.  Numbers 13,  14, and 1 5;  house of the Lord for the deacons in Zion, helps in government.  Underneath must be written on each house, HOLINESS TO THE LORD.[22] 

          Orson Pratt believed that the Lord would “raise up” a special servant, to whom he would reveal the pattern for the temple and city of Zion: 

           “The Lord our God will command his servants to build that Temple, in the most perfect order, differing very much from the Temples that are now being built...  And we, in order to build a Temple, after a celestial order in the fulness of perfection, will need revelators and prophets in our midst, who will receive the word of the Lord; who will have the whole pattern thereof given by revelation, just as much as everything was given by revelation pertaining to the tabernacle erected in the wilderness by Moses... I expect, when that time comes, that man will understand all the particulars in regard to the Temple to be built in Jackson County.  Indeed, we have already a part of the plan revealed, and also the plat explaining how the city of Zion is to be laid off...  From what has been revealed of this Temple to be erected we can readily perceive that it will differ from anything that we have had.  It will differ in regard to the number of rooms; it will differ very much in its outward and also its inward form; and it will differ in regard to the duties to be performed in each of its rooms to be occupied by the respective departments of priesthood.  This house will be reared, then according to a certain plan, which God is to make known to his servant whom he will, in his own due time, raise up.  And he will have to give more revelation on other things equally as important, for we shall need instructions how to build up Zion; how to establish the centre city; how to lay off the streets; the kind of ornamental trees to adorn the sidewalks, as well as everything else by way of beautifying it, and making it a city of perfection.”[23] 

          Wilford Woodruff added: “We have been informed by the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ that there should be a Temple built in Jackson county; but has there been a revelation to tell us how long or how high it should be?  No, we have got to be governed by the mind and will of God, and this must be apparent to this people; it shows itself more and more.  President Young tells us that the living oracles should be our guide.”[24]  Richard Cowan wrote: “Once, while Brigham Young was walking through the Temple Block in Salt Lake City, his thoughts turned to Jackson County. He described what he thought the great temple might look like: Each building would have its own tower, and in the center of the ‘temple complex’ there would be a ‘high tower’ and a square beautified by ‘hanging gardens’ where the people could meet.”[25]

          This perspective of D&C 85:7 asserts that the two duties mentioned are immense and incredibly important.  Consequently, it is no wonder that the future overseer of the construction of the temple and the layout of the city of Zion, the servant identified “to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints” at that location is described as “one mighty and strong.”  If he is in fact as W. W. Phelps’ asserted, Adam, who was the very first to preside in the Garden of Eden (now Jackson County, Missouri) over 6000 years ago.[26]   Then perhaps Joseph in 1832 was simply describing the resurrected being (“clothed with light for a covering”) he knew would again preside there at some point in the future.  If true, Adam’s return to his first dwelling place, to organize the temple and the city in of Zion in Independence, might comprise the quintessential example of where the “first shall be last; and the last shall be first” (Matthew 19:30).

          A third interpretation of the role of “one mighty and strong,” assumes a much broader future role with duties that extend far beyond the confines of Jackson County, Missouri.  This interpretation holds that the “house of God” is not temple structure, but instead refers to the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which they affirm is currently “out of order.”[27]

          To support this view proponents may cite D&C 112:24-25: “Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.  And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord” (italics mine).  A similar verse found in 1 Peter 4:17 states: “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (italics mine).[28]  In both of these scriptures the “house” mentioned seems to refer to something different from a physical building.  Instead, it appears to be a general metaphor for God’s true followers.  The New International Version substitutes the “the family of God,” while the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible employ the phrase “the household of God” in place of the King James’ “the house of God.”[29]

          While these verses provide a scriptural example where the term “house of God” may not be referring to a temple of God, there seems to be little other possible connection with them and the “one mighty and strong.”  Apparently no priesthood leader has ever associated the destructions mentioned in D&C 112:24-26 or the judgement mentioned in 1 Peter 4:17 with the coming of “one mighty and strong.”[30]  President John Taylor acknowledged that “the judgments will begin at the house of God. [Therefore] we [Church members] have to pass through some of these things.” But he also added: “It will only be a very little compared with the terrible destruction, the misery, and suffering that will overtake the world who are doomed to suffer the wrath of God” (italics mine).[31]

            Regardless, Mormon fundamentalists usually proclaim an impressively comprehensive future role for the “one mighty and strong.”  Fundamentalist writer Ogden Kraut summarized this hope and perspective:  “The setting in order of the House of God will be a greater event than the Restoration.  What failed in the beginning will succeed in the end.  The miracles will be greater, the number of converts will be more numerous; the power and wealth of the Saints will be richer; and Zion – the New Jerusalem – will finally be built.”[32]

          Fundamentalists proclaim that through the efforts of the “one mighty and strong,” they will be vindicated and the practice of plural marriage restored.[33]  Reportedly, other things will be “set in order” including Church finances;[34] the redemption of Zion and leading the Saints back to Independence, Missouri;[35] establishing fundamentalists in leadership positions where they will preside over the First Presidency;[36] the restoration of divine revelation to guide leaders in the Church, which is now in apostasy;[37] clarifying which priesthood ordinations since 1918 have been valid;[38] and implementing of the law of consecration throughout the Church.[39] 

          According to this view, at some point while these sweeping changes are transforming the Church in Salt Lake City and throughout the world, the “one mighty and strong” will arrive in Jackson County to accomplish his second task.  He will then set forth to arrange “by lot the inheritances of the saints” there, perhaps by first designating the building site for the temple complex and marking the plats upon which the twenty-four temple structures will be built.  Only then, it seems, could building lots be surveyed and made available.  Little has been written in Mormon fundamentalist literature regarding the “one mighty and strong’s” potential role in actual construction of the temple, the House of God, to be built in Independence, surrounded by the “lots” he will assign as “inheritances” to the righteous Saints.[40]

          As Church members were reading D&C 85:7 at the dawn of the twentieth century, a few began making claims as the “one mighty and strong.”  Since that time, dozens of men, including John T. Clark have assumed his identity and responsibilities.”[41]

          Joseph E. Robinson, who served as President of the California Mission between 1901 and 1919, spoke in October, 1918 General Conference and asked: “I have wondered if in this land you have had any who are ‘mighty and strong who are come to divide by lot the inheritances of the Saints.’ We have had five such in the California mission since I have had the honor to preside in it.  They have come to naught, and dwindled away. ”  Robinson went on to say: 

          One in particular that I have in mind, who gathered about him quite a little body of honest people, God-fearing people, humble and contrite and repentant when they were shown the error of their ways, for I had the privilege of baptizing a goodly number of them. This man went on for years, pretending that sometime he would come as a mighty and strong one and set the Church in order. He said that the people would be tried in all things; so frequently he would be drunken with wine, that they might be tried in that way, and he reveled in the use of some drugs and tobacco, so that they might be tried in their faith because of this weakness. He took wives from some men and gave them to others, and then took them himself, and then turned them back to the original husband, that they might in tried in that way. And still they endured it because of their faith in some of his prophecies and the manner in which he interpreted the scriptures. When stricken and about to die, he was taken to a hospital, and several days before his death he told them not to bury him, but to watch over his body for three days and he would come and take it up again and establish them in their inheritance in Zion before God forever. They watched his body for six days, and then they buried him.[42] 

          William Shepard summarized the current status of the teachings regarding the “one mighty and strong”: “It is difficult to generalize about many topics related to Mormon history.  It is safe however to assume individuals will continue to claim that they are the one mighty and strong.  Another certainly is [that] churches will continue to vigorously defend themselves against these deliverers who tell the membership [that] the leadership is apostate and God has sent them to take their place.  This was a perfect revelation for confusion.  Open ended, confusing and truly in every branch of the restoration it has done a great deal of harm.”[43]


[1] Timothy G. Merrill and Steven C. Harper, “It Maketh My Bones to Quake”: Teaching Doctrine and Covenants 85,” The Religious Educator vol. 6 no. 2, 2005, page 87.

[2]  Excerpts from the letter, including the verses discussing the “one mighty and strong” were printed in  “Let Every Man Learn His Duty,” the Evening and Morning Star vol. 1 no. 8 (January, 1833) : 61.  The entire letter was reprinted in “History of Joseph Smith,” Times and Seasons, 5:673-74 (15 October 1844).  Dean C. Jessee includes the complete transcript with photos in The Personal Writings of Joesph Smith, 258-62, 265-68.

[3]    .  Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith: A Historical and Biographical Commentary of the Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985), 177-79.

[4]  The “one mighty and strong” has also been implicated with other individuals mentioned in scripture.  Ogden Kraut explained: “There is an admixture of names, titles, and offices under the banner of the One Mighty and Strong.  Some claim that all these titles apply to just one person, while others claim that different men will hold the various titles.  For example, the scriptures mention the “Root of Jesse” (Isa. 11:10, D&C 113:5-6), “A Man Like Unto Moses” (D&C 103:15-18, the “Marred Servant” (3 Nephi 20:44, D&C 43:4), the “Lamanite Prophet” and the “Indian Messiah” (3 Nephi 21:23-24, D&C 101: 55-62).”  (One Mighty and Strong, 84-85.)

[5]  William Shepard, “‘To Set in Order the House of God’: The search for the elusive 'One Mighty and Strong,’”  2003 Salt Lake Symposium, (SL03223).  Shepard is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Strangite.

[6]    . Oliver Cowdery to John Whitmer, January 1, 1834, Huntington Library, San Marino, California.  Oliver Cowdery to John Whitmer, January 1, 1834, Oliver Cowdery letterbook; Huntington Library, San Marino, California.  Quoted in Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 179; Merrill and Harper, “‘It Maketh My Bones to Quake’: Teaching Doctrine and Covenants 85,” 90.

[7]    . Joseph Smith Jr. Et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 6 vols. Published 1902-12, Vol. 7 published 1932), 2:302-03.

[8]  Sometime prior to Novmember, 1905, a correspondent of the Improvement Era inquired regarding the meaning of D&C 85:7-8.  The First Presidency, comprised of Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, responded in the Deseret News, Saturday, November 13, 1905.  It was reproduced in James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-71), 4:118-19.  See page117.

[9]  William Shepard, “‘To Set in Order the House of God’: The search for the elusive 'One Mighty and Strong,’”  2003 Salt Lake Symposium, (SL03223). 

[10]    .  James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-71), 4:118-19.

[11]  Doctrine and Covenants, 1981 edition, page 162.

[12]    .  Orson Pratt, November 1, 1879, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (London: LDS Booksellers Depot, 1855-86),  21:150-51.

[13]    .  Orson Pratt, February 7, 1875, Journal of Discourses, 17:305.

[14]    .  Orson Pratt, November 1, 1868, Journal of Discourses, 12:323. 

[15]  W. W. Phelps, Letter from W. W. Phelps to President Brigham Young, Great Salt Lake City, 6 May 1867. LDS Church Archives.  Typescript in my possession.  Quoted in Drew Briney, Understanding Adam-God Teachings: A Comprehensive Resource of Adam-God Materials, (N.p. 2005), 16. Also quoted in part in Kraut, One Mighty and Strong, 85.  [We need to add Briney to the bibliography - no publisher or location...  He’s a fundamentalist we met at Sunstone - young guy - nice but the editing in his book would make you cringe - it even makes me cringe :-]

[16] Musser, Sermons of Joseph W. Musser, “Fullness eBook Collection,” ebooks”thoughtfactory.biz, 2005, 128-129; Joseph Musser Journals, photocopy in my possession, 12 August 1938; LSJ Sermons 1:233. 

[17]  References to the “house of God” found in the Doctrine and Covenants are 45:18, 88:119, 88:129, 88:130, 88:136, 109:8, 138:58.  It might be argued that some of these verses refer to non-temple meeting houses, but in every case they refer to physical buildings wherein religious meetings occur.  It might also be observed that with only one exception (1 Peter 4:17), every biblical reference to “house of God” also appears to be a temple structure.

[18]  For Joseph Smith see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 19, 91, 362.  For Brigham Young see Discourses of Brigham Young, 45, 85, 165, 171, 172, 201, 221, 315, 319, 378, 379, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 406, 407, 418, 419.  See Brigham Young, August 17th, 1867, JD 12:119-20 for an exception.

[19]  See History of the Church, 1:357-62.

[20]  “None of these temples are to be smaller than the one of which we send you a draft...  A description of the house of the Lord, which is to be built first, in Zion: This house of the Lord for the presidency, is eighty seven feet long, and sixty one feet wide, and ten feet taken off of the east end for the stairway, leaves the inner court, seventy eight feet by sixty one. “ (Times and Seasons, 6:786.)  The Kirtland temple’s dimensions were specified in scripture: “And the size thereof shall be fifty and five feet in width, and let it be sixty-five feet in length, in the inner court thereof” (D&C 95:15).

[21]  Richard Cowan, “The Great Temple of the New Jerusalem,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Missouri, Arnold K. Garr and Clark V. Johnson Eds., Brigham Young University: Provo, Utah, 1994, 139. [We’ll need to add this to the bibliography - article pages are 137-54.]

[22]    “History of Joseph Smith,” Times and Seasons 6:785 (Feb. 1, 1845)

[23]  November 1, 1879, JD 21:153-154; italics added.

[24]  April 8, 1862, JD 9:324.

[25]  Cowan is quoting Wilford Woodruff, Historian's Private Journal (7 July 1863), Church Archives, Ms F 348, No. 4.  “The Great Temple of the New Jerusalem,” 145. [Lavina this isn’t in the Signature Book version.]

[26]  Heber C. Kimball, a close associate and friend of the Prophet, said on one occasion: “The spot chosen for the Garden of Eden was Jackson Country, in the state of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam.” (June 27, 1863, Journal of Discourses, 10:235)   Graham W. Doxey, “Garden of Eden,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:534, “Neither biblical records nor secular history and archaeological research identify the dimensions or the location of the garden in terms of the present-day surface of the earth. Latter-day revelation specifies that as a mortal, Adam lived at Adam-ondi-Ahman in what is now Daviess County, Missouri (D&C 107:53-56; 116:1; 117:8). Several early LDS leaders, among them Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, stated that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught them that the Garden of Eden was located in what is now Jackson County, Missouri (JD 10:235; cf. 11:336-7; DS 3:74).”

[27]  Lorin Woolley reportedly taught that even fundamentalist priesthood councils would be out of order prior to the coming of the “one mighty and strong”:  “the ‘one mighty and strong’ would not come to set the Lord’s house in order until all quorums of priesthood were out of order from the highest to the last quorum of deacons.”  Quoted in Barbara Owen Kelsch, Louis Alma Kelsch, (N.p., n.d.), 83-84. 

[28]  See for example Arnold Boss wrote: “Spiritual Bondage” Truth (October 1935) 1:58-59;  Gilbert Fulton, The Most Holy Principle. 4 vols. Salt Lake City: Gems, 1970-75, 255-56.

[29]  Holy Bible: New International Version, Zondervan Publishing house: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973; The Jerusalem Bible: Reader’s Edition, Alexander Jones ed., Doubleday: Garden City, NY, 1966; The New English Bible: New Testament, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1961.

[30]  Computerized reviews of most of the recorded discourses given by early priesthood leaders reveals only five references to the “one mighty and strong” during the nineteenth century by three members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Orson Pratt (Journal of Discourses, 12:323, [November 1, 1868]; 17:306, [February 7, 1875]; 21:150-151, [November 1st, 1879]); Francis M. Lyman (Conference Report, October 1899, 37) and Rudger Clawson, (Conference Report, April 1900, 43).  None of these references associates the responsibilities of the “one mighty and strong” with D&C 112:24-26 or 1 Peter 4:17.  A revelation received by Apostle Wilford Woodruff, January 26, 1880, makes reference to D&C 112:25 and D&C 121:19 (“Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house”) with no mention of the “one mighty and strong”: “There are those in my Church who have a name among you who are Adulterers and Adulteresses and those who blaspheme my name and those who love and make a lie and those who revel and Drink with the Drunken with the drunken (sic) if they do not spedy (sic) repent of their wickedness and Abominations they shall be severed from the ordinances of my house saith the Lord. There are many who have need to repent whose hearts are set upon the things of this world, who aspire to the honors of men and do not honor the Priesthood, nor seek to build up the kingdom of God as they should  Neither do the learn or comprehend that the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the Powers of heavens and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled or handled ownly upon the principles of righteousness such should repent and turn utno the Lord and seek for the Holy Spirit go guide them  Judgments will begin at my house and from thence will they go forth unto the wicked, and the wicked cannot escape  Blessed are the pure in heart, for my blessings await them in this life and Eternal Life in the world to come.”  (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 7:618, January 26, 1880; Fred Collier, Unpublished Revelations, vol. 1, part 79, verses 41-47, pages 126-127.)

[31]  Journal of Discourses, 21:100, April 13, 1879.  Reproduced in The Gospel Kingdom, 346.

[32]  Ogden Kraut, The One Mighty and Strong, (paperback) (Salt Lake City: Pioneer Press, 1991), 136-136.

[33]    A woman fundamentalist writing under the pseudonym of Melissa Merrill, Polygamist’s Wife, (Salt Lake City: Olympus Publishing, 1975), 150, wrote of her hopes regarding the changes that would be brought by the “one mighty and strong”: “Ultimately, we believed, plural marriage along with the United Order would be returned for all Latter-day Saints and we would receive the recognition and blessings we had earned.  To be baptized, achieve the Mormon priesthood and be married in the temple is something for which we yearned for our children.”

[34]    Joseph Musser recorded on June 14, 1922, Journals: “Had a long talk with John T. Clark.  Told me of conversation had with Loren [sic] C. Woolley a few days ago.  Brother Woolley told him that at the time Pres. John Taylor received his revelation in 1886, at his father's home, and while surrounded with a halo of light, among other things, Pres. Taylor said in substance:  At the time of the 7th President in the Church, the Church will be in spiritual and financial bondage, and then the Lord will raise up a deliverer as spoken of in the 85th Sec. of the Doctrine and Covenants.” 

[35]  Ogden Kraut who believed Joseph Smith was the “one mighty and strong,” taught: “Since Zion was not redeemed during the Prophet’s mortal lifetime, isn’t it likely that the Lord would allow him to return at a future time to set things in order and to bring about the redemption of Zion?”  One Mighty and Strong (pamphlet) (Salt Lake City: Pioneer Press, 1991), 15. 

[36]  Joseph Musser, Journal, March 8, 1933, photocopy in my possession: “It is strange that after being called to embrace the Patriarchal order of Marriage, I should be persecuted by my brethren for upholding the practice of it; that I should be cut off the Church, as they suppose they have done and ostracized.  They little know that under the ordination I have received - that of Apostle and Patriarch in the Kingdom of God - that I am the Church, insomuch as I remain faithful (See D&C 84. Sec.).  The Church as an organization has gone astray and soon the hand of the Lord will be upon it, to bring back to order as written in the 85th Sec. D&C.  Until this is done the Church cannot progress.  It has surrendered the great principle that made for progress and without which it must die.  The world is in turmoil as is the Church.  No leaders who are inspired.”  See also Leroy S. Johnson Sermons, 4:1377; personal communication with several Mormon fundamentalists.

[37]  Fundamentalist Arnold Boss wrote: “Spiritual Bondage” Truth (October 1935) 1:58, “In the time of the 7th President of this church, the church would go into bondage both temporally and spiritually and in that day (the day of bondage) the one Mighty and Strong spoken of in the 85th section of the Doctrine and Covenants would come... Since the official action taken which repudiated Plural or celestial marriage (at the general conference of October, 1890), there has been no revelation given through the heads of the church.”

[38]  Fundamentalists believe that many priesthood ordinations in the early twentieth century were performed incorrectly and hence, no priesthood was actually received by the ordained recipient.  Based upon this belief, Musser complained in “Priesthood Ordinations,” Truth 14 (June,1948): 12, “Our missionaries in the field; those acting as priests.  Elders and High Priests at home, operating without the Priesthood produce a serious and tragic problem, that, as we see it, only the ‘one Mighty and Strong’, (D&C Sec. 85) can unravel and bring order out of the chaotic condition the Church finds itself in.”  See also “Priesthood Ordinations,” 12 (July 1946): 39-44; Messenger of the Fullness of the Gospel, Selections, (Messenger Publications, n.d.) 48-59.

[39]    .  Ogden Kraut, The United Order (Salt Lake City: Pioneer Press, 1983), 252-271.

[40]  Ogden Kraut, The One Mighty and Strong, (paperback) (Salt Lake City: Pioneer Press, 1991) fails to mention any future involvement with the “one mighty and strong” and the temple to be constructed at Independence.  Joseph Musser, “Who is the ‘One Mighty and Strong’?” Truth 16 (October, 1950) 130-134, acknowledges “The second assignment could hardly be undertaken until the first is completed.  Naturally the ‘house of God’ will have to be in order before the Saints can receive their inheritances.”  But the “house of God” in Musser’s view has nothing to do with the temple to be built in Jackson County.

[41]    .Ogden Kraut, The One Mighty and Strong, (paperback) (Salt Lake City: Pioneer Press, 1991), 83-100 includes James Strang, James Brighouse, Samuel Eastman, Paul Feil, LeRoy Wilson, John Tanner Clark, Benjamin LeBaron, Joel LeBaron, John Bryant, Elden Hollis, Sherman Russsell Lloyd, Frank Miller, Jasper N. 7, Art Bulla, and Alfonzo Langford.  See also Kraut, One Mighty and Strong, (pamphlet), 9-11. 

[42]    .  Conference Report, October 1918,119-120.

[43]  Shepard and Russel, “'To Set in Order the House of God': The search for the elusive 'One Mighty and Strong,” 2003 Salt Lake Symposium.