From Joseph Smith to progressive theology, how WS understanding of God and the Godhead has changed.

By Thomas G. Alexander

ERHAPS THE MAIN BARRIER TO UNDERSTANDING 1830-1835 the development of Mormon theology is an underlying THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORMON DOCTRINE Passumption by most Church members that there is a Early critics primarily attached for receiving new cumulative unity of doctrine. Mormons seem to believe that revelations and scripture, andfor claiming authority, but notfor particular doctrines develop consistently, that ideas build on Mormon doctrines, which were quite Protestant. each other in hierarchical fashion. As a result, older revelations are interpreted by referring to current doctrinal positions. ISTORIANS have long recognized the importance of Thus, most members would suppose that a scripture or state- the Nauvoo experience in the formulation of distinc- ment at any point in time has resulted from such orderly H tive Latter-day Saint doctrines. What is not so ap- change. While this type of exegesis or interpretation may pro- parent is that before about 1835, the LDS doctrines on God duce systematic theology, and while it may satisfy those tryng and man were quite close to those of contemporary Protestant to understand and internalize current doctrine, it is bad his- denominations. tory, since it leaves an unwarranted impression of continuity Of course, the problem of understanding doctrine at partic- and consistency ' ular times consists not only in determining what was dissemi- By examining particular beliefs at specific junctures in nated but also in pinpointing how contemporary members Church history, this essay explores how certain doctrines have perceived such beliefs. Diaries of Church leaders would be in fact developed. I have made every effort to restate each doc- most helpful. Currently available evidence indicates that mem- trine as contemporaries most likely understood it, without su- bers of the First Presidency, particularly Joseph Smith, Oliver perimposing later developments. This essay focuses on the pe- Cowdery, Frederick G. Williams, and Sidney Rigdon were the riod from 1830 to 1835, the initial era of Mormon doctrinal principal persons involved in doctrinal development prior to development, and on the period from 1893 through 1925, 1835. Unfortunately, the only available diary from among that v~henmuch of current doctrine seems to have been system- group is Joseph Smith's, which has been edited and published atized. Since a full exposition of all doctrines is impossible in a as History of the Ch~rch.~ short paper, I have singled out the doctrines of God and man. Church publications from this period are important sources Placing the development of these doctrines into historical con- of doctrine and doctrinal commentary, given the lack of di- text will also illuminate the appearance of so-called Mormon aries. After the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, neo-orthodoxy (a term borrowed from twentieth-century the Church supported the Evening and the Morning Star in In- Protestantism), which emphasizes particular ideas about the dependence, Missouri (June 1832-July 1833), and Kirtland, sovereignty of God and the depravity of man.2 Ohio (Dec. 1833-Sept. 1834). In October 1834, the Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Oct. 1834-Sept. THOMAS G. ALEXANDER holds the Lemuel Redd JI: Chair in 1837) replaced the Stal: Both monthlies published expositions Western History at Brigham Young University. This paper won the on doctrine, letters from Church members, revelations, min- Mormon History Association3 best article award in 1980. It was utes of conferences, and other items of interest. William W originally published in the July-August 1980 SUNSTONEand was Phelps published a collection of Joseph Smith's revelations in republished in the May 1985 tenth anniversary issue. the 1833 Book of Commandments, but destruction of the

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 15 SUNSTONE

press and most copies left the Star and Messenger as virtually only one personage and did not make the explicit separation of the only sources of these revelations until 1835. In that year, God and Christ found in the 1838 version. The Book of the Church published the Doctrine and Covenants, which in- Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the cluded the Lectures on Faith and presented both revelation manner of the flesh," which, as James Allen and Richard and doctrinal exp~sition.~ Howard have pointed out, was changed in 1837 to "mother of The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources the Son of God." Abinadi's sermon in the Book of Mormon ex- were not greatly different from those of some of the religious plored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestina- of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-And they are tion, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute persever- one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth ance of the elect.5 This evidence will further demonstrate that (Mosiah 15:1-4).' the doctrine of God preached and believed before 1835 was The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and essentially trinitarian, with God the Father seen as an absolute Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ as a personage of tabernacle, materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publica- and the Holy Ghost as an impersonal spiritual member of the tion of the Doctrine and Covenants that included the Lectures Godhead. on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad . . . EARLY MORMON DOCTRINES OF GOD a perfect understanding of the doctrine believed by this so- Father and Son as one; Holy Ghost as mind of God. ciety." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme HE Book of Mormon tended to define God as an ab- power over all things-by whom all things were created and solute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, re- made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and T vealed himself in Jesus Christ (Abinadi's sermon to "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of King Noah, Mosiah 13-14, is a good example). The first issue tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the of the Evening and Morning Star published a similar description form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was, formed after his of God, the "Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ," likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" which was the Church's first statement of faith and practice. called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than With some additions, the "Articles" became section 20 of the the Godhead, a term that Mormons generally use today to sep- Doctrine and Covenants. The "Articles," which, according to arate themselves from trinitarian^.^ correspondence in the Stal; was used with the Book of The doctrine of the Holy Ghost presented in these early Mormon in proselytizing, indicated that "there is a God in sources is even more striking compared to the point of view heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to ever- defended in our time. The Lectures on Faith defined the Holy lasting, the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and Ghost as the mind of the Father and the Son, a member of the earth and all things which are in them." The Messenger and Ad- Godhead, but not a personage, who binds the Father and Son vocate published numbers 5 and 6 of the Lectures on Faith, together. This view of the Holy Ghost reinforced trinitarian which defined the "Father" as "the only supreme governor, an doctrine by explaining how personal beings like the Father independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; and Son become one God through the noncorporeal presence who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without be- of a shared mind.'' ginning of days or end of life." In a letter published in the Mes- senger and Advocate, Warren A. Cowdery argues that "we have URLY MORMON TEACHINGS OF MAN proven to the satisfaction of every intelligent being, that there "Man became sensual and devilish, and becamefallen man." is a great first cause, prime mover, self-existent, independent and all wise being whom we call God . . . immutable in his F the doctrines of the Godhead in the early Church were purposes and unchangeable in his nat~re."~ close to trinitarian doctrine, the teachings of man seemed On the doctrine of creation, these works assumed that God I quite close to Methodist Arminianism, which saw man as or Christ was the creator, but they did not address the question a creature of God but capable of sanctification. Passages in the of ex nihilo creation. There is little evidence that Church doc- Book of Mormon seemed to indicate that, in theological terms, trine either accepted or rejected the idea or that it specifically man was "essentially and totally a creature of ~od.""Alma's differentiated between Christ and God.' commandments to Corianton in chapters 39 through 42 de- Indeed, this distinction was probably considered unneces- fined man as a creation of God who became "carnal, sensual, sary since the early discussions also supported trinitarian doc- and devilish by nature" after the Fall (Alma 42: 10). Man was in trine. Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke of the hand of justice, and mercy from God was impossible

PAGE 16 SILVER Much of the doctrine that early investigators found in Mormonism was similar to that of contemporary Protestant churches.

George Q. Cannon expressed his opinion that the Holy Ghost was in the image of the other members of the Godhead-a man in form andfigure. without the atonement of Christ. King Benjamin's discussion sistible grace. The Evening and Morning Star said that "God has of creation, Adam's fall, and the Atonement in Mosiah chapters created man with a mind capable of instruction, and a faculty 2 through 4 viewed man and all creation as creatures of God which may be enlarged in proportion to the heed and dili- (Mosiah 2:23-26; 4:9, 19,21). Warren Cowdery's letter in the gence given to the light communicated from heaven to the in- Messenger and Advocate argued that though "man is the more tellect; and that the nearer man approaches perfection, the noble and intelligent part of this lower creation, to whom the more conspicuous are his views, and the greater his enjoy- other grades in the scale of being are subject, yet, the man is ments, until he has overcome the evils of this life and lost every dependent on the great first cause and is constantly upheld by desire of sin; and like the ancients, arrives to that point of faith him, therefore justly amenable to him."12 that he is wrapped in the power and glory of his Maker and is The Book of Mormon included a form of the doctrine of caught up to dwell with him." The Lectures on Faith argued original sin, defined as a "condition of sinfulness [attaching] as that we can become perfect if we purify ourselves to become a quality or property to every person simply by virtue of his hu- "holy as he is holy, and perfect as he is perfect," and thus like manness." Though sinfulness inhered in humanlund from the christ.15 A similar sentiment was expressed in Moroni 10:32, fall of Adam, according to early works, it applied to individual which declares "that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ." men only from the age of accountability and ability to repent, As Marvin Hill and Timothy Smith have argued, much of not from birth. Very young children were free from this sin, but the doctrine that early investigators found in Mormonism was every accountable person merited punishment.13 Lehi's discus- similar to that of contemporary Protestant churches. The sec- sion of the necessity of opposition in 2 Nephi 2, particularly tion on the nature of God in the "Articles and Covenants," now verses 7 through 13, made such sinfulness a necessary part of Doctrine and Covenants 20: 17-28, was similar to the creeds of God's plan, since the law, the Atonement, and righteousness- other churches. In fact, what is now verses 23 and 24 is similar indeed the fulfillment of the purposes of the creation-were to passages in the Apostles' Creed.16 contingent upon man's sinfulness. An article in the Evening and Hence, on the doctrines of God and man, the position of the Morning Star supported this view by attributing the LDS church between 1830 and 1835 was probably closest this seed of corruption to the depravity of nature. It to that of the Disciples of Christ and the Methodists, though attributeth the respect that we feel for virtue, to the differences existed. Alexander Campbell, for instance, objected remains of the image of God, in which we were to the use of the term "Trinity" but argued that "the Father is of formed, and which can never be entirely effaced. Be- none, neither begotten nor preceding; from the Father and the cause we were born in sin, the Gospel concludes that Son." Methodist teaching was more explicitly trinitarian than we ought to apply all our attentive endeavors to erad- that of either the Disciples or the Mormons. All three groups icate the seeds of corruption. And, because the image believed in an absolute spiritual Father. Methodists, Disciples, of the Creator is partly erased from our hearts, the and Mormons also believed to some degree in the perfectibility gospel concludes that we ought to give ourselves of man. As Alexander Campbell put it, "Perfection is . . . the wholly to the retracing of it, and so to answer the ex- glory and felicity of man. . . . There is a true, a real per- cellence of our extraction.14 fectibility of human character and of human nature, through These early Church works also exhibited a form of Chris- the soul-redeeming mediation and holy spiritual influence of tian Perfectionism, which held man capable of freely choosing the great Philanthropist." Methodists believed that all "real to become perfect like God and Christ but which rejected irre- Christians are so perfect as not to live in outward sin."17

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 17 SUNSTONE

Mormons rejected the Calvinistic doctrines of election, that Joseph Smith conveniently "decides all the great contro- which were basically at odds with their belief in perfectionism versies-infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, and free will, but so did the Methodists and Disciples. In the repentance, justification, eternal punishment, [and] who may discussion of the Fall and redemption, Nephi declared that baptize." Nevertheless, he recognized, if somewhat backhand- "Adam fell that men might be and men are they they might edly, that the Book of Mormon spoke to contemporary Chris- have joy" (2 Ne. 2:25). This joy was found through the re- tians: "the Nephites, like their fathers for many generations, demption from the Fall, which allowed men to "act for them- were good Christians, believers in the doctrines of the Calvin- selves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment ists and Methodists." Campbell and others before 1835 ob- of the law at the great and last day, according to the command- jected principally to Mormonism's claims of authority, modem ments which God hath given" (2 Ne. 2:26). Like Methodist revelation, miracles, and communitarianism but not to its doc- doctrine, however, the LDS doctrine of perfectionism began trines of God and man.lg with the sovereignty of God and the depravity of unregenerate man. A careful reading of Mormon scriptures and doctrinal 1832-1890 statements, however, leads to the conclusion that LDS doctrine LAYING THE BASIS FOR DOCTRINAL RECONSTRUCTION went beyond the beliefs of the Disciples and Methodists in dif- A time when newer and older doctrines coexisted and competed ferentiating more clearly between Father and Son and in antic- with novel positions by Church leaders. ipating the possibility of human perfection through the atone- ment of Christ.18 URING the remaining years of Joseph Smith's life and Nevertheless, that there was disagreement-often violent into the late nineteenth century, various doctrines disagreement-between the Mormons and other denomina- D were proposed, some of which were later abandoned tions is evident. The careful student of the Latter-day Saint past and others adopted in the reconstruction of Mormon doctrine needs to determine, however, where the source of disagree- after 1890. Joseph Smith and other Church leaders laid the ment lies. Campbell, in his Delusions, An Analysis of the Book of basis for the reconstruction with revelation and doctrinal ex- Mormon, lumped Joseph Smith with the false Christs because position between 1832 and 1844. Three influences seem to of his claims to authority and revelation from God, and he ob- have been responsible for the questions leading to these reve- jected to some doctrines. He also attacked the sweeping and lations and insights. First was the work of Joseph Smith and authoritative nature of the Book of Mormon with the comment others, particularly Sidney Rigdon, on the inspired revision of the Bible (especially John's Gospel and some of the letters of John) called today, the Joseph Smith Translation. Questions that arose in the course of revision led to the revelations contained in Doctrine and Covenants sections 76 and 93, and per- haps section 88. These revelations were particularly important because they car- ried the doctrine of perfectionism far be- yond anything generally acceptable to contemporary Protestants, including Methodists. Evidence from the period in- dicates, however, that the implications of this doctrine were not generally evident in the Mormon community until 1838.~' The second influence was the persecu- tion of the Saints in Jackson County This persecution also intensified the emphasis - on perfectionism, which eventually led to 2 the doctrine of eternal progression. As the 4 Saints suffered and persevered, the Star rn dA, reemphasized the idea that the faithful 3 could become Christlike, and a side of man's nature quite apart from his fallen "Today the Mormon church expelledfrom the Church Office Building two ,ate was thus afiirmed.x men who had been attending meetings of the Quorum of the Seventy for The third influence was the work of a halfyear underfalse pretenses. Said one leading member about the Joseph Smith and others On the Book of Abraham. Though Joseph Smith and "' impostors, 'We just assumed they were new Seventies we didn't know. seem to have worked on the first

PAGE 18 SILVER Fluidity of doctrine, unusual from a twentieth century perspective, characterized the nineteenth century Church.

James E. Talmage reconsidered and reconstructed the doctrine of the Holy Ghost. two chapters of this book following 1835, the parts following solute nature of God, and by Amasa Lyman, stressing a radical chapter 2 were not written until 1842. Still, Doctrine and perfectionism that denied the necessity of Christ's atonement, Covenants 121:31-32 indicates that Joseph Smith believed in were variously questioned by the First Presidency and Twelve. the plurality of gods as early as 1839.~~ In Lyman's case, his beliefs contributed to his excommunica- Thereafter, between 1842 and 1844, Joseph Smith spoke ti~n.~~ on and published doctrines such as the plurality of gods, the The newer and older doctrines thus coexisted, and all com- tangibility of God's body, the distinct separation of God and peted with novel positions spelled out by various Church Christ, the potential of man to become and function as a god, leaders. The Lectures on Faith continued to appear as part of the explicit rejection of ex nihilo creation, and the materiality of the Doctrine and Covenants in a section entitled "Doctrine and everything, including spirit. These ideas were perhaps most Covenants," as distinguished from the "Covenants and Com- clearly stated in the King Follett discourse of April 1844.~~ mandments" section that constitutes the current Doctrine and Because doctrine and practice changed as the result of new Covenants. The Pearl of Great Price containing the Book of revelation and exegesis, some members who had been con- Abraham was published in England in 1851 as a missionary verted under the doctrines of the early 1830s left the Church. tract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880. The earliest exhibited disappointment rather than rancor and versions of Parley F! Pratt's Key to the Science of Theology and defended the Church against outside attack, but he left be- Brigham H. Roberts's The Gospel both emphasized an om- cause of the introduction of doctrines that he thought contra- nipresent, nonpersonal Holy Ghost, though Pratt's emphasis dicted those of the Book of Mormon and the ~ible.~' was radically materialistic and Roberts's more allegorical. Both It seems clear that certain ideas that developed between were elaborating ideas addressed in the King Follett sermon.26 1832 and 1844 were internalized after 1835 and accepted by Such fluidity of doctrine, unusual from a twentieth-century the Latter-day Saints. This was particularly true of the material perspective, characterized the nineteenth-century Church. anthropomorphism of God and Jesus Christ, advanced perfec- tionism as elaborated in the doctrine of eternal progression, 1893-1925 and the potential godhood of man. THE PROGRESSIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF DOCTRINE Between 1845 and 1890, however, certain doctrines were Theologians Talmage, Roberts, and Widtsoe were principal in proposed which were later rejected or modified. In an address creating a new, oflicial concept of the Godhead. to rulers of the world in 1845, for instance, the Council of the Twelve wrote of the "great Eloheem Jehovahn as though the Y 1890, the doctrines preached in the Church com- two names were synonymous, indicating that the identifica- bined what would seem today both familiar and tion of Jehovah with Christ had little meaning to contempo- B strange. Yet, between 1890 and 1925, these doctrines raries. In addition, Brigham Young preached that Adam was were reconstructed principally on the basis of works by three not only the first man, but that he was the god of this world. European immigrants: James E. Talmage, Brigham H. Roberts, Acceptance of the King Follett doctrine would have granted and John A. Widtsoe. Widtsoe and Talmage did much of their the possibility of Adam being a god, but the idea that he was writing before they became apostles, but Roberts served as a god of this world conflicted with the later Jehovah-Christ doc- member of the First Council of the Seventy during the entire trine. Doctrines such as those preached by , period. harking back to the Lectures on Faith and emphasizing the ab- Perhaps the most important doctrine addressed was the

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 19 SUNSTONE

doctrine of the Godhead, which was reconstructed beginning modest contributions from the point of view of science and in 1893 and 1894. During the latter year, James E. Talmage, those trained in that type of thinking." Between November president of Latter-day Saints University and later president 1903 and July 1904, he published a series of articles in the Im- and professor of geology at the University of , gave a series provement Era under the title 'yoseph Smith as Scientist." The of lectures on the Articles of Faith to the theologcal class of articles, republished in 1908 as the WMU course of study, ar- LDSU. In the fall of 1898, the First Presidency asked him to gued that Joseph Smith anticipated many scientific theories rewrite the lectures and present them for approval as an expo- and disco~eries.~~ sition of Church doctrines. In the process, Talmage reconsid- Joseph Smith As Scientist, like Widtsoe's later A Rational The- ered and reconstructed the doctrine of the Holy Ghost. In re- ology, drew heavily on Herbert Spencer's theories and ideas sponse to questions raised by Talmage's lectures, First elaborated from Joseph Smith's later thought. The gospel, Presidency Counselor George Q. Cannon, "commenting on Widtsoe argued, recognized the reality of time, space, and the ambiguity existing in our printed works concerning the matter. The universe is both material and eternal, and God had nature or character of the Holy Ghost, expressed his opinion organized rather than created it. that the Holy Ghost was in reality a person, in the image of the Thus, God was not the creator, nor was he omnipotent. He, other members of the Godhead-a man in form and figure; too, was governed by natural law, which was fundamental. and that what we often speak of as the Holy Ghost is in reality Widtsoe correlated this view of the creation with Spencer's but the power or influence of the spirit." The First Presidency views on development toward increasing heterogeneity and ar- on that occasion, however, "deemed it wise to say as little as gued that Spencer's theory was equivalent to Joseph Smith's possible on this as on other disputed subject^."^' idea of eternal progression. As man acquired knowledge, he In 1894, Talmage published an article in the Juvenile In- also gained power, which allowed endless ad~ancement.~' struct~~;elaborating on his and Cannon's views. He incorpo- God did not create-or rather organize-in a way man rated the article almost verbatim into his manuscript for the might yet comprehend, since man's understanding was still de- Articles of Faith, and the First Presidency approved the article veloping. Rather, "great forces, existing in the universe, and set virtually without change in 1898. into ceaseless operation by the directing intelligence of God, The impact of the Articles of Faith on doctrinal exposition assembled and brought into place the materials constituting within the Church seems to have been enormous. Some doc- the earth, until, in the course of long periods of time, this trinal works such as B. H. Roberts's 1888 volume, The Gospel, sphere was fitted for the abode of man." This much he did were quite allegorical on the nature of God, Christ, and the know, that God, with the assistance of Jehovah and Michael, Holy Ghost. In the 1901 edition, after the publication of the had worked through the "forces of nature act[ing] steadily but Articles of Faith, Roberts explicitly revised his view of the God- slowly in the accomplishment of great works."32 head, modifying his discussion and incorporating Talmage's Even though the publications of Talmage, Roberts, and more literal interpretation of the Holy host.^^ Widtsoe had established the Church's basic doctrines of the By 1900, it was impossible to consider the doctrines of God Godhead, members and nonmembers were still confused. In and man without dealing with evolution. Darwin's Origin of 1911, George E Richards spoke in the Tabernacle on the na- Species had been in print for four decades, and scientific ad- ture of God. Afterward, a member challenged him, arguing vances, together with changng attitudes, had introduced that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one God rather than many secular-rational ideas. James E. Talmage and John A. three distinct beings. Richards disagreed and cited scriptural Widtsoe had confronted these ideas as they studied at univer- references, including Joseph Smith's first vision.33 sities in the and abroad. As early as 1881, Tal- In February 1912, detractors confronted elders in the Cen- mage had resolved to "do good among the young," possibly by tral States Mission with the Adam-God theory. In a letter to lecturing on the "harmony between geology and the Bible." In President Samuel 0.Bennion, the First Presidency argued that 1898, Talmage urged George Q. Cannon to have the general Brigham Young did not mean to say that Adam was God, and authorities give "careful, and perhaps official consideration to at a special priesthood meeting during the April 1912 general the scientific questions on which there is at least a strong ap- conference, they presented and secured approval for a declara- pearance of antagonism with religious creeds." Cannon agreed, tion that Mormons worship God the Father, not darn.^^ and Talmage recorded a number of interviews with the First Reconsideration of the doctrine of God and the ambiguity Presidency on the subject. In a February 1900 article, Talmage in discourse and printed works over the relationship between argued that science and religion had to be reconciled since God the Father and Jesus Christ pointed to the need for an au- "faith is not blind submission, passive obedience, with no ef- thoritative statement on the nature and mission of Christ. fort at thought or reason. Faith, if worthy of its name, rests During the years 1904-1906, Talmage had delivered a se- upon truth; and truth is the foundation of ~cience."~' ries of lectures entitled "Jesus the Christ" at Latter-day Saints Just as explicit in his approach was John A. Widtsoe. Nor- University The First Presidency asked Talmage to incorporate wegan immigrant and graduate of Harvard and Goettingen, the lectures into a book, but he had suspended the work to fill Widtsoe came early to the conclusion that the "scriptural proof other assignments. In September 1914, however, the Presi- of the truth of the gospel had been quite fully developed and dency asked Talmage to prepare "the book with as little delay was unanswerable." He "set out therefore to present [his] as possible." In order to free him "from visits and telephone

PAGE 20 SILVER SUNSTONE

Some doctrines were abandonedand others adopted in the reconstruction of Mormon doctrine after 1890.

B. H. Robertr, with Talmage and Widhoe, &ablished the Church's basic doctrines of the Godhead and had undertaken a reconstruction which cam-ed doctrinefar beyond anything described in the Lectures on Faith or generally believed by Church members prior to 7838. calls" and "in view of the importance of the work," he was "di- and their continued relationships with this creation. The state- rected to occupy a room in the Temple where" he would "be ment was congruent with the King Follett discourse and the free from interruption." After completing the writing in April works of Talmage, Widtsoe, and ~oberts.~~ 1915, he said that he had "felt the inspiration of the place and This elaboration, together with the revised doctrine of the . . . appreciated the privacy and quietness incident thereto." Holy Ghost, made necessary the revision and redefinition of The Presidency and Twelve raised some questions about spe- work previously used. By January 1915, Apostle Charles W cific portions, but they agreed generally with the work, which Penrose had completed a revision of Parley E Pratt's Key to the elaborated views expressed previously in the Articles of Science of Theology. Penrose deleted or altered passages that dis- ~aith.~~ cussed the Holy Ghost as nonpersonal and that posited a sort of "spiritual fluid" pervading the univer~e.~' HUMAN NATURE REVISITED The clarification of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost and the Unofficially, original sin was refuted, and a liberal view of relationship between the three members of the Godhead also mankind was adopted. made necessary the revision of the Lectures on Faith. A meeting of the Twelve and First Presidency in November 1917 T seems clear that by 1916, then, the ideas that Joseph considered the question of the lectures, particularly lecture Smith and other leaders had proposed (generally after five. At that time, they agreed to append a footnote in the next I 1835) were serving as the framework for continued devel- edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. This proved unneces- opment of the doctrine of God. Talmage's initial discussion in sary when the First Presidency appointed a committee con- the Articles ofFaith had been followed by such works as Widt- sisting of Apostles George E hchards, Anthony W Ivins,James soe's Joseph Smith As Scientist and Rational Theology; Roberts's E. Talmage, and Melvin J. Ballard to review and revise the en- Seventies Course in Theology, the revised New Witness for God, tire Doctrine and Covenants. The initial reason for the com- and History ofthe Church; and finally, Talmage'sJesus the Christ. mittee was the worn condition of the printer's plates and the In retrospect, it seems that these three men had undertaken a discrepancies that existed between the current edition and reconstruction that canied doctrine far beyond anything de- Roberts's edition of the History of the Church.38 scribed in the Lectures on Faith or generally believed by Revision continued through July and August 1921, and the Church members prior to 1835. Church printed the new edition in late 1921. The committee Nevertheless, official statements were required to canonize proposed to delete the Lectures on Faith on the grounds that doctrines on the Father and the Son, ideas that were elabo- they were "lessons prepared for use in the School of the Elders, rated by the progressive theologians. A clarification was partic- conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-35; ularly necessary because of the ambiguity in the scriptures and but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church in authoritative statements about the unity of the Father and as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons." How the Son, the role of Jesus Christ as Father, and the roles of the the committee came to this conclusion is uncertain. The gen- Father and Son in creation. A statement for the Church mem- eral conference of the Church in April 1835 had accepted the bership prepared by the First Presidency and the Twelve, ap- entire volume, including the Lectures, not simply the portion parently first drafted by Talmage, was published in 1916. The entitled "Covenants and Commandments," as authoritative statement made clear the separate corporeal nature of the two and binding upon Church members.39 What seems certain, beings and delineated their roles in the creation of the earth however, is that the interpretive exegesis of 1916, based upon

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 2 1 the reconstructed doctrine of the Godhead, had superseded The Articles of Faith also considered the question of the the Lectures. movement from one kingdom of glory to another after death. If the 1916 statement essentially resolved the Latter-day In the first edition, "eternal progression" included not only Saint doctrine of God along the lines suggested by Talmage, "advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom" but Widtsoe, and Roberts, the work of these three men, while sug- also movement "from kingdom to kingdom." Later, probably gesting a doctrine of man, did not lead to a similar authorita- to hedge on the certainty of the doctrine, this was changed to tive statement, except on the question of the relation of the say that though movement within the kingdoms was certain, creation to natural selection. Still, the work of these progres- as to "progress from one kingdom to another the scriptures sive theologans provided a framework for understanding man made no positive affirmati~n."~~ that went relatively unchallenged until the recent development The whole matter of the doctrine of man was tied up with of Mormon neo-orthodoxy. the question of the etemality of the family and the importance Talmage's Articles of Faith considered a number of doctrines of sexual relationships, here and hereafter, for procreation and relating to man, such as the foreknowledge of God, that have love. In his New Witnessfor God, B. H. Roberts confronted this important consequences for the doctrine of free will. In the problem when he chastised those who objected to Mormon first edition, Talmage wrote that "the Fall was foreordained, as doctrine as too materialistic. "If anyone shall say that such a means whereby man could be brought face to face with both views of the life to come are too materialistic, that they smack good and evil." This was later changed, and the word "foreor- too much of earth and its enjoyments, my answer is, that if it dained was replaced by "foreseen," indicating an unwilling- be inquired what thing has contributed most to man's civiliza- ness to take such a definite stand on a doctrine so close to tion and refinement, to his happiness and dignity his true im- freedom of the will.4o portance, elevation, and honor in earth-life, it will be found Talmage also argued that the doctrine of free will made im- that the domestic relations in marriage, the ties of family, of possible any predisposition to evil on the part of "God's chil- parentage, with its joys, responsibilities, and affections will be dren." "Man," Talmage wrote, "inherits absolute freedom to selected as the one thing before all others." Man, he said, in choose the good or the evil in life as he may elect." God "has this and other ways was becoming like God because man was left the mortal creature free to choose and to act, with no sem- God in embryo.43 blance of compulsion or restraint, beyond the influences of pa- As Roberts prepared the New Witness and the first edition of temal counsel and loving direction." Such a radical doctrine of Joseph Smith's History ofthe Church, other questions relating to free will essentially rejected the ideas implicit in the Book of the doctrine of man arose. On 6 February 1907, in the First Mormon by denylng man's predisposition under any condi- Presidency's Office, the First Presidency and six members of tions to evil, whether before or after the ~a11.~~ the Council of the Twelve heard Roberts read a passage on the premortal existence of man for inclusion in the New Wit- ness. The chief point of Roberts's discussion was his view that the elements of man became a spirit-a child to God-through premortal birth. After all, he pointed out, the brother of Jared saw Christ's premortal spirit body. Following the discussion, the brethren agreed to incorpo- rate the passage essentially as written, and they also in- cluded this view in the First Presidency's 1909 statement on the orign of man.44 In 1911, however, while preparing the History of the Church, Roberts had somewhat more difficulty in selling his views on the nature of premortal intelligences. Roberts read his article on the philosophy of Joseph Smith to the First Presidency. In the draft, he argued that intelligences were self-existent entities before becoming spirits. Charles W Penrose particularly opposed this view, and the First Presidency asked Roberts to delete the section. Anthon H. Lund-probably rightly-was convinced that Roberts wanted to prove that man was co-eternal with God, some- thing the First Presidency then rejected. Roberts agreed to remove the passages but undoubtedly believed his views were inspired. Penrose also considered the Kmg Follett discourse spurious, and the First Presidency had it deleted from the 1912 edition of Roberts's ~istory.'~ Widtsoe also addressed the doctrine of man. In 1914, Widtsoe further elaborated views expressed in Joseph

PAGE 22 SILVER

- SUNSTONE

The reconstructed doctrine of the Godhead had superseded the Lectures on Faith.

john A. Widtsoe's view that all truth must harmonize led to the position that the gospel expressed "aphilosophy of life" which must be in "completeharmony with all knowledge"and -to which all men might give adherence."

Smith As Scientist by publishing A Rational Theology, which the ferent level of advancement than men do. Like Roberts, Melchizedek priesthood quorums used as a manual. His view Widtsoe had included a discussion of intelligences, which he that all truth must harmonize led to the position that the said had existed as separate entities before men became spirit gospel expressed "a philosophy of life" that must be in "com- beings, and he included an explicit statement that there was a plete harmony with all knowledge" and "to which all men time when there was no ~od.~' might give adheren~e."~~Widtsoe also moved to a considera- This elaboration was simply too much for the First Presi- tion of the creation. Without trylng to explain the process, he dency to accept. On 7 December 1914, Church President argued that the biblical account of man's creation from the dust Joseph F: Smith, then in Missouri, telegraphed Counselor An- of the earth was figurative. The exact method of creation was thon H. Lund to postpone the publication of Widtsoe's book. unknown, and at man's current stage of development, prob- Lund called in Edward H. Anderson, who furnished the proof ably unknowable. Nor, he said, "is it vital to a clear under- sheets. After reading the discussion of the evolution of God standing of the plan of ~alvation."~~ from intelligence to superior being, Lund became disturbed. "I Widtsoe's attempt to reconcile science and religion led to do not," he wrote, "like to think of a time when there was no the view that the Fall came about through natural law. Thus, God." On 11 December, President Smith had returned from the account of the Fall was also figurative. In addition, there Missouri, and he agreed with Lund. Changes in the proofs "was no essential sin" in the Fall, except that an effect follows were ordered, and all references to the doctrine of intelligences the violation of any law, whether deliberate or not. Thus, the were eliminated from this work, just as they had been from "so-called curse" on Adam was actually only an opportunity Roberts's, on the ground that they were merely speculation. In for eternal progression. Indeed, since all beings are bound by their 1925 statement regarding evolution, the First Presidency eternal laws such as that of free will, Satan himself must be again made no statement on the doctrine of intelligences but governed by law, and man must be allowed to react freely to simply stated that "by his Almighty power God organized the temptation.48 earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which Agreeing with earlier positions spelled out by Joseph Smith exist co-eternally with himself."51 and elaborated by Roberts, Widtsoe argued that man's exis- Some of the attacks on evolutionary theory published by tence was simply a reflection, however inferior, of God's. Thus, the Church came from the pen of a non-Mormon journalist, J. "we must also have a mother who possesses the attributes of C. Homans, under the pseudonym Dr. Robert C. Webb. After Godhood." Sexual relations will continue into eternity both for the improvement Era carried a Homans article in the September joy and for pr~creation.~~ 1914 issue, Talmage came to see the First Presidency, read the The most controversial portion of the draft Widtsoe pre- article to them, and, with the help of Frederick C. Pack, who sented to the First Presidency concerned the eternal relation- had succeeded to the Deseret Chair of Geology at the Univer- ships between God and man. If God had not created the uni- sity of Utah, convinced at least Anthon H. Lund that Homans's verse or man, man must be coeternal with God, and, in fact, arguments were illogcal and did not touch the real "pith of God himself must be finite and may not always have been God ev~lution."~~In January 1915, Talmage again brought a or have existed eternally in the same state. It followed that "the Homans manuscript, this time on the origin of life, to the First man who progresses through his increase in knowledge and Presidency, which they agreed to reject. Lund wrote that they power, becomes a colaborer with God." Thus, God was not "a considered the article "abstruse" and that it failed to "meet God of mystery," but rather a being who operated on a dif- points at issue between the old ideas and the Evolutionists."

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 23 SUNSTONE

Homans believed that evolutionists held ideas that would kill oped in Protestantism that challenged the prevailing mod- religion. Unfortunately, Lund thought, he was not willing to ernism and proposed the reestablishment in a more sophisti- deal with the problem of harmonizing the ideas, and "truth cated form of a theology that returned to the basic teachings of must harmonize with itself. This is the great problem," he Luther and Calvin emphasizing the sovereignty of God and the wrote. "It will be solved."53 depravity of man. Since World War 11, a similar movement has Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts gave at least as much effort taken place in Mormonism that is as notable for its differences to considering the doctrine of man as they did the doctrine of from the Protestant movement as for its ~imilarities.~~ God, but their work did not lead to the kind of authoritative A recent discussion of man by Rodney Turner and George statement on man that had been issued by the First Presidency Boyd indicates the scope of this movement with regard to the on God. Several possible reasons for the failure to settle ques- doctrine of man. While, as Kent Robson pointed out in a cri- tions regarding man seem plausible. First, it may be that the tique of the discussion, much of both Turner's neoorthodox Church leaders and members generally considered such ques- and Boyd's progressive exposition involves contradictory exe- tions settled by doctrines implicit in the Book of Mormon and gesis of the same scriptures and authorities, what is also ap- other teachings of the period before 1835. Second, it may be parent is that Roberts, Talmage, and Widtsoe play a prominent that they generally took for granted the doctrines of the King part in Boyd's view of man while they are conspicuously absent Follett discourse and the progressive theologans. Or, third, it from ~urner's.~~ may be that the Church membership never thoroughly consid- As 0. Kendall White has pointed out, Mormon neoortho- ered the implications of the problem. doxy has not gone as far as has the Protestant movement in Given the information available at this point in time, it defining a sovereign God and a depraved man entirely depen- seems probable that the reason questions were not resolved is dent upon grace for salvation. As should be apparent, state- a combination of the second and third hypotheses. Basically, ments by Joseph Smith, the progressive theologians, and the concern over the increasing vigor of the theory of evolution First Presidency have specifically rejected doctrines such as the through natural selection seems to have overridden all other absolute sovereignty of God and irresistible grace. In the absence considerations on the doctrine of man. The First Presidency of an authoritative statement by the First Presidency, however, it wanted to see the truths of science and religion reconciled, and is still possible to return to the early 1830s and find the notion much of the work of Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts dealt with of a basically sensual and devilish man. Because of the recon- that challenge. On evolution, for instance, the progressive the- struction of the Mormon doctrine of God, however, what we get ologians generally took the view that while evolution itself was today is a rather unsteady neoorthodoxy lacking the vigor and a correct principle, the idea of natural selection was not. The certitude of its Protestant counterpart, since the progressives First Presidency statements of 1909 and 1925 specifically ad- amputated two of its legs and seriously weakened the third. dressed the problem of evolution and of man's essential nature, which was an important part of Talmage's, Widtsoe's, and Roberts's works.54 Because the evolution problem was constantly in the back- ground, it seems apparent that two things had happened. First, the Church membership had internalized the implica- tions of the doctrine of eternal progression and assumed that man, as God in embryo, was basically Godlike and that the flesh itself, since it was common to both God and man, posed no barrier to man's perfectibility. Second, members seem to have held Joseph Smith's statement in the Articles of Faith that God would not punish man for Adam's transgression as equiv- alent to a rejection of the doctrine of orignal sin, which held NINETEEN YEARS LATER that man inherited a condition of sinfulness. In general, it What have other historians said about seemed, the doctrine of absolute free will demanded that any "the reconstruction of Mormon doctrine"? evil man might do came not because of any predisposition of the flesh but rather as a result of conscious choice. N REFLECTING on "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," nineteen years after its publication, I find it SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR TIME I useful to consider how the article has influenced Mormon "A rather uncertain Mormon neoorthodoxy lacking the vigor and studies. The earliest commentators generally responded favor- certitude of its Protestant counterpart." ably. The Mormon History Association awarded it the prize for the best article published in 1980. Historians frequently cite it HE long-range consequences of both the success in re- as a discussion of LDS doctrinal development. The article has constructing the doctrine of God and the failure to re- been previously reprinted twice-in an earlier commemora- T construct the doctrine of man also bear consideration. tive issue of SUNSTONEand in an edited form in a collection of During the period following World War I, a movement devel- essays.57

PAGE 24 SILVER SUNSTONE

Since the essay's publication, a number of doctrinal works frequently cited instances where God the Father and Jesus have appeared. Most of them focus on the LDS doctrine of God Christ appeared as separate beings. The scriptures do the same not the doctrine of mankind, which also formed part of the ar- thing. Nevertheless, until the publication of the Lectures on ticle. Some were published in Gary Bergera's Line Upon Line: Faith in 1835, I found no persuasive evidence to show that Essays on Mormon Doctrine, including essays by Dan Vogel, when early Latter-day Saints reflected on the nature of the Boyd Kirkland, Kent Robson, and Vem wans son.^* Others Godhead-as contrasted with telling about members of the were published in other journals, such as Blake Ostler's "The Godhead-they considered the Father, the Son, and the Holy Mormon Concept of ~od,"~~David Paulsen's "The Doctrine of Ghost as separate personages. Since their understanding Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philo- seemed close to that of other contemporary denominations, I sophical ~ers~ectives,"~~Robert Millet's yoseph Smith and called the Latter-day Saint view trinitarian. Until the revelation Modem Mormonism: Orthodoxy, Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and now published as Doctrine and Covenants 130, I found no ~radition,"~'James B. Allen's, "Emergence of a Fundamental: clear contemporary evidence for the Latter-day Saint belief that The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon God the Father had a body of flesh and bones. Relipous ~hou~ht,"~~and Van Hale's "Defining the Mormon As a historian, I consider documents written at the time of Doctrine of ~eit~"~~ events as generally more reliable than reminiscences or later Some-Vogel's, Robson's, Hale's, and Paulsen's for in- documents. As Paulsen points out, there were, of course, later stance-approach the problem from a philosophical point of reminiscences such as Truman Coe's 1836 Ohio Observer com- view. Some cite my work, some consider matters I did not, and ment, which Milton Backman had called to our attention, and some disagree with my analysis. Given what I know about the Lucy Mack Smith's 1845 History ofloseph ~mith.~'Unfortu- writings of early nineteenth-century Mormons, I don't accept nately, both postdate the publication of the Lectures on Faith, Dan Vogel's argument that the earliest Mormons were Modal- and Mother Smith's postdates both Doctrine and Covenants ists, who believe that the Father and the Son are in fact one 130 and the King Follett discourse. and the same person who acts in different capacities or Many problems I faced resulted from the beginning point of "modes." I do not believe the early Saints' views were that pre- my project. I began by studylng the period from 1890 to 1930 cise. I also disagree with Van Hale's position that Mormons as I wrote Mormonism in rans sit ion.^' As I worked, I wondered were never trinitarians. As Kent Robson knows, in spite of about the pains that Church leaders took to clarify doctrines. If what he can tell us about philosophical problems associated the doctrines as we believe them today were already clear to with the omni's, both early Mormon and more recent writers, Latter-day Saints in the early 1830s, as some present-day such as James E. Talmage and Bruce R. McConkie, have as- writers have asserted, why were the elaborate tum-of-the-cen- signed omniistic attributes to God. tury clarifications necessary? As the second paragraph of my Perhaps the most cogent and respectful challenge to my essay indicated, I conceived "Reconstruction" as a way to in- essay appeared in David Paulsen's work. He and I agree that vestigate the path toward the official adoption of the current "the doctrinal clarification that the Father's humanlike body is doctrines of the Godhead and mankind and at the same time composed of exalted flesh and bones cannot be clearly shown to explore some of the beliefs on the nature of the Godhead to have been understood prior to the Nauvoo period."64At held by Church leaders over time. Why, I wondered, should least part of our disagreement resulted from his "use of term the First Presidency and the Twelve have found it necessary to embodied to mean having any sort of body, whether spirit, reconsider these doctrines between 1890 and 1930? Why mortal, or exalted."65Since we Latter-day Saints now believe should they have commissioned James E. Talmage's Articles of God the Father and Jesus Christ are personages of spirit, flesh, Faith andJesus the Christ? Why had they found it necessary to and bones and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, I con- undertake such projects as the revision of Parley E Pratt's dis- sidered any other beliefs as differing in various ways from our cussion of the Godhead in Key to the Science of Theology? Why current doctrine. As I researched and wrote the essay, I consid- did they feel the need to issue an authoritative statement on ered "embodiment" to mean a body of flesh and bones. With the Godhead in 1916? Why did they remove the Lectures on this understanding, I assumed that a spirit personage-a spirit Faith from the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants? I with a separate form and identity-did not qualify as em- conceived my essay, in the words of scripture, as an exercise in bodied.66 understanding "line upon line" how we came to believe what Paulsen's and my differences also resulted in part from the we now believe.69 diverse purposes of our works and of our methodology He In addition, as the text of the essay makes evident, I also began his study with precise philosophical definitions; I wanted to understand the degree to which the beliefs of Latter- sought to use historical documents to understand terms as day Saint were similar to or different from the doctrines of contemporaries understood them. The effort to understand some other Christian denominations. By the early twentieth sermons and articles from the 1830s was often frustrating be- century, they were decidedly different. But how different were cause many of the sources seemed to assume unstated defini- they in the early 1830s' tions, which I had to intuit from the context. Like much of the remainder of the study, this exercise Clearly, during the 1830s, Latter-day Saint leaders often dis- proved extremely difficult. I tried to solve my problems by cussed the three members of the Godhead. In doing so, leaders comparing the language used in authoritative Latter-day Saint

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 25 SUNSTONE

documents with that used in representative texts from other Rather, I believe that the book is an ancient text that the denominations. Above all, I did not want to pick out isolated Prophet translated by the power and authority of God. statements either from Latter-day Saints or from other On the other hand, I argue vigorously that the Lectures on churches. Faith do represent Joseph Smith's views at the time. Clearly, he Unfortunately, Paulsen misperceived at least part of my ar- played a role in their authorship and their publication. He af- gument. For instance, contrary to his ~tatement,~'my argu- fixed his name to the document, and the Church published ment about early LDS beliefs in the nature of the Godhead does the lectures with the approval of Joseph Smith and others in not rely upon silence. Rather, it depends principally upon the First Presidency-, Sidney Rigdon, and phrases from Church publications such as the Messenger and Frederick G. Williams-as a series of lectures "On the Doc- Advocate and the Evening and Morning Stal; from authorized trine of the Church of the Latter Day ~aints."'~ works such as the Lectures on Faith, and from scripture such Part of Paulsen's disagreement resulted either from his inat- as the Book of Mormon. tention to or my lack of clarity in the way that I used some Fortunately, Paulsen did not make the mistake of adopting terms. Unless modified by a phrase such as "the Son," when I the unwarranted assumption that because I cited the Book of used "God I referred to God the Father, which is the tradi- Mormon, I assumed that Joseph Smith authored it or that it tional way Latter-day Saints have used the term. Moreover, I "reflects the Prophet's environment or his own religious world- assumed that other Latter-day Saint texts used the terms in the view," as some other critics of my essay have.71I find it decid- same way Such is, as I understand it, the authoritative use of edly ungenerous for a faithful Latter-day Saint to accuse an- the term. Talmage used the term "Godhead rather than "God other of such heresy I cited the Book of Mormon because I to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a unit in The Ar- have faith that Joseph Smith believed its teachings. At the same ticles of ~aith,~~a book published officially by the Church. time, I believe that Joseph's views changed under the influence Until quite recently, I would not have thought some Latter-day of continuous revelation. Nevertheless, I did not then, nor do I Saints would use the word "God to mean what we generally now, believe that he borrowed the Book of Mormon from the call "the Godhead and that they would interpret the word environment, from his experiences, or from his thought. "God in some passages in the Book of Mormon the same way. Clearly Paulsen and some other authors such as Stephen Robinson disagree with me.74 Hence, our differing uses of the term "God" undoubtedly constitute part of our disagree- ment on the interpretation of certain Book of Mormon passages. Apparently, upon the understanding of the word "God to mean what we usually term "Godhead," Paulsen bases his argument that there is no Book of Mormon evidence for considering "God as an absolute per- sonage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, re- vealed himself in Jesus Christ in Mosiah chapters 13-14."~~ I read Mosiah quite differently In the pas- sages, Abinadi said, "I say unto you that sal- vation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoid- ably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses. . . . Have they not said that God him- self should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?" (Mosiah 13:28, 34). Chapter z 14 then follows with suffering servant pas- 6 5 sages from Isaiah. i I believe Abinadi uses the term "God him- f self" either in a traditional (rather than so- 5 cial) trinitarian sense or he was unclear about "What would you say is the moral of our story!" whether he meant God the Father or God the

PAGE 26 SILVER SUNSTONE

Son. Since he was preaching the gospel as a missionary to non- scripture; and because of the acceptance of the views of certain believers, I don't understand just why he should have used in- prophets and other Church leaders and the rejection or revi- tentionally obtuse language. A more reasonable conclusion is sion of the views of others. that he simply did not understand the doctrine of the Godhead If I were revising the article today, I would do a number of as we do today In defense of this belief, I point out that the things. First, I would analyze in detail the understanding of the title page of the Book of Mormon itself grants the possibility Godhead in doctrinal works written by later nineteenth-cen- that the book may contain mistakes "of men." "Wherefore," it tury Latter-day Saints, including works by Orson Spencer, says, "condemn not the things of God." It may well be that John Jaques, Parley P Pratt, Franklin D. Richards, Charles W God had not yet revealed that doctrine as we understand it Penrose, and B. H. ~oberts.'~I would spend more space ex- today to Abinadi or that Abinadi had not understood God's ploring Brigham Young's views of God and the Godhead. I revelations. Or, Paulsen may be right that the term "God in would also concentrate more on exploring the views of nine- the passage means the Godhead or Jesus Christ. teenth-century Protestant and Catholic writers. We have a similar problem in interpreting the famous pas- Finally, I freely admit that my essay may contain mistakes. sage in Ether where Christ showed his spirit body to the As I have frequently said, I do not believe historians can be brother of Jared. In the passage, Christ called himself "the Fa- "objective." In interpreting the thoughts of people in times past ther and the Son," and he said "this body, which ye now be- and understanding them as they understood themselves, we hold is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the can easily err. We try our best to insinuate our thoughts into body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the others minds, but the Vulcan mind meld from Star Trek's Mr. spirit will I appear unto my people in the fleshn (Ether 3:14, Spock is fiction. After death, when we meet Christ, we will 16). The 1916 statement clarifies how Christ may be called have a perfect knowledge; until then, we see "through a glass "the Father," but it is not at all clear that the brother of Jared darkly" B understood the doctrine that way Moreover, we should recognize that Joseph Smith's inspired NOTES revision of the Bible and the 1880 canonization of the Doctrine and Covenants may well have left Church members with an 1. See, for instance,Joseph Fielding McConhe, "A Historical Examination of the Views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Reorganized incomplete understanding of these doctrines. In revising John Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on Four Distinctive Aspects of the Doc- 4:24 and the surrounding passages, Joseph Smith deleted the trine of Deity Taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith" (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young statement "God is a Spirit." Significantly, in revising 2 University, 1968). 31-32. Corinthians 3:17, he let the passage "Now the Lord is that 2. 0. Kendall mteJr., "The Transformation of Mormon Theology,"Dia- lope: A Journal of Mormon Thought 5 (summer 1970): 9-24; Gordon C. Spirit" stand. The Greek word translated as Lord in that pas- Thomasson and Julian R. Durham, "Thoughts on Mormon 'Neo-orthodoxy,"' Dia- sage is Kurios which means someone supreme in authority logue, 5 (winter 1970): 123-28. Thus, the passage might refer either to God the Father, Christ, 3. Joseph Smith, History ofthe Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. or perhaps even the Holy Ghost, though the context seems to H. Roberts, 7 vols. (: Deseret Book, 1902-35), vols. 1 and 2 passim. 4. A Book of Commandments for the Government of the Church of Christ (Zion, suggest that the passage refers to God the Father. Mo.: M! M! Phelps and Co., 1833);Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, With respect to the Doctrine and Covenants, when the and Frederick C. Williams, Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day members voted to canonize the Doctrine and Covenants in Saints: Carefully Selectedfrom the Revelations of God (Kirtland, Ohio: F: G. Williams, 1880, they accepted not only section 130 but also the Lectures 1835). Both of these volumes are photo-reproduced in Wilford C. Wood, ed., Joseph Smith Begins His Work, 2 vols. (N.p.: Wilford C. Wood, 1958, 1962), vol. 2; on Faith. Until the 1921 edition, the Lectures appeared at the I have used this edition. begnning of the book in a portion entitled "Doctrine and The problem of understanding doctrine at particular times consists not only in Covenants." The second portion of the book, entitled determining what was disseminated but also in what contemporary members per- "Covenants and Commandments," contained, absent some ceived it to be. Clearly, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and rev- elations published in the monthlies are the best sources for doctrine as dissemi- more recent additions, the revelations we now consider the nated. One could use diaries, journals, and autobiographes to determine Doctrine and Covenants. perceptions, but they tend to represent one person's view rather than a collective Thus, when members voted in 1880, they approved not one. This problem might be solved if a larger number of diaries were available for the pre-1835 period. This is. unfortunately, not the case. Autobiographies and only section 130 but also the fifth Lecture on Faith. Under the journals. particularly if they were written considerably after events, tend to confuse circumstances, the conflicting understandings of God the Fa- contemporary feelings and earlier perceptions. Thus, the monthlies and doctrinal ther, the Godhead, and the Holy Ghost may well have con- expositions like the Lectures on Faith, since they were meant for public dissemina- fused a number of members. tion, provide the most reliable sources for contemporary perceptions of doctrine. 5. Manin S. Hill, "The Shaping of the Mormon Mind in New England and Clearly, my article belongs to that genre which takes the New York." Brigham Young University Studies 9 (spring 1969): 363-65. doctrine of continuous revelation quite seriously If prophets For a discussion of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, see understood everything perfectly at the beginning of their min- James Hasting, ed., Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Scribner's, istry, God would have no reason to offer additional revelations 1951), 1:809-11. 6. Evening and Morning Star, June 1832,2; May 1833, 189 (1 have used the or new inspiration on previous revelations. In this connection, Kirtland reprint edition throughout); Messenger and Advocate, May 1835, 122-23; the historical record provides instances where changes took W. A. Cowdery to editor, 17 Mar. 1835, Messenger and Advocate, May 1835, 113. place because of continuous revelations; because of the 7. Alma 18:28, 22:9-12; 1 Ne. 17:36; DM. 14:9,45:1;James R. Clark, Mes- changing understanding of previous revelations, events, and sages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesu Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1833-1964, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965751, 1:27.

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 27 SUNSTONE

8. Milton V Backman Jr.,Joseph Smith: First Vision: The First Vision in Its His- tionism mentioned in D6rC 76:58 and 88:107, passages that discuss the possibility torical Context (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971). 155-57; Richard P Howard, of man becoming equal with Christ and God (Sunderland, 35). The problem here Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development (Independence, Mo.: is that it is not at all certain that until Parley F! Pratt's reply to Sunderland in Mor- Herald House, 1969), 47-48; James B. Allen, "Line upon Line," Ensign 9 (July monism Unveiled: Zion's Watchman Unmasked, and its Editor; Mr L R Sunderland, 1979), 37-38. In citing scripture, unless there is a major discrepancy between the Exposed (New York: privately printed, 1838), especially 27 and 31, that these pas- first editions and the editions currently in use. I have cited the current edition sages and the passages like them in the Bible (Ps. 82:6;John 10:34-36; and 1 John used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since the chapter num- 3:2) would have been interpreted literally. Paul Edwards, in "The Secular Smiths," bers in the Book of Mormon have been changed and there are no verse numbers in ]ournal of Mormon Histoy 4 (1977): 5, argues that Parley F! Pratt played a central the first edition, and since the section and verse numbers in the first edition of the role in developing theology for the Church. Robert Matthews, "The 'New Transla- Doctrine and Covenants are different than in the current edition. tion' of the B~ble,1830-1833: Doctrinal Development during the Kirtland Era," One might argue the apparent inconsistency of these questions can be re- BW Studies 11 (summer 1971): 411-15, points out that many of the revelations solved, since the Lord and God the Father are one in purpose and since God di- between sections 76 and 93 were received in connection with the new translation rected while Jesus implemented the creation. This is, however, falling into the trap of the Bible, particularly as Joseph Smith revised the gospel of John and the Book mentioned in the opening paragraph of this essay, in whch current doctrine is of Revelation. The headnotes for sections 76 and 93 particularly reveal the rela- used to interpret previously revealed scriptures. tionship between these sections and the new translation of the New Testament. 9. Messenger and Advocate, May 1835. 122-23; DM20:28. 21. Francis H. Touchet, "Perfectionism in Religion and Psychotherapy: Or on 10. D&C (1st ed.), 53-54. Discerning the Spirits,"Journal ofPsychology and Theology 4 (winter 1976): 25-26; 11. See Sterling M. McMumn, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Reli- see also Evening and Morning Star, especially after the persecutions in Missouri gion (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 19651, 49, for the definition. The began, e.g., Jan. 1834, 256; Mar. 1834,283. view presented here of the nature of Mormon doctrine, however, is quite at odds 22. James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story ofthe Latter-day Saints (Salt with McMumn's position. Lake City: Deseret Book, 19761,6768;Joseph Smith said in June 1844 that the 12. Messenger and Advocate, May 1835, 113. elders had been preachng "plurality of Gods . . . for fifteen years," Joseph Smith, 13. McMurrin, Theological Foundations, 65-66. Again, McMurrin would deny History of the Church, 6:474. Ths statement does not represent the perception of this is the case with Mormon doctrine. I suspect that if asked about original sin, Church members before 1835.Joseph Smith may have been referring to the rather most Mormons would say that they do not believe in it and then cite the second explicit division between God and Christ in the 1835 Lectures on Faith or to D&C article of faith. They might not realize that they are also denying that a condition of 76:58 which dates from Feb. 1832. It is unclear that members of the Church sinfulness attaches to every person by virtue of his humanness, but, if pressed, would have perceived these references as explicit references to the 1844 doctrine. they would probably say that the statement that men will be punished for their 23. T. Edgar Lyon, "Doctrinal Development of the Church during the Nauvoo own sins denied the possibility of original sin in either fo&ulation. See also Sojourn, 1839-1846," BW Studies 15 (summer 1975): 435-66, deals with the Mosiah 3:16-25; Alma 41:2-15; 42:2-13. broad range of development in Nauvoo; Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: 14. Evening and Morning Star, Oct. 1832,77. A Newly Amalgamated Text," BWStudies 18 (winter 1978): 193-208; Van Hale, 15. Evening and Morning Star, Mar. 1834,283; D&C (1st ed.), 67. "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," BW Studies 18 (winter 16. Hill, "Mormon Mind," 352-53; Timothy L. Smith, "Righteousness and 1978): 209-25. Hope: The Biblical Culture That Nurtured Early Mormon Faith," paper presented It has been argued that much of the current doctrine of the Church had been at the annual meeting of the Mormon History Association, Canandaigua, New well clarified by mid-1833, when Joseph Smith finished his new translation of the York, 2 May 1980. Bible-particularly that Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament and that man had 17. Alexander Campbell, A Compend of Alexander Campbell's Theology, ed. enjoyed a premortal existence as spirit chldren of God. See Robert Matthews, "A Royal Humbert (St. Louis, Mo.: Bethany Press, 1961). 85, 231; Jonathan Plainer Translation": A History and Commentary (Provo: BYU Press, 19751, 309-13. Crowther, A True and Complete Portraiture of Methodism (New York: Daniel Hitt and The problem with ths proposition is that it assumes the present Mormon Thomas Ware, 1813), 143, 178. tritheism, which is not at all obvious, particularly in view of the doctrinal exposi- 18. Sydney E. Ahtstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 2 vols. tion of the 1834-35 Lectures on Faith. An interpretation of Genesis 2:5 in the (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 1:532. Joseph Smith Translation, for instance, which assumes a premortal spiritual cre- 19. Alexander Campbell, Delusions, An Analysis ofthe Book of Mormon with an ation, also assumes an understanding of the term "spirit" that may not have existed Examination of its Internal and External Evidences, and a Refutation oflts Pretences to among Mormons in 1834. It may simply have meant that God created men intel- Divine Authority with Prefatory Remarks by Joshua V Himes (Boston: Benjamine H. lectually or conceptually, which was a contemporary meaning of the term "spiri- Greene, 1832), 5-7, 12-14; Thomas Campbell in Evangelical Enquirer 1 (Dayton, tual." (See Odord English Dictionary, compact edition, S.V.spiritual.) In fact, there is Ohio, 7 Mar. 1831): 235-36; Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2 (New Se- little evidence that a contemporary of Joseph Smith reading what became Moses ries, 1913): 47 says that "The whole book is filled with blasphemous nonsense, 357in the Pearl of Great Price would have interpreted it as we do today to refer silly stories, pretended prophesies, history, &c . . . interlarded with unnumbered to mankind as the spirit children of God in any corporeal sense. profanations of the names of the Deity and Jesus Christ." Niles Weekly Registe~16 The same problem exists with Doctrine and Covenants 93:29-38. Today, we July 1831,353, attacks the Church on the basis of miracles and common owner- interpret the term "intelligence" in those passages to mean the essential uncreated shp of property The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Brattleboro: Fessenden & essence of each person. The passage, however, discusses intelligence as "the light Co., 1835), 844, cites "pretensions" and the doctrine of Zion. Campbell, in the of truth," which it declares eternal, not as the premortal essence of each individual. Evangelical Enquirer; also objects to the character of Joseph Smith and to the doc- It also declares. "The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably trine of authority and rebaptism. connected, receive a fulness of joy" Until the development of the materialism as- In general, however, most of these attacks did not consider the doctrines of sociated with the King Follett discourse, it is not at all certain that the term "spirit" God and man deviant. The principal opposition developed against the announce- would have been construed as in any sense corporeal. The Evening and Morning ment of new revelations and scripture, and the presentation of these in the names Star, May 1834,314, uses the term "intelligence"to mean fact or donnation. The of God and Christ, because they were considered blasphemous. use of the term "beginning" would also not necessarily have meant "in the pres- 20. LaRoy Sunderland, whose book Mormonism Exposed and Refuted (New ence of God before the creation." See Ether 3:14-17; Mosiah 7:27. In fact, 1 argue York: Piercy & Reed, 1838) was also published as a series entitled "Mormonism" that the contemporary meaning of these terms would have militated against such in Zion's Watchman between 13Jan. and 24 Mar. 1838, attacked a number of pas- an interpretation before Church leaders began to elaborate on them in 1838. sages from the Doctrine and Covenants. Sunderland used for his sources the Book Another problem I have not addressed in this paper, but which bears consid- of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (1835 ed.) and Parley F! Pratt's Voice of eration, is that of biblical literalism. There is a tendency to see Mormons as biblical Warning (New York: W Sandord, 1837). Sunderland attacked Mormonism on an literalists. What those who claim this tendency apparently do not see is that bib- ad hominem basis as did many others, calling the writings "nonsense and blas- lical literalism is not absolute. In the final analysis, biblical interpretationis depen- phemy," 35; he also opposed the rejection of infant baptism, as did many others, dent upon a theological system, since some scriptures must be interpreted allegor- 25. The question of infant baptism, however, was a controversy wihn Protes- ically Currently, for instance, the passage cited in note 8 above, indicating the tantism, and opposition to the Mormons on that basis would not have separated unity of Father and Son, would be interpreted allegorically, while those indicating them from the Baptists, for instance. that Christ is the Son of God, "after the manner of flesh," would be interpreted lit- His major substantative attack, however, came on the doctrine of perfec- erally The system of interpretation Mormons adopted in 1830 was essentially

PAGE 28 SILVER SUNSTONE

drawn from contemporary Protestantism. After 1835, that system of interpxtation 47. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 45-46. was changed because of the work of those like Joseph Smith and Parley P Pratt, 48. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 46-48,81. who elaborated the doctrine of perfectionism into a system of radical materialism. 49. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 64, 146. 24. John Comll, Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . (St. 50. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 26-27.61-62; Lund Journal, 7,11 Dec. 1914. Louis: privately printed, 1839), 10, 12-13. 51. Lund Journal, 7, 11 Dec. 1914; Clark, Messages, 5:244. 25. Clark, Messages, 1:253; 2:233-40;Joumal of Discourses, 26 vols. (London: 52. Improvement Era, Sept. 1914, 1040, 1043-45. Lund Journal, 22 Sept. Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-86; reprint ed., 19671, 1:50-51; 7:299-302; 1914; Richards Journal, 20,21Jan. 1915; Talmage Journal, 28 Sept. 1914. Ronald W! Walker, "The Godbeite Protest in the Malung of Modem Utah," (Ph.D. 53. Lund Journal, 16Jan. 1915. diss., University of Utah, 19771, 183. 54. For the statements, see Clark, Messages, 4:199-206; 5:243-44. 26. See, for instance, Doctrine and Covenants, 1883 edition, 1,76; Allen and 55. White. "Mormon Theology," 10-22. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 383; Parley P Pratt, Key to the Science of 56. George Boyd, Rodney Turner, and Kent Robson, "Roundtable: The Nature Theology, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: , 1874), passim; B. H. Roberts, The of Man," Dialogue: AJmrnal OfMormon Thought 3 (spring 1968): 5,597. Gospel: An Ewposition of Its First Principles (Salt Lake City: The Contributor, 1888), 57. Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary James Bergera (Salt 212-13. Lake City: Signature Books. 1989). 27. Journal of James E. Talmage, Jan. 1899, Special Collections, Brigham 58. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989) Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Young University Library;Juvenile Instructor 29 (1 Apr. 1894): 220; the entire se- Concept of God," 17-33; Boyd Kirkland, "The Development of the Mormon Doc- ries of lectures was reproduced inJuvenile Instructor, 28 (15 Nov. 1893) through 29 trine of God," 35-52; Kent E. Robson, "Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omni- (15 Aug. 1894); James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the science in Mormon Theology," 67-75; and Vern G. Swanson, "The Development Principal Doctrines of the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: of a Concept of the Holy Ghost in Mormon Theology," 89-101. Deseret News, 1899), 164-65. 59. Blake T. Ostler, "The Mormon Concept of God," Dialogue 17 (summer 28. B. H. Roberts, The Gospel (3rd ed.), vi-vii, 196. The radical nature of Tal- 1984): 65-93. magek contribution can be overemphasized. The doctrine of the separate corpo- 60. David L. Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, real nature of Christ and God had been well established before the Articles of Faith, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophcal Perspectives,"BW Studies 35 (1995-96): 6-94. and members who believed otherwise would probably have been exceptional by 61. Robert L. Millet, "Joseph Smith and Modem Mormonism: Orthodoxy, 1893. In addition, Talmage continued to insist on the absolute attributes of God Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition," BW Studies 29 (summer 1989): 49-68. such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence (42-43). Still, as a codifi- 62. Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 41-61; See also James B. Allen, "Line cation of generally accepted doctrines and as a formulation of the new doctrine of Upon Line: Church History Reveals How the Lord Has Continually Added to His the Holy Ghost, it is seminal. People's Knowledge and Understanding," Ensign 9 (July 1979): 32-39, which dis- 29. Talmage Journal, 21 Jan. 1883, 15 Mar. and 4 May 1884, 14 Mar. 1898, cusses the process of continuous revelation. and 13 Sept. 1899; and Improvement Era, Feb. 1900,256. 63. Sunstone 10: (Jan. 1985): 23-27. In this discussion, I have not detailed the controversy over the question of evo- 64. Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment," 9. lution through natural selection since the topic has been so well treated elsewhere. 65. Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment." 8. Those interested in considering the topic would do well to see: Duane E. Jeffery, 66. See Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment," 10, on this question. "Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface," Dialogue 8 (au- 67. See Milton V Backman Jr., "Truman CoeS 1836 Description of Mor- tumn-winter 1973): 41-75 and Richard Sherlock, "A Turbulent Spectrum: monism." BW Studies 17 (spring 1977): 354; Lucy Mack Smith's statement is cited Mormon Reactions to the Darwinist Legacy,"]ournal of Mormon History 5 (1978): in Paulsen, 33. 33-59. 68. Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: History of the Latter-day 30. John A. Widtsoe, In a Sunlit Land: The Autobiography ofJohn A. Widtsoe Saints, 1890-1 930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986, 1996). (Salt Lake City: Milton R. Hunter and G. Homer Durham, 1952), 6M7;Joseph 69. "Line Upon Line: Church History Reveals How the Lord Has Continually Smith As Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy (Salt Lake City: YMMlA Gen- added to His People's Knowledge and Understanding,"Ensign 9 (July 1979): 32-39; eral Board, 1908). and "Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith's First Vi- 3 1. John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology As Taught by the Church ofJesus Christ of sion in Mormon Religious Thought,"Jmmal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-51. Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: General Priesthood Committee, 1915). 20-22. 70. Paulsen, 13. 32. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 45-46. 71. See, for instance, Robert L. Millet, 'Joseph Smith and Modem Mor- 33. Journal of George F: Richards, Library-Archives, Historical Depanment of monism: Orthodoxy, Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition," BYU Studies 29 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City (hereafter cited as (summer 1989): 51. Church Archives), 28 Mar. 1911. 72. Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints: Carefully 34. Joseph F: Smith to Samuel 0. Bennion, 20 Feb. 1912, cited in Clark, Mes- selected from the Revelations of God (Kinland, Ohio: F: G. Williams, 1935). A2 sages, 4:266; and Journal of Anthon H. Lund, Church Archives, 8 Apr. 1912; (this actually p. 5). Oliver Cowdery was at the time serving as Assistant Presi- Journal of Discourses 1:50-5 1. dent of the Church, a position the First Presidency no longer has. 35. Talmage Journal, 14 Sept. 1914, 19 Apr. 1915; Lund Journal, 4, 6 May 73. Various ed.; 1 used the 31st English ed. (Salt Lake City, Church of Jesus 1915; Richards Journal, 15, 24 June 1915; Journal of Heber J. Grant, Church Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1952), see 3942. Archives, 18, 20 May, 8, 10 June 1915; Clark, Messages, 4:39940;James E. Tal- 74. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide: A mage,Jesw the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1915). Mormon G and Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 36. Clark, Messages, 5:23-24. 1997). passim, but explicitly 128-29. 37. Lund Journal, 21 Jan. 1915, Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 5th ed.. 75. Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment," 12n14. 68,75,97, 100-2, 139; 7th ed., 66, 73,48,92-94, 100. 76. Orson Spencer, Letters Exhibiting the Most Prominent Doctrines of the 38. Grant Journal, 15 November 1917.20 Aug. 1921; Talmage Journal, 3 Jan. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Liverpool: Privately Printed, 1848); 1918, 11 Mar. 1921; Richards Journal, 11 Mar., 29 July 1921. John Jaques, Catechism for Children: Exhibiting the Prominent Doctrines of the 39. Joseph Smith, History ofthe Church, 2:243-51. Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Liverpool: Franklin D. Richards and 40. Talmage, Articles ojFaith, 1st ed., 71; 12th ed., 69-70. London: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1854); Parley P Pratt. Key to the Science of 41. Talmage, Articles ofFaith, 1st ed., 54. Theology: designed as an introduction to the First Principles of Spiritual Philosophy; 42. Talmage, Articles ofFaith, 1st ed., 421; 12th ed., 409. Religion; Law and Government; as Delivered by the Ancients, and as Restored in this 43. Brigham H. Roberts, A New Witness for God (Salt Lake City: George Q. Age for the Final Development of Universal Peace, Truth and Knowledge (Liverpool: F: Cannon and Sons, 1895), 462. D. Richards and London: Latter-day Saints Book Depot, 1855); Franklin D. W! 44. Richards Journal, 6 Feb. 1907; Roberts, New 457-66; cf. 2nd ed., Richards, A Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel (Salt Lake City: Deseret 1:458-61. (See especially 1st ed., 466; 2nd ed., 1:461.) News Company, 1882); Charles Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple, or 45. Lund Journal, 25, 29 Aug. 1911; Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Leaves from the Tree of Lge (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor, 1882); Brigham H. Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," BYU Studies Roberts, The Gospel: An Exposition of Its First Principles (Salt Lake City: Contrib- 18 (winter 1978): 190-92. utor, 1888). 46. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, iii, 3.

ANNIVERSARY PAGE 29

- -