Many Mormon leaders praise the Reformers as providential links in the chain that led Joseph Smith to restore Christ’s original church. This practice carries a strange paradox: if the Reformers, whose largely creedal Christian beliefs are at odds with Mormonism, are regarded as providential people because of the historical consequences of their actions, why not treat Catholics and Catholicism as equally, or more, providential?

A Providential History

The answer is hinted at by former Mormon prophet and president Joseph Fielding Smith, who said:

In preparation for this Restoration the Lord raised up noble men, such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others whom we call reformers, and gave them power to break the shackles which bound the people and denied them the sacred right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. . . .

Latter-day Saints pay all honor to these great and fearless reformers, who shattered the fetters which bound the religious world. The Lord was their Protector in this mission, which was fraught with many perils. In that day, however, the time had not come for the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel. The work of the reformers was of great importance, but it was a preparatory work.

Smith identifies the two primary pieces of the Restoration: religious liberty and, of course, the Restoration itself. The two are inextricably connected; Mormonism teaches that the founding of the United States—specifically religious liberty enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment—is the reason the Restoration happened in 1830. Any earlier, and its spark would have been stamped out as heresy before it could take flame.

Hence the providential role Smith bestows on the Reformers in Mormon historiography. His appreciation extends past the consequences of their actions; he describes them as noble men and endows their mission with divine protection. By breaking the shackles that bound the Christian world, the Reformers gave way to the Enlightenment, the founding of the United States, and the Restoration.

Somewhat ironically, many of the Reformers Smith mentioned did not themselves support religious liberty. Nor did they intend for, or likely support, the Restoration. However, Smith admits their work was preparatory; they did not need to agree with everything Mormonism stands for to be important.

Paradoxical Providence

This leads us to a paradox: if someone can disagree with your beliefs and still be providential—which, for the sake of the argument, we could grant—why could Catholics not also have played a providential role in restoring the gospel? After all, was it not the Catholic Church that preserved and advanced much philosophical thought and helped establish the medieval university system in which later secular thought—like the Enlightenment—could thrive? Catholicism preserved religious texts and Christian liturgical traditions. The very legal tradition that characterizes Western governments was greatly influenced by the Church. The Reformers themselves inherited these things.

These accomplishments on their own do not mean Catholicism is correct; one cannot validate or falsify a religion’s theological claims on fruits alone. But that is not the question. The question is whether Mormonism can consider a person or institution providential because of his or its historical actions that led to religious liberty and the Restoration.

If Mormon leaders praise William Tyndale for helping to make the English Bible accessible, then the centuries-long Christian tradition that preserved the texts he translated from should be more providential or, at the very least, higher up the chain. From Mormonism’s own criterion for providence, Catholicism should not be excluded.

Yet Mormon literature is silent about this. Rather than giving providential credit to Catholicism for developing and preserving the elements necessary for the Restoration, Mormons blame the Church for corrupting Christ’s original church and bringing about the Great Apostasy. Indeed, Catholicism is the institutional embodiment of the Apostasy; without Catholicism’s influence, from Mormonism’s perspective, it’s likely Christ’s church would have never fallen in the first place. Thus, Mormonism’s providential account of history begins when Catholicism’s influence cracks. Mormonism clearly, though implicitly, places Catholicism as the major stumbling block to the foundation of religious liberty and the Restoration.

No Need for Restoration

This argument leads somewhere Mormonism does not intend. Since it has been established that Catholicism can and should be considered providential in the Restoration, Catholicism does not need to be the arch-nemesis of God’s purposes.

This leads to a great irony: Christ’s original Church never needed to be restored in the first place.

Surviving historical records do not support a large-scale loss of Christ’s original teachings or institutional continuity that the Mormon belief in a Great Apostasy requires. There was no need for Christ’s gospel to be restored by Joseph Smith 1,800 years later. Yes, it does show a Church with copious scandals and occasional widespread corruption, as one would expect of any earthly institution. A group of perfect people, however, is not what Catholicism claims the Church to be, nor is perfection in its members necessary for an institution to remain the worthy and authentic Church that Christ established.

Apart from the evil actions of wrongheaded men, history also shows a careful understanding and meticulous development of Christ’s original teachings. It shows many great saints and martyrs who defended and died for the pure and simple truth of Jesus Christ and his Church.

The Reformers’ rebellion did not unshackle Christianity from tyranny. They were simply participating in a history where Christ’s Church already existed. The Catholic Church never spoiled Christ’s original gospel. The Church still preserves it, ensuring its purity and guiding the faithful to salvation.