Q&A with Nathan Oman, author of Welding Another Link April 27 2026
Greg Kofford Books recently chatted with Nathan B. Oman about his new book, Welding Another Link: Latter-day Saint Essays on Faith and Intellect.
On the Intersection of Faith and Law
Q. You describe the common law as "chaos with a full index" that eventually reveals a subtle beauty. How has your professional training as a legal scholar specifically changed the way you read Latter-day Saint scripture or approach personal revelation?
A. That is a really interesting question. As a teacher and student of the common law, I spend my life dealing with the interpretation of texts that claim authority. The common law teaches you at least two things about authoritative texts. First, they can have a life of their own, with meanings and implications that often exceed the expectations of their original authors. Second, the texts of the common law are part of a tradition that constitutes their authority and this tradition is constantly evolving. In a sense it exists in the tension between fidelity to given rules and the needs of new situations. All of this strikes me as very similar to how scripture operates. In terms of my own personal revelation, I am struck by the way that the common law always begins with a concrete question: How do we decide this dispute in front of us? Bigger theories of the law and its structure emerge from those very concrete questions. This, it seems to me, is very much how revelation works. We have specific questions for God. He may give us some specific answers. Our theology is something that always comes in after the fact trying to make sense of that primal experience of talking with God and getting very local answers.
Q. In your discussion of "buying Jewish whiskey," you express a fascination with "contracting around divine law." Do you see any analogous "legal fictions" within Latter-day Saint practice that allow the tradition to remain flexible without breaking its core commitments?
A. We certainly don’t have as many of these rituals as exist within halakha (Jewish law), but we do have some. In a sense the Word of Wisdom is a legal fiction, as the concrete way in which we implement it is only loosely related to the revealed text in the Doctrine & Covenants. One of the striking things about Mormonism, however, is that we tend to rely very heavily on institutional and priestly authority – rather than something like legal interpretation – to retain our sense of continuity and fidelity with the past of the Restoration. Hence, rather than engaging in work arounds – like selling chometz during Passover that we then repurchase as a way of fictively not owning whiskey during the holiday – to maintain fidelity and continuity Latter-day Saints are more likely to point to something like the persistence of priesthood keys from the days of the Prophet Joseph to the present.
On the Future of the Church
Q. You argue that the "1950s nuclear family" missionary message has largely run its course in the 21st century. What specific "new language" or core concepts do you believe are currently most "enticing" to a generation that views "the one true church" claim as retrograde?
A. I honestly do not know, and I suspect that there isn’t going to be a single answer. I think that there is a lot of loneliness and ennui in the modern world. I think that the Church of Jesus Christ does a remarkably good job of giving people a concrete community and web of connections wherever they go. It also gives us a work in which we can involve ourselves that gives purpose and dignity to our lives. I suspect an increasing part of that work in the future will be the efforts of the Church to foster greater service toward the broader world beyond the Latter-day Saint community. In addition, in the United States, where ideological polarization is so intense, there is something genuinely countercultural in the call of President Nelson and now President Oaks to be peacemakers and bridgebuilders. I think that a lot of people are increasingly exhausted by a culture that demands that they treat so many of their neighbors as enemies. We shall see. I claim no special insight into the future or into the longings others.
Q. You mention that while the Church is global, its intellectual life remains heavily concentrated in the United States. How can the "clerisy" of the Church better incorporate the "existentially important" concerns of members in West Africa or East Asia into the broader theological conversation?
A. I think that there are three things that Latter-day Saint intellectuals in the United States can do. First, we ought to be listening to the voices of non-American Mormons better, especially voices that are not self-consciously adopting the idiom of American intellectuals. There is a tendency of relatively affluent, college-educated American thinkers to anoint particular voices from the global south as authentic precisely because those voices have learned to speak the argot of affluent, college-educated American intellectuals. We should be more comfortable hearing people who just talk in very different ways. Second, Latter-day Saint intellectuals in the United States need to be genuinely curious about how the societies and histories of other countries work and how Mormonism finds a foothold in those places. This leads to my third thought. I think that there is a real temptation to view the rest of the world through American ideological glasses. For example, Americans on both the left and the right often view the ethnic politics of other countries through the lens of American race relations, without realizing that those countries have their own set of ethnic concerns that don’t revolve around American ideas of Whiteness or Blackness. We need to do a better job pushing American ideological concerns to the side to listen to and really see our fellow Latter-day Saints in other places and learn from them what it means to build Zion in the modern world.
On Doctrine and Authority
Q. You contend that church doctrine is primarily about "authority" rather than "truth" and that its function is to regulate "how Latter-day Saints talk rather than how they believe." If doctrine is a tool for social coordination, how should a member navigate a situation where an authoritative teaching feels morally or factually incorrect?
A. I think that the first thing we ought to do is be a little bit skeptical of how broad is the universe of authoritative teachings. Because, we don’t have clear rules for defining “church doctrine” or “authoritative teachings,” it is easy to assume that there is something authoritative about a way of talking simply by virtue of the fact that lots of Latter-day Saints talk that way. That said, I am open to the idea that there could be moral or other errors in authoritative teachings. I don’t believe that anyone is infallible except God and Christ. As Latter-day Saints, we agree to “sustain” leaders and to consecrate ourselves to the building of Zion. I think that means that we must handle our disagreements with authority in ways that do not undermine the ability of leaders from the President of Church down to fulfill their callings and exercise a righteous influence in the world. Thus, in navigating disagreement, I ask myself :“Am I undermining the ability of authorities to do the work that the Lord has given them?” and “Do my actions build up Zion or tear it down?”
Q. Regarding the "Adam-God" doctrine, you note that some of Brigham Young’s own associates disbelieved it but remained in high standing. What does this historical precedent suggest about the boundaries of "apostasy" versus "private dissent" in the modern Church?
A. At its most fundamental level, I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an instrument in the hands of God for doing a necessary part of his work in the world. The most important thing that the Church does is NOT to promulgate true or complete theories of God or the universe. The most important thing that the Church does is connect people directly to God through service and priesthood covenants. I don’t think that John Taylor or Joseph F. Smith believed in the Adam-God Theory. I think that Taylor’s book Mediation and Atonement and the “Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition” promulgated by President Joseph F. Smith are more or less explicit rejections of large parts of Brigham Young’s theology. However, I am also convinced that both Taylor and Smith would have enthusiastically affirmed that they sustained Brigham as a prophet, precisely because they had a testimony that Brigham was doing God’s work in the world even if they didn’t fully subscribe to all of the details of how Brigham thought about god in the abstract.
On the Experience of Faith
Q. You write about the "scandal" (stumbling block) of Mormonism’s core claims. For those currently in their twenties and thirties who are struggling with this "scandalousness," what is the first step in transitioning from a state of "angst" to one of "wonder" (thaumazō)?
A. First, I think that it is useful to accept both that angst is natural and understandable and that angst confers no particular moral or intellectual virtue. We should make sure that our angst is genuine rather than an intellectual pose, a stance taken because we imagine that such a stance is what intellectual sophistication requires. Second, I think that we should stop thinking about doubt or questions as a problem to be eliminated. I think that certain questions are just a permanent feature of both life as a Latter-day Saint and life as a human being. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have answers, but it does mean that the answers are always in dialogue with the questions. We can have several different answers, and we may take a lot of time to test out various approaches. Furthermore, those answers and approaches will change over time. We shouldn’t expect, however, to reach a point where we are just finished one way or another with questions. That’s fine. We have time. Finally, I think that the most important thing one can do to cultivate a sense of wonder about the Restoration and the Gospel is to escape the intellectual ghetto of Mormonism without leaving one’s Mormonism behind. To me the most exciting conversations about Mormonism are not about “Is it true or is it false?” or “Should I stay or should I go?” Rather, thaumazo comes when we’re intensely interested in something other than Mormonism and then see how the Restoration gives us a different way of looking at that non-Mormon thing. As a people, we have not been nearly as intellectually engaged in that project as we have been in various forms of self-obsession. (To which I readily admit my own guilt.) We can do better.
Q. You admit to having a "textual faith" while also acknowledging that scriptures contain "monstrous passages," such as those regarding genocide or racism. How do you personally reconcile the idea of a "divine" text with the necessity of being "more wise" than the prophets who wrote it?
A. I don’t think that I am “more wise” than the prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon or some any other book of scripture. The point of facing troubling passages in holy writ is not so that we can call the text of scripture before the judgment bar of contemporary morality and hand down our verdict. Even less so should we see scripture as a chance to read “backward” prophets and congratulate ourselves on our superior enlightenment. Rather, I think that when we face the troubling passages in scripture, we are facing the troubling bits of ourselves and seeing how we will respond. Scripture is testing us, not the other way around. In that process of reading and self-reflection, the scriptures connect us to God not as a character in the text that we are reading but as a real presence in the room where we are reading. I think that it is this power of existentially challenging our identity and connecting us to God that makes scripture divine.
On Identity and Place
Q. You describe your faith as "local," tied to the specific geography and irrigation ditches of Salt Lake City. As the Church continues to globalize and move away from "the gathering," is there a risk that Mormonism will lose its "situatedness" and become a "nihilistic" universal faith?
A. Yes, I do. I don’t think that there is any way to spread the Gospel around the world without focusing in on its most basic and universal features. In many ways, I think that this is what the project of correlation in the mid-20th century was about. It was a necessary step toward a globalized Mormonism. However, I do think that there is a danger in universalism, a danger of stripping the associations that can make religious life meaningful, sweet, and durable. Associations are, by their nature, local. We don’t relate to a universal. We relate to a particular place, person, or story. Fortunately, I think that there are powerful countervailing forces within Mormonism that limit its movement toward a purely abstract or universal faith and keep it local. The most dramatic example of this is the structure of wards and stakes, which are deliberately rooted to place and force us into relationships with others. In many ways, I think that the very claim of the Church and its hierarchy to divine authority is profoundly local and anti-universal. To affirm the reality and importance of priesthood keys is to say that this institution, with this history, that has come into this place is doing a vital part of God’s work, work that we involve ourselves in by going to the Jamestown Ward in Williamsburg, Virginia or similar, local bits of Zion around the world.
Q. You explore the "perils" of constitutional theology, noting how some members elevate the US Constitution to a status that can outweigh ecclesiastical counsel. How should the Church balance its teaching of the Constitution as "divinely inspired" with the need to avoid "destructive idolatry" or extreme nationalism?
A. This a place where universalism has some real virtues. At its worst, I think that the idea of a “divinely inspired” Constitution becomes a warrant for a kind of American nationalism. I don’t think that there is anything pernicious about the love of one’s home and loyalty to one’s country. But the authority of state and country must be subordinated to the authority of God, and we have to resist the temptation to imagine that God stands firmly behind any nation. I think, for example, that the scriptures are pretty unequivocal about this. Even the stories of God’s various chosen peoples revolve mainly around how those people fail to hearken unto Him. There is a temptation to assimilate the divine critique of the nation into a political ideology by assigning the critique to one’s ideological or political opponents. This, I think, is to miss the point. It is directed at us, at “our side” (whatever that side is). I think that the “divinely inspired” Constitution becomes a godly doctrine only when it forces us to ask the question of what we owe to others, what element of the Constitution (or any political regime) “belong to all mankind, and is justifiable before me” (D&C 98:5) as the Lord says in the Doctrine & Covenants. Indeed, I think that the best way of avoiding constitutional idolatry is to pay closer attention to the texts in scripture that actually mention the Constitution. They are considerably less celebratory than the self-proclaimed patriots that want to invoke the Constitution as an authority to be wielded against prophets proclaiming the apparently less exciting doctrines of repentance, peacemaking, and loving one’s neighbor.
Welding Another Link: Latter-day Saint Essays on Faith and Intellect was published in paperback and as an ebook on April 14, 2026.