In 1844, Joseph Smith gave a sermon including a brief passage about King David in the Bible. It was written down in the Manuscript History of the Church, then later included in “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.” That’s the familiar book with the blue cover you’ll find on a shelf in many Latter-Day Saint homes. That one little passage on page 339 sparked a strange little controversy with big consequences for some religious eccentrics across the decades. It may have even played a role in the horrific Vallow/Daybell murder trial now filling the headlines.
But it was all a misunderstanding, based on an incomplete historical record and corrected by careful, modern historical research.
This is the curious saga of the Davidic Servant.
Said Joseph, according to the blue paperback “Teachings” book: “Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage.”
Some, wondering about this servant named David, connected the passage with some Old Testament scriptures, like in Ezekiel 37: “And David my servant shall be king over them…and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.” Or Isaiah 55: “I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.”
Going solely by scripture, the most obvious conclusion is that Jesus Christ, after his second coming, will symbolically fill David’s throne and rule as King of Kings. That’s what Church curriculum and mainstream scholarship support.
But some enthusiasts put undue weight on the Joseph Smith statement in “Teachings,” and decided it must mean a man named David would play a special role leading God’s people in the last days. To the sort of personality who loves digging for “deep doctrine” in impressive-sounding sources, it is an irresistibly intriguing theory. Decades ago there were rumors Church President David O. McKay was the prophesied servant, and more recently Apostle David Bednar is an obvious suspect.
Some eccentrics have gone even further. There’s always been a fringe of Church members disgruntled that the prophet isn’t prophetic enough for their tastes; they claim God is irked with the leaders He called and will replace them with someone less Brooks Brothers and more brimstone. So they said this supposed Davidic Servant wouldn’t be a regular Church leader called via normal priesthood channels. Rather, God would call someone different, surprising.
That’s where things get weird. If God was going to call a special Servant, it could be–anyone! It could be the person writing books claiming to have special visions about the last days! It could even be me! Several cranks and obsessives have claimed to be the Servant. They usually try to gain a following through book sales, speeches, retreats, or podcasts. Allegedly, Chad Daybell claimed to be the Servant to boost his credibility (not having “David” on your birth certificate can be sidestepped with the claim that God renames people a la Jacob/Israel).
God does *not* work this way. Several sections in the Doctrine and Covenants make it clear God only calls leaders via normal priesthood channels, “known to the church” and “regularly ordained by the heads of the church.” Church members should only pay attention to those who “come in at the gate,” not to anyone who uses spectacular-sounding claims to build a following. And claims of unwitnessed priesthood ordination by angels are always false.
The Joseph Smith Papers Project aims to achieve the fullest and most accurate possible understanding of everything Joseph Smith taught and recorded. In 2012, the project published two volumes of Histories, which included Joseph’s 1844 sermon and the passage about David. Unfortunately for everyone claiming to be the Servant or hoping to find and follow him as an alternative to following the prophet, this new research reveals the quote in “Teachings” was incomplete, and extremely misleading.
We knew Joseph said “the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days risen up out of his lineage.” But the Papers historians added the crucial completion: “Peter referred to the same subject on the day of Pentecost.”
In Acts chapters 2 and 3, Peter and the other gathered disciples of Jesus received the Holy Ghost and spectacular gifts of the Spirit. More specifically, in Acts 2:29–31 Peter declares that David “being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (emphasis added). It is therefore clear Joseph Smith was identifying Jesus Christ as the Servant, not a yet-to-be-revealed mortal figure. Presumably, “another by the name of David” is mistranscribed, or referenced Christ’s title, the “Son of David.”
Old books aren’t necessarily more true or accurate than new ones; sometimes they’re rather worse. And it’s misguided to look for important information from leaders who are dead and can’t clarify rather than leaders who are here, now, and understand current circumstances and needs. A single, old, possibly-mistranscribed quote can’t bear the weight of such an important concept. It’s too vulnerable to exploitation by bad actors like Daybell.
Some critics and onlookers to the Daybell trial want to accuse all Church members with the twisted beliefs that the murderers used to justify horrific crimes. That’s unfair, especially in the case of the Davidic Servant, a claim so obscure most Church members have never heard it, and those who did hear it largely reacted with “well that sounds weird.” Every religious group has its cranks and fringe, and every non-religious group too. Hopefully our modern research can finally put to rest this antiquated mistake.