Neo Orthodox Mormonism

What the heck is it, what do they believe, and where did it come from?

Since leaving the LDS faith over a decade ago, I stopped keeping up with the constant developments of the LDS faith, including LDS theology. I was so tired of the dogmatic yet ever-evolving teachings, the inability of leadership to separate theology and culture, historical problems and anachronisms, and the infinite back-and-forth apologetics that seemed to be required for everything - I just didn’t want to keep my dwindling amounts of energy there.

I mentally checked out when I left - happy to leave Mormonism and all of its craziness far behind in the rear-view mirror. The mental/emotional, and cognitive relief was tremendous. I’ve only recently, since starting this publication, begun again to pay attention to current theological developments. That said, I’m rapidly tiring of it and will be turning back towards where most of my energy is spent these days - increasing my depth of spiritual practice and knowledge of Christ’s church via Greek Orthodoxy.

It appears that since the latter part of the 20th century, a movement known as Neo-orthodox Mormonism (which I’ll shorthand as “Nemo” or “Nemoism”) has been taking shape. This movement seems driven by a desire within the LDS community to be seen as legitimately Christian and gain some measure of acceptance in broader Christian circles.¹ I do not believe this is a top-down movement but instead more of a bottom-up endeavor, despite the fact that prominent mormons like J. Reuben Clark and Bruce R. McConkie were both identified as being part of this trend.

I suspect part of this shift relates to increased awareness of translation legitimacy issues with the “Pearl of Great Price (POGP)—particularly the Book of Abraham. Current scholarship and the Church’s own Gospel Topics Essays acknowledge challenges with the text’s authenticity as a translation. This conversation can be found easily on the Church’s official website, so I won’t rehash every detail here, but it’s important to note that this issue has encouraged some to re-examine foundational LDS claims and teachings. (I’m sorry, folks. I know I promised that I would not wade into traditional anti-mormon arguments, but it is impossible to avoid in this case - so what I’m going to do is present only material from the LDS church’s own website and position statements from the Gospel Topics Essays. I will not explore the entire controversy here - there are many other sources of information where you can find this with a simple Google search. The Gospel Topics Essays are formal position statements from the LDS Church on topics that have generated significant controversy - enough that the Church believed they needed to be publicly addressed. I would note that early LDS laity and scholars who raised these issues in the past were often rapidly excommunicated. Hence, an LDS person looking at the list of topics in these essays - from the LDS church’s own website - would likely recognize many things that they were previously taught were anti-Mormon.)

The historic LDS understanding has been that J.S.'s prophetic power translated the Book of Abraham from the ancient Egyptian papyrus that the church obtained. At that time, the knowledge and understanding of the Egyptian language and how to read and translate it was not well known. Ancient Egyptian was deciphered in Paris in 1822 by Jean-Francois Chamollion using the Rosetta Stone. In his journals, Joseph Smith admits to having no knowledge of the Egyptian language, and the ability to translate ancient Egyptian did not exist in America at that time. The first Egyptologist in America who knew how to decipher or translate Egyptian hieroglyphs was Charles Wilbour, who was academically active from 1880 until 1896.

Joseph Smith (J.S.) began his “translation” in 1835 and worked on it until 1842. At that time, he attempted to decipher it and created a “Grammar” document that sometimes attributed a single Hieroglyphic symbol to entire paragraphs of English text. I knew about this grammar from my university days; from what I remember, it is wildly inaccurate and would be considered absurd by anyone studying linguistics. The apologetic argument is that we don’t know what role this Grammar played as it seems to try to match hieroglyphics to the Book of Abraham text. It is possible, and likely, that the Grammar came after J.S.’s translation.

The book of Abraham was the last of Joseph Smith’s translation efforts. In these inspired translations, Joseph Smith did not claim to know the ancient languages of the records he was translating. Much like the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s translation of the Book of Abraham was recorded in the language of the King James Bible. This was the idiom of scripture familiar to early Latter-day Saints, and its use was consistent with the Lord’s pattern of revealing His truths “after the manner of their [His servants’] language, that they might come to an understanding.”

Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to learn the Egyptian language. His history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”²⁰ This “grammar,” as it was called, consisted of columns of hieroglyphic characters followed by English translations recorded in a large notebook by Joseph’s scribe, William W. Phelps. Another manuscript, written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, has Egyptian characters followed by explanations.²¹

[…] Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today. Whatever the role of the grammar book, it appears that Joseph Smith began translating portions of the book of Abraham almost immediately after the purchase of the papyri.²² Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: “As no one could translate these writings,” he told his wife, “they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were.”²³

LDS Gospel Topics Essays - Translation and the Book of Abraham

The original Book of Abraham papyri remains (major fragments were found after a museum fire in the 1960s.) Modern Egyptologists have now translated it. The result is that Joseph Smith's translations in the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with the Egyptian text found on the underlying Egyptian papyrus that Joseph Smith attempted to translate. Rumors are swirling in the ex-Mormon and post-Mormon communities that the church leadership is considering de-canonizing the POGP; however, doing so would have enormous theological ramifications.

The official LDS position can be found on their website under the Gospel Topics Essays. Most notably (emphasis mine):

The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.²⁶

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the Book of Abraham. Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Latter-day Saint scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.²⁷ Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts (called the Book of Breathings) that were [commonly] deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

What is Neo-orthodox Mormonism?

Neo-orthodox Mormonism, or Nemoism, is a term for a theological shift within the LDS Church towards what appears to be a more traditionally “Christian” view—though by “Orthodox” here, they primarily mean something closer to mainstream American Protestant understandings rather than the Eastern Orthodox perspective. Crucially, Nemoism does not adopt full Trinitarian theology but tries to incorporate more widely recognizable Christian elements into Mormon frameworks, especially in Christology. It seems to me to be an attempt to roll back the theological innovations of the LDS Nauvoo period - particularly the King Follet Discourse. This has not officially changed traditional LDS doctrine, but thus far, it seems to be limited to how LDS theology is framed, preached, and understood among LDS members.

Origins and Development of Nemo Theology

Apparently, Mormon neo-orthodox thought has early roots dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. It borrows its name from the broader American Protestant neo-orthodox movement led by figures like Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr, who rejected liberal theology and emphasized a Christ-centered, scripture-focused approach. Nemoism seems to have arisen as a strategy to counter the perception that Mormonism is wholly distinct and non-Christian, attempting to highlight the role of Jesus Christ and emphasize salvation by grace more prominently.

LDS Personalities in Nemo Theology

Several influential figures helped promote this movement within the LDS Church:

• J. Reuben Clark (Apostle and counselor in the First Presidency) emphasized the Grace of Christ and the need to balance human effort with divine mercy. As we’ve discussed, Grace is historically not a prominent LDS topic. The common understanding of Grace amongst laypersons is more analogous to mercy.

• Bruce R. McConkie (Apostle and author of the very controversial book Mormon Doctrine) presented a somewhat ultra-conservative version of this theology, highlighting the role of Christ as Savior and stressing obedience and adherence to commandments but acknowledging salvation through grace.

Influential LDS figures like J. Reuben Clark and Bruce R. McConkie contributed to this trend by stressing Christ’s grace and scriptural authority, moving LDS discourse incrementally closer to certain aspects of mainstream American Christian thought. They reframed aspects of LDS belief to sound more familiar to those outside the faith, playing down unique and controversial doctrines such as eternal progression or the exaltation of humankind.

How is Nemo Theology Different?

Nemo theology is more palatable to mainstream American Protestant Christian views while retaining some traditional LDS distinctiveness:

1. Increased Christ-Centric Emphasis: Christ’s role is highlighted to a degree that brings LDS rhetoric closer to what is found in many other Christian traditions, such as Christ as the sole means of salvation.

2. A Greater Focus on Grace Over Works: While traditional Mormonism always taught that both faith and works matter, Nemo theology leans towards Grace as the primary driver of salvation. This approach resembles American Protestant theology more than the historic LDS emphasis on the synergy of grace and works. Nemo theology emphasizes Grace as the only essential element of Salvation, presenting works as necessary but secondary to the grace of Christ. (This is not an Eastern Orthodox, perspective. Eastern Orthodoxy would probably be closer to the traditional LDS perspective IMO.)

3. Scriptural Primacy: Echoing Karl Barth’s neo-orthodoxy, Nemo theology often relies more heavily on scripture than on modern revelation, reducing the distance between LDS teachings and traditional Protestant approaches. This differs from traditional Mormonism’s reliance on modern revelation, as Nemo theologians tend to emphasize scriptural accounts of Christ’s life, mission, and teachings. This is probably helpful, as arguments can be made for the fallibility of LDS prophetic pronouncements and powers.²

4. A Revised View of the Great Apostasy: Instead of a complete apostasy, Nemo theology suggests only the loss of priesthood authority, acknowledging that important truths survived. This more moderate stance brings LDS views closer to other Christian narratives of historical Christianity. Traditionally, LDS doctrine held to total/universal view of apostasy, while this different emphasis is on a more limited apostasy.) I think we can see this in the recent emphasis on the loss of priesthood power, particularly when speaking about apostasy.

5. Selective Emphasis of Joseph Smith’s Teachings: Nemo adherents focus on teachings that resonate with broader Christian themes while minimizing those unique LDS doctrines that stand out too starkly from the mainstream Christian tradition. This is particularly true regarding Christ and Grace while downplaying teachings on unique doctrines like eternal progression or exaltation.

Effects on the LDS Church and Lay Understanding

This shift has been notable but nuanced. I did not recognize this was happening when I was LDS. It did seem to me that there was a growing emphasis on what I saw as Evangelical beliefs, with a subtle downplaying of traditional LDS perspectives, making them feel more in line with broader Christian customs. The greater emphasis on Grace and Christ’s central role may help LDS missionaries engage more smoothly with people from traditional Christian backgrounds. It might also open the door to more dialogue with other Christian groups, although acceptance and understanding across denominational lines are never guaranteed.

While the Church does not formally endorse Nemo theology as a replacement for traditional doctrinal positions, these perspectives are influencing teaching materials, conference addresses, and general church culture:

1. Teaching and Curriculum: Church manuals, talks, and seminary lessons have gradually shifted to emphasize Christ’s role more explicitly, moving away from a predominantly works-based salvation narrative to one that speaks more openly about the Grace and mercy of Christ. This shift impacts the day-to-day gospel understanding for many Latter-day Saints, often presenting a more mainstream American Christian view of Jesus than was common in 19th and early 20th century Mormonism.

2. Increased Ecumenical Openness: By aligning more closely with particular mainstream Christian views, the LDS faith has made inroads in ecumenical dialogues, creating a space where Latter-day Saints can engage with other Christians in ways that, due to stark theological divides, were previously impossible, or at least very challenging and rife with misunderstanding.

3. Influence on Lay Understanding of Salvation: For the laity, this shift has increased awareness that salvation cannot be “earned” by good works or obedience to commandments alone, something Nemo theology explicitly critiques. Many members now hear more about “faith in Christ” and less about strictly fulfilling commandments as the sole pathway to salvation. When I grew up in the LDS faith, up until the time I left it (50 years), discussions about Grace were almost entirely absent. “Faith in Christ” was generally seen as an admonishment to believing in LDS teachings and obeying commandments and leaders. It was certainly not meant in the way that a protestant would mean it. To most Mormons, Grace is just another word for the mercy of God. It lacks the distinction of essence/energies held in Eastern Orthodox belief and an understanding of how Grace works.

4. Changes in Missionary Messaging: Missionaries increasingly emphasize Jesus Christ in their teachings, aiming to communicate Mormonism’s Christian foundations to a broader audience. This change makes LDS doctrine more accessible to those with traditional Christian backgrounds.

How does Nemo change LDS Christology? Should we expect a return to Trinitarianism?

Nemo Christology in Mormonism is kind of a mid-way ecumenical compromise. It attempts to bring LDS beliefs closer to normative American protestant ideas without abandoning core Mormon doctrines. It’s a shift from what you might call the classic LDS theology, where God and Christ are more like perfected humans who achieved divinity, to a framework that positions Christ as the ultimate, divine figure whose grace and atonement are seen as central to salvation.

Within Nemo theology, Christ becomes less a teacher of principles to achieve exaltation and more the essential, divine means by which salvation is possible. My assessment is that what is happening is a de-emphasizing of traditional LDS perspectives and a subtle introduction and emphasis on the Reformation doctrinal principles of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide³, including a (Calvinist) protestant philosophy that no amount of personal righteousness can achieve salvation without Christ’s intervention (total depravity of man.) Nemos do not entirely abandon the idea that works matter; instead, it treats them more as a natural outcome of true faith in Christ rather than a means to an end. Which is a very normative american protestant christian view.

In this way, Nemo Christology makes Christ the focus of salvation rather than just one part of a larger plan involving obedience and ordinances. It’s almost a reframing of the plan of salvation itself, putting Christ at the center and letting everything else flow from that central truth.