Scriptural Roots in the New Testament and Restoration Scripture

The practice of “shaking the dust from one’s feet” has its origins in the New Testament missionary instructions given by Jesus to His apostles. In Matthew 10:14, Christ taught His disciples: “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” Similar counsel appears in Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5, often coupled with a warning that it would be “more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah” in the Day of Judgment than for those who rejected the Lord’s messengers. In the context of the ancient world, this gesture had a clear cultural meaning. To Jews of Jesus’s time, shaking off dust was a symbolic act of disassociation. It signified that the missionaries had no further responsibility or fellowship with those who had refused them. As Elder James E. Talmage explained, “to ceremonially shake the dust from one’s feet as a testimony against another was understood by the Jews to symbolize a cessation of fellowship and a renunciation of all responsibility for consequences that might follow”. In other words, the apostolic act of dusting one’s feet was an “ordinance of accusation and testimony” – a witness before God that the missionaries had done their duty and that the consequences of rejection would rest upon the unbelievers.

Early Latter-day Saints were keenly aware of these biblical precedents, and the practice was explicitly reaffirmed in modern revelation. The Doctrine and Covenants – a collection of revelations given to Joseph Smith – contains multiple injunctions to the newly called missionaries to shake the dust off their feet as a testimony against those who rejected the gospel. For example, in a July 1830 revelation (now D&C 24:15), the Lord instructed Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery that if people would not receive them, they should bear witness by casting off the dust of their feet, and they would be free of those souls in the day of judgment. A year later, as elders were sent out “two by two” to preach, the Lord again commanded: “And shake off the dust of thy feet against those who receive thee not,” adding the prudent caveat, “not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret” (D&C 60:15). This directive to perform the ritual privately (unlike the very public demonstration described in Luke 10:10–11) highlighted that the act was a solemn testimony before the Lord, not a show of anger or public scorn. Additional revelations repeated the instruction (see D&C 75:20; 84:92; 99:4), underscoring how seriously early missionaries were to take their duty. The Lord’s promise was that by performing this ritual of testimony, “you shall be filled with joy and gladness,” knowing that in the final judgment day you would stand absolved of responsibility for those who had rejected the truth. In Joseph Smith’s inspired revision of the Bible, an explanatory note was even added to Christ’s dusting-off command: “this was the custom of the Jews under their law; wherefore, Jesus did this that the law might be fulfilled” (JST Matthew 10:14). Thus, from the outset the Restoration absorbed this New Testament custom into its own missionary practice, seeing it as a divinely mandated ordinance carried over “for a testimony” in the latter days.

Early Latter-day Saint Application in the 19th Century

Under Joseph Smith’s leadership, the fledgling Church took the injunction to shake the dust from one’s feet quite literally and seriously. Early missionaries, feeling themselves in the same position as the ancient apostles, endeavored to obey all of the Lord’s commands in the revelations – including this ritual of witness. The Prophet Joseph himself provided guidance on how and when to perform the practice. In November 1835, Joseph Smith wrote an influential letter to the Elders of the Church, outlining their duties while preaching. In that letter he taught that if an elder entered a home and the head of the house absolutely refused to allow his family to hear the gospel, the missionary should depart peaceably and “let the responsibility be upon [the man’s] head.” The Lord’s servant, Joseph counseled, should then “shake off the dust of thy feet as a testimony against him, and thy skirts shall then be clear of their souls”. This vivid language shows how early Saints understood the ritual: it transferred accountability for rejecting the message fully to the host or community, and “the guilt of that house” would no longer cling to the missionary’s garments. Having given people their opportunity, the elders would be “clear” before God – their prophetic duty discharged. Notably, Joseph’s letter emphasizes scenarios of domestic or local authority (a husband forbidding his wife, a master forbidding servants from listening) and instructs missionaries to honor people’s agency: “use no influence against him… and the consequences thereof [will be on] the head of the house”. Only after extending this courtesy and being definitively rejected were missionaries justified in shaking the dust from their feet as they left.

During the 1830s and 1840s, many Latter-day Saint missionaries did, in fact, perform this ritual when they encountered severe opposition or hardened rejection. Preaching the restored gospel often stirred intense reactions, from sincere converts in some towns to mob violence in others. Missionaries recorded that after exhausting all efforts to share their message or when driven out by persecution, they would sometimes gather outside a hostile town or home, offer a prayer declaring their testimony to God, and then literally shake dust from their feet or wash their feet as a symbolic act. In some instances, they even shook dust off of their clothing when feet were not involved, echoing Apostle Paul’s gesture of shaking his raiment against unbelievers in Acts 18:6. Early Saints did not have a uniformly prescribed method – accounts describe wiping dust off with their hands, washing with water (or even alcohol), or simply tapping shoes together. There was no official ritual script in the Church’s handbook (none existed yet), so missionaries followed the scriptures and the Spirit as best they understood. Often the pattern was: declare a final warning or testimony in prayer, perform the dusting ordinance, and depart from that place, leaving it to God’s judgment.

For the early Latter-day Saints, this practice was not an empty gesture – it carried tremendous spiritual weight. They believed they were participating in a sacred, even prophetic, act ordained by Christ. President Brigham Young later reflected on this era and noted the zeal with which the Saints tried to keep every commandment. In a very real sense, shaking off the dust was seen as exercising priesthood authority to “seal” a testimony of condemnation upon the wicked. Indeed, Elder Talmage later called it an “ordinance” performed under the Lord’s authorization. While the Doctrine and Covenants did not explicitly mention priesthood keys in relation to this ritual, Latter-day Saints implicitly understood that such a solemn act had power only if done by proper authority and pure intent. Missionaries were God’s agents, and when moved by the Holy Spirit they could perform this rite as a witness that “the Spirit [would] not always strive with man” if he persistently hardened his heart.

Contemporary records from the 19th century show that missionaries typically reserved this act for extreme cases – frequent, petty rejection did not always prompt dusting, but outright persecution or blasphemous opposition often did. For example, LDS apostles and missionaries in the 1830s occasionally pronounced condemnation on violently hostile communities. On one early mission to the southern United States, Elder Parley P. Pratt and his companions were ridiculed and refused lodging by an entire town; feeling oppressed by a spirit of enmity, they departed and “shook off the dust of [their] feet” at the town’s border, trusting that God had noted the people’s hardness of heart (accounts like these are scattered in missionary journals of the period). Similarly, there are anecdotes from the 1840s-1850s of missionaries in Europe performing the ritual when closing an area: one account from the British Mission describes elders wiping their feet after relentless persecution by a local clergyman and his parishioners, essentially leaving a curse that the Lord would handle matters in His own due time. While these early reports vary in detail, they share a tone of spiritual gravity and sometimes expectation that God’s judgments would eventually fall upon the wicked if they did not repent.

It’s important to note that not all missionaries took the ritual lightly. Some early Saints questioned whether every case of rejection warranted such a severe act. By the late 1800s, as the Church matured, a few missionaries began voicing caution. One missionary in 1897, William Robinson, recorded that after nobody showed up to their meetings in a Colorado town, he “decided not to perform the rite” of dusting off his feet. Instead, he said, “we prefer to repeat those immortal words of the Master: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’.” This compassionate response illustrates that even in the 19th century there was an awareness that the ritual should not be done in anger or haste. Likewise, Elder Nephi Pratt (president of the Northwestern States Mission) reported in 1906 that while the indifference and hostility in some cities was disheartening, he and his missionaries felt “appalled” at the idea of condemning an entire city; they were reluctant to dust their feet except perhaps in the most “appalling” cases of outright malicious persecution. Such reflections were the beginning of a shift in how Latter-day Saints viewed the practice.

Theological and Symbolic Meaning of the Ritual

Why was this ritual of shaking off dust so important to early Latter-day Saints? The theological symbolism behind it offers some insight. In biblical times, devout Jews traveling outside Israel might shake the dust from their sandals upon returning home – a cultural symbol of leaving behind the defilement of Gentile lands. In the missionary context taught by Jesus, however, the gesture became a testimony of broken fellowship: if a village rejected the Lord’s authorized servants, the very dust of that place was cast off as a witness of their unbelief. The implication (made explicit by Jesus in Matthew 10:15) was that God would “take notice” of this rejection – the people had been given their chance. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings expanded on this idea. The act was understood to cleanse the missionary of any responsibility for the fate of those who rejected the gospel. As Joseph Smith’s 1835 letter phrased it, after a servant of God shakes off the dust, “the guilt of that house is no longer upon thy skirts: Thou art free”. Early Saints took this literally: if they performed their duty faithfully and the message was refused, they could depart with a clear conscience, having delivered the warning. This belief was rooted in ancient prophetic language – akin to Ezekiel’s charge that a watchman who sounded the warning trumpet would be blameless if the people ignored it. Missionaries saw themselves as watchmen on the tower, and dusting off their feet was the final token that they had “sounded the warning” and would not be accountable for the people’s spiritual fate.

The symbolic act of removing dust also had a punitive or cursing dimension in the minds of early believers. According to the New Testament, Jesus said that on the Day of Judgment those cities who rejected His disciples would find their punishment less tolerable than that of Sodom (Matthew 10:15). Early Latter-day Saints, firmly believing in an imminent Judgment Day, understood dusting one’s feet to be an invocation of God’s justice. It was not that the missionary himself was cursing the individuals – rather, by this ordinance the missionary testified before the Lord of the peoples’ willful rejection, effectively placing the matter in God’s hands. Elder Talmage noted that in “the current dispensation, the Lord has similarly directed His authorized servants to so testify against those who wilfully and maliciously oppose the truth when authoritatively presented”. Importantly, Talmage (writing in 1915) made a distinction between normal “non-receptivity” and “wilful, malicious” opposition. The dusting ritual was meant for the latter – egregious, hardened rejection of the truth – and even then, it was so serious that it should be done only under the direct inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord.

For the early Saints, the power of this ordinance lay in its testimony before God. They believed that heaven would hear and record the witness. Many also believed that tangible consequences might follow – if not immediately, then eventually. Most often they spoke of those condemnatory words standing as a testimony at the Last Day (in harmony with scripture). In a few instances, missionaries anticipated that calamities might befall particularly wicked people or communities as a foreshadowing of God’s judgment. Indeed, mission lore in the 19th century occasionally told of tragic events that later struck an area which had been dusted – such stories reinforced the idea that the Lord “would take notice and punish those who rejected His servants.” However, it appears that immediate retribution was the exception, not the rule, in early Church experience. Contemporary accounts rarely report instant calamity; more often the elders left the matter to God’s timing. It was understood that if the people eventually repented, the curse would be lifted, but if they persisted until the end, the testimony against them would “become binding” at Judgment. In short, the early Latter-day Saints saw shaking off the dust as both a merciful release for the missionary and a final warning to the rejecters. It symbolized that the servants of God had done all they could – any further accountability now rested with the people and with the Lord.

Another dimension of the theology is what it taught the missionaries themselves. Performing this ritual required a measure of spiritual discernment and courage. It was not to be done in a fit of temper. By commandment (D&C 60:15), the elder was to do it “in secret” after departing, so as not to provoke an confrontation. This suggests the ritual was as much a private covenant with God as a public testimony. It taught the missionaries to avoid contention (“neither in haste, neither in wrath” reads D&C 60:14) and to leave judgment to the Lord. In essence, a faithful missionary would give people ample opportunity and fair warning; if rejected, he would depart quietly, symbolically leaving even the dust of that place behind, and move on with his work. This doctrine reinforced two key principles: (1) missionaries must diligently fulfill their obligation to warn every soul (so their “garments” would be clean of others’ blood), and (2) missionaries must not indulge in personal vengeance or anger – the act of dusting off one’s feet was done “as guided by the Spirit” to invoke God’s authority, not the missionary’s ire.

It is easy to see, then, why the early Saints took this practice so seriously. They were a people who believed deeply in living scripture literally. They also lived in an era of intense millennial expectation and frequent persecution. Many early Latter-day Saints (especially in the 1830s–1840s) believed that Christ’s Second Coming was imminent, perhaps only years or decades away. This lent urgency to their missionary efforts: each encounter might be a person’s one chance to hear and accept the gospel before the end of the world. If someone or an entire town rejected that chance, early missionaries felt justified in moving on swiftly – in their view, they were helping to “separate the righteous from the wicked in preparation for the Millennium.” With such a mindset, performing the dusting-of-feet ordinance was a sober acknowledgment that “we leave you to God; we are clean of your blood.” Many also remembered biblical precedents (e.g. the Apostle Paul shaking off dust and declaring, “I am clean; your blood be upon your own heads,” Acts 18:6). In short, early Saints were deeply motivated by obedience, millennial urgency, and a desire for spiritual purity, all of which made the dusting ritual a meaningful (if somber) part of 19th-century missionary life.

The Decline of the Practice and Official Reinterpretation

By the late 19th century, several factors converged that led to a waning of the dusting-of-feet practice. The generation of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had passed, and the Church was undergoing significant transitions – both practical and theological. After the Saints’ gathering to Utah (1847 onward), the Church was no longer a small band moving from place to place; it had established communities and began to seek stability and even acceptance in broader society. Persecution decreased over time, especially after the turbulent 1880s. And in 1890, the Church’s official discontinuation of plural marriage began to remove one of the major sources of conflict with outsiders. As outright mob violence and harassment became less common, the “incentive to curse” or invoke divine wrath naturally lessened. Historian Samuel R. Weber observed a clear pattern: “when persecution was high against Latter-day Saints, cursing was more prevalent. When persecution was low, cursing practices subsided.” In other words, the Saints themselves felt less need to resort to imprecatory rituals as their situation normalized.

At the same time, there was a noticeable shift in tone among Church leaders. The late 19th century saw a softening in the rhetoric around condemnation of enemies. Whereas early leaders at times boldly pronounced woes upon those who opposed the Kingdom, later leaders began emphasizing patience, forgiveness, and leaving judgment to the Lord. By the 1890s, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were teaching a more conciliatory gospel approach, focused on gathering Israel through love and longsuffering rather than warnings of imminent destruction. This change in emphasis is apparent in the way the dusting-off-feet practice was addressed. In 1899, the First Presidency (then led by President Lorenzo Snow) issued a circular letter that effectively reinterpreted and curtailed the practice of ritual cursing. This letter, written in response to inquiries from Ben E. Rich (President of the Southern States Mission) about how missionaries should deal with hostile opponents, counseled that shaking the dust from one’s feet was an extreme measure, only to be used in rare cases of overt, malicious persecution. It emphasized that this testimony of condemnation should be guided by the Spirit of the Lord and not be invoked for mere rejection or indifference. In essence, the Church’s highest leaders were discouraging routine use of the practice. They reasserted that it was scriptural, yes, but should be considered only under “unusual and extreme conditions” and only when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. This 1899 directive marks a turning point – the moment when the ritual began to be quietly retired from regular missionary behavior.

Elder James E. Talmage’s influential doctrinal work Jesus the Christ (written a few years later, published 1915) reflects this official caution. In a footnote discussing the ordinance, Talmage echoes the First Presidency’s counsel almost verbatim: he taught that the “accusing symbol” of shaking off dust “may be employed only under unusual and extreme conditions, as the Spirit of the Lord may direct.” He also specified that it is appropriate only against those who “wilfully and maliciously oppose” the truth after it has been authoritatively presented. By emphasizing these restrictions, Talmage (an apostle) was effectively instructing the Church that this practice belonged in the category of rare, sacred acts – not a standard part of every missionary’s toolkit. Other leaders in the early 20th century voiced similar views. Elder J. Reuben Clark, for instance, wrote in the 1930s that the act of dusting one’s feet absolved the elders of responsibility and implied that the authority (or “key”) to do so was something held as a sacred priesthood privilege (not to be usurped casually). Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, in his mid-20th-century commentary Church History and Modern Revelation, reiterated that performing the rite cleanses the missionary of the “blood” of the wicked – again highlighting its spiritual seriousness. Over time, some LDS scriptural commentaries even suggested that only those with specific priesthood keys (like mission presidents or General Authorities) should perform such a cursing ordinance. While that was never explicitly stated in canon, it became a common understanding that a junior missionary should not attempt it on his own initiative. This growing association of the ritual with senior authority was another sign that the practice was being placed on the far back shelf of Church practice.

By the early 1900s, the ritual of shaking dust from one’s feet had largely faded from active use. The historical record indicates that “ritual cursing was basically extinct by the early 1900s.” One reason for this was a profound shift in missionary strategy and mindset. In the 19th century, especially during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, missionaries often followed a “one-and-done” approach: they would preach briefly in an area, and if rejected by most people, they would witness against that community and move on to new fields. By the 20th century, however, the Church had organized permanent missions with mission homes, and missionaries would spend longer periods cultivating a single area. It became common for multiple sets of missionaries over many years to labor in the same city, gradually finding those ready to accept the gospel. Thus, missionaries no longer saw a rejected contact as someone who had no further chance. As Samuel Weber explained, “by the 1900s, when missionaries were rejected, most no longer felt that the disbelieving parties had lost their one chance for salvation.” Instead of binding up the harvest for destruction (in an apocalyptic sense), the approach shifted to “returning to homes again and again to give people multiple chances” to hear the gospel. This less urgent, more patient philosophy left little room for dramatic gestures of final testimony. Missionaries focused on fostering relationships and re-teaching rather than shaking dust and pronouncing judgment.

Several practical and cultural factors thus contributed to the decline of the practice:

• Decreased Persecution: After the Church migrated West and especially after the end of the polygamy era, open hostility toward missionaries subsided. With “fewer enemies,” as Weber notes, the “incentive to curse” diminished accordingly. Missionaries in the 20th century still met rejection, but outright mobbing or violent expulsion became much rarer than in the 1830s–1850s.
• Tonal Shift in Church Teachings: The late-19th-century Church began to place more emphasis on forgiveness, understanding, and prudence in judgment. The First Presidency’s 1899 letter and subsequent teachings “coincided with a shift in tone in church discourse away from commanding cursing to [exercising caution prior to passing judgment].” Leaders urged missionaries to be guided by the Spirit and refrain from any semblance of self-righteous revenge. This made elders think twice before invoking a curse.
• Liturgical Consolidation: As the Church entered the 20th century, it underwent what might be called “liturgical streamlining.” Early LDS spirituality had been vibrant and innovative – practices like washing and anointing for healing, women giving blessings, re-baptism for health, etc., were part of that landscape. Over time, as the Church correlated and standardized its ordinances, some earlier practices were quietly retired. The dusting-of-feet ritual was one of those that “became ‘retired’” as the Church’s rituals became more systematized. It didn’t fit neatly into the core saving ordinances or established priesthood duties, so it naturally fell away, much like the discontinuation of women performing healings or the early practice of baptism for health.
• Reduced Apocalyptic Imminence: The farther the 19th-century prophecies of an immediate Second Coming receded into the past, the more the Latter-day Saint worldview normalized. By the mid-20th century, Church members still believed in the Second Coming, but there was a growing sense that time would be given for the Church to fill the earth gradually. Missionary work became about steady gathering, not urgent separation of sheep and goats. Weber notes that “with the passage of time, the sense of Christ’s impending return began to lessen,” and missionaries no longer viewed every rejection as final. This theological shift naturally undercut the rationale for dusting one’s feet. Why symbolically condemn a town now if the Church planned to stay and eventually build a congregation there in the future? In fact, as one scholar observed, “the Church’s response to persecution has been to view [opposition] as simply a greater missionary opportunity” – meaning that rather than cursing hostile people, later generations would more likely redouble kind efforts to convert them.

By around 1910, references to actually performing the dusting ritual had all but disappeared from missionary reports. The 1920s–1960s saw only sparse mentions in Church literature, usually in a historical or doctrinal commentary sense. In general conference addresses, the topic was almost entirely absent. One of the very few exceptions was an Apostle’s brief mention in 1968: Elder S. Dilworth Young of the Seventy alluded to the practice in the context of the Seventy’s role as special witnesses, though it’s unclear if he was describing an earlier era or reminding that such authority exists if needed. Tellingly, he did not urge anyone to go out and start dusting their feet; it was more of a passing historical reference. By the late 20th century, the practice survived mostly in memory and folklore rather than in deed. Missionaries of the 1970s and 1980s sometimes heard legendary stories passed down by older missionaries about someone, somewhere, who had dusted their feet and dramatic destruction followed. (These tales often had the character of faith-promoting rumors – for example, a story circulated in South America that a town violently rejected the missionaries who then dusted their feet, and the very next day an earthquake destroyed the town. Such stories were usually secondhand and not verifiable, but they were told to emphasize the gravity of opposing God’s work.) Significantly, researchers who collected missionary anecdotes in the 1980s found that all the stories were second- or third-hand – “the missionaries were told about [the dusting] in the mission field and never performed or experienced them themselves.” This underscores that by the end of the 20th century, no missionary really expected to do it; it was essentially a faith legend that gave missionaries a sense of awe and perhaps comfort that God could avenge His servants if needed, even though none of them actually invoked that power personally.

In summary, the practice of shaking the dust from one’s feet declined gradually and without any dramatic public pronouncement. It was more a matter of quiet abandonment as the Church’s circumstances and philosophy evolved. The 1899 First Presidency letter served as a de facto official reinterpretation, setting the stage by defining the ritual as rare and extraordinary. Afterwards, the doctrine was reframed by leaders like Talmage, Widtsoe, and Bruce R. McConkie, who all reiterated that it must be done only by proper authority and only when the Spirit explicitly directs. Notably, no modern missionary handbook or guide mentions the practice at all, except to explain the scriptural history. The current “Preach My Gospel” manual (used worldwide since 2004) does not instruct missionaries to perform any such ordinance; instead it teaches them to be courteous with those who are not interested and simply move along to find those who are – which is essentially the practical application of Matthew 10:14, minus any ritualistic element. In effect, by the mid-20th century the Church had quietly shelved the dusting-of-feet as a literal ritual. It was neither encouraged nor officially forbidden – it had just ceased to be relevant in the new missionary paradigm.

The Status of the Practice in 2025 and Its Meaning for Today

Today, in 2025, the practice of shaking the dust from one’s feet survives chiefly in scripture and in historical discussions. It is not a part of standard missionary instruction, nor is it something current Church leaders actively teach members to do. Most Latter-day Saint missionaries in the field likely have never considered literally performing this ritual, though they may have come across the concept while studying the New Testament or the Doctrine and Covenants. The verses commanding the early missionaries to shake off the dust remain in our canon, of course, so Church educators will sometimes clarify their meaning. For instance, Seminary and Institute manuals point out the historical context and the seriousness of the act. Modern commentary typically stresses that such an action would only be appropriate under the most extreme circumstances and under clear direction of the Spirit – conditions that, in our day, are exceedingly rare. In practice, missionaries are taught to emulate the Savior’s patience and to respect individual agency. If someone does not welcome the message, missionaries simply “shake it off” in the colloquial sense: they do not argue or take offense; they move on. This reflects the underlying principle Jesus gave – “leave that house or town” (Matthew 10:14) – but without any need to enact a formal testimony of cursing.

Within the Church membership, knowledge of this old practice varies. Older or well-read members may recall that early missionaries sometimes did such things, and the concept occasionally comes up in gospel discussions or Sunday School when reading those sections of scripture. But for the average Latter-day Saint, “shaking the dust from one’s feet” is more likely understood figuratively (as in “don’t dwell on negative experiences; move forward with the work”) than as a literal ritual to be performed. In fact, many members would probably be startled at the idea of literally pronouncing a curse on someone – it feels out of step with the Church’s emphasis on love, kindness, and positive invitation. This isn’t to say the doctrine behind it is repudiated; rather, it has been reinterpreted through a kinder, gentler lens. To the extent it is remembered at all, it is usually in the context of early Church history or as an example of the Lord’s justice. For instance, a Latter-day Saint author in 2022 noted that the dusting-of-feet ritual was a product of its time: “after the move to Utah and eventual renunciation of polygamy, the Church’s enemies became fewer, lessening the incentive to curse. This coincided with a shift … to exercising caution prior to passing judgment.” All these factors meant that “cursing fell into disuse. Ritual cursing was basically extinct by the early 1900s.” Today, Church leaders do not issue warnings of divine wrath against those who reject missionaries; instead, they often express hope that hearts may soften in the future. The tone is one of mercy and patience – trusting that the Lord will ultimately be fair to all people, and emphasizing that our role is to invite, not to judge.

So how can faithful Latter-day Saints understand the meaning of this practice today? We can take away a few important insights without needing to revive the old ritual itself:

• First, it underscores the sanctity of missionary work and the role of agency. The doctrine behind shaking off the dust of one’s feet testifies that receiving the Lord’s messengers is a serious matter with eternal implications. God will not hold His missionaries accountable for the choices of others, so long as the missionaries faithfully declare the message. In a modern context, this means we should do all we can to share truth lovingly and clearly. If someone rejects that message, we respect their agency. We don’t force the gospel on anyone, and we don’t condemn them either – we simply leave them in the Lord’s hands. In a sense, every missionary today figuratively “shakes off the dust” by not being discouraged or offended when someone says no. They let go of any personal hurt or responsibility and continue seeking those who are ready.
• Second, it is a reminder that ultimate judgment belongs to God. Early missionaries invoked the dusting ritual to say, “We have done our part; now the matter is between you and the Lord.” Likewise today, we believe that Christ will judge all people justly at the last day. It’s not our place to pronounce damnation on anyone. If a friend or family member doesn’t accept the gospel now, it doesn’t mean all hope is lost or that we should treat them as cursed. We can trust that the Lord will give everyone ample opportunity in this life or the next, and He alone knows the hearts of men. In a way, the old ritual can teach us humility – missionaries are messengers, not judges. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland once reminded missionaries that when people reject our testimony, we should not react with anger or self-righteousness, but with sorrow or quiet dignity (much as the Savior reacted when cities rejected Him). That attitude is essentially “shaking the dust off” in a Christlike manner – leaving judgment to God and harboring no ill will.
• Third, it highlights the importance of moving forward in the work of the Lord. One practical lesson from Matthew 10:14 is that disciples shouldn’t waste time in endless contention or vain efforts to persuade those firmly opposed. Jesus sent His apostles to find the honest in heart; if a village utterly refused them, He said, go elsewhere. In modern missionary training, this principle is taught as “find the elect” or “don’t argue with anti-Mormon antagonists.” The time we have to serve is precious, so we use it where it can do the most good. This isn’t about giving up on people permanently, but it is about not idling in unproductive situations. Latter-day Saints today can take this counsel in stride: share the gospel when prompted, but if someone is not receptive, maintain the friendship and set a good example, and perhaps opportunities will arise in the future. Meanwhile, focus on those who are seeking. This approach is positive and hopeful – very different from performing a dramatic curse – yet it fulfills the same counsel the Savior gave His disciples about not casting pearls before swine or contending where the Spirit is absent.

In 2025, one rarely hears any Church leader even mention “shaking the dust from one’s feet,” except perhaps in an academic or scriptural class context. It lives on as a part of our heritage, illustrating how fervent and earnest the early Saints were in following every biblical teaching. It also demonstrates how certain practices in the Church have a sort of life cycle: they emerge in a specific historical context, serve a purpose for a time, and then may fade away as the context changes. The Gospel of Jesus Christ remains the same, but the emphasis in teachings can shift according to the needs of the people and the inspiration of living prophets. The discontinuation of the dusting-of-feet ritual was never a formal decree; it was a natural result of prophetic guidance steering the Church toward a more excellent way of handling rejection. President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that we should lead with love, that “bitter judging” and cursing have no place in the Church of Jesus Christ. That encapsulates why the practice isn’t taught now – because the Lord has tutored us, over time, in a higher law of responding to opposition with charity and patience.

The story of shaking the dust from one’s feet in Latter-day Saint tradition is a fascinating blend of ancient scripture, modern revelation, enthusiastic practice, and gradual reinterpretation. Its origin lies in the Bible and was reinforced by the Doctrine and Covenants, and it was carried out with zeal by 19th-century missionaries who saw themselves as latter-day apostles. Its theological meaning – a witness of accountability and a relinquishment of judgment to God – resonated strongly in an age of millennial expectation and persecution. Over the decades, as the Church’s circumstances changed, the ritual was first tempered by counsel (only for extreme cases), then largely abandoned in practice, and finally almost forgotten except as a point of historical interest. Today, faithful Latter-day Saints can look back on it with respect and understanding, gleaning the underlying principles without needing to revive the outward action. We remember that God is not mocked – ultimately, rejection of His gospel has consequences – but also that God is merciful and longsuffering. Our task is to preach the gospel boldly yet lovingly, and if rejected, to continue on our way rejoicing, knowing we have been true to our commission. In a very real sense, modern missionaries do “shake off the dust” – not by pronouncing curses, but by pressing forward with optimism and leaving everyone in the Lord’s care. And so the practice survives not as a literal ritual, but as a quiet, symbolic reminder that the work is in God’s hands. As disciples today, we can take comfort that when we have done our part, we too can be “filled with joy and gladness,” our garments clean, and trust the justice and mercy of God to prevail in the end.

Sources:

• James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ (1915), p. 320 (on the symbolism and rarity of shaking dust).
• Joseph Smith, Letter to the Elders (Nov. 1835), in LDS Messenger and Advocate, explaining missionaries’ duty to shake off dust when a household rejects the gospel.
• Samuel R. Weber, “Shake the Dust from Your Feet: Meaning in Latter-day Saint Practice,” From the Desk interview (2022), as cited in Times & Seasons (Sept. 13, 2022), on the early prevalence of the practice and reasons for its decline.
• Daniel L. Belnap, “Those Who Receive You Not: The Rite of Wiping Dust Off the Feet,” in By Our Rites of Worship: Latter-day Saint Views on Ritual in History, Scripture, and Practice (Provo, UT: RSC, 2013), discussing the historical performance and evolution of this ritual (see especially pp. 229– thirty one).
• First Presidency Letter (1899), and Nephi Pratt, Conference Report (Oct. 1906), indicating Church leaders’ caution that this ordinance be used only in extreme, Spirit-directed cases.
• Doctrine and Covenants 24:15; 60:15; 75:20; 84:92; 99:4 – revelations to Joseph Smith establishing the practice in the modern Church. These verses and associated commentary are discussed in the LDS Seminary and Institute manuals (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, 2001) for context.