The Reconstruction ofMormon DoctrineFrom Joseph Smith to Progressive TheologyBy Thomas G. Ale:cander

perhaps the main barrier to understandingthe development of Mormon theology isan underlying assumption by most Churchmembers that there is a cumulative unityof doctrine. Mormons seem to believe that

~ particular doctrines develop consistently,that ideas build on each other in hierarchicalfashion. As a result, older revelations are inter-preted by referring to current doctrinal posi-tions. Thus, most members would suppose that ascripture or statement at any point in time hasresulted from such orderly change. While thistype of exegesis or interpretation may producesystematic theology and while it may satisfythose trying to understand and internalize cur-rent doctrine, it is bad history since it leaves anunwarranted impression of continuity andconsistency, z

By examining particular beliefs at specificjunctures in Church history, this essay exploresihow certain doctrines have in fact developed. Ihave made every effort to restate each doctrineas contemporaries most likely understood it,¯ without superimposing later developments. Thisessay focuses on the period from 1830 to 1835,the initial era of Mormon doctrinal development,.and on the period from 1893 through 1925, whenmuch of current doctrine seems to have beensystematized. Since a full exposition of all doc-trines is impossible in a short paper, I havesingled out the doctrines of God and man. Plac-ing the development of these doctrines into his-torical context will also illuminate the appear-ance of so-called Mormon neoorthodoxy (a termborrowed from twentieth-century Protestant-ism), which emphasizes particular ideas aboutthe sovereignty of God and the depravity ofman.2

THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORMON DOCTRINE 1830-1835Historians have long recognized the impor-

tance of the Nauvoo experience in the formulation of distinctive Latter-day Saint doctrines.What is not so apparent is that before about 1835the LDS doctrines on God and man were quiteclose to those of contemporary Protestantdenominations.

Of course the problem of understanding doc-trine at particular times consists not only indetermining what was disseminated but also inpinpointing how contemporary members per-ceived such beliefs. Diaries of Church leaderswould be most helpful. Currently available evi-dence indicates treat members of the FirstPresidency, particularly Joseph Smith, OliverCowdery, Frederick G. Williams, and SidneyRigdon were the principal persons involved indoctrinal development prior to 1835. Unfortu-nately, the only available diary from among thatgroup is Joseph Smith’s, which has been editedand published as History of the Church.3

Church publications from this period are im-portant sources of doctrine and doctrinal com-mentary, given the lack of diaries. After the pub-lication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, theChurch supported The Evening and the Morning Starin Independence (June 1832-July 1833) andKirtland (December 1833-September 1834). InOctober 1834, the Latter Day Saints Messenger andAdvocate (Kirtland, October 1834-September 1837)replaced the Star. Both monthlies published ex-positions on doctrine, letters from Church mem-bers, revelations, minutes of conferences, andother items of interest. William W. Phelps pub-lished a collection of Joseph Smith’s revelationsin the 1833 Book of Commandments, but de-struction of the press and most copies ]eft the Starand Messenger virtually the only sources of theserevelations until 1835. In that year, the Doctrineand Covenants, which included the Lectures onFaith and presented both revelation and doctri-

II SUNSTONE/MAY 1985

nal exposition, was published.4The doctrines of God and man revealed in

these sources were not greatly different fromthose of some of the religious denominations ofthe time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormondoctrine of man in New York contained elementsof both Calvinism and Arminianism, thoughtending toward the latter. The following evi-dence shows that it was much closer to the mod-erate Arminian position, particularly in rejectingthe Calvinist emphasis on absolute and uncondi-tional predestination, limited atonement, totaldepravity, and absolute perseverence of the elect.5It will further demonstrate that the doctrine ofGod preached and believed before 1835 wasessentially trinitarian, with God the Father seenas an absolute personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ asa personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Ghost asan impersonal spiritual member of the Godhead.

The Book of Mormon tended to define God asan absolute personage of spirit who, clothed inflesh, revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Abinidi’ssermon to King Noah in Mosiah chapters 13-14is a good example). The first issue of the Eveningand Morning Star published a similar description ofGod, the "Articles and Covenants of the Churchof Christ," which was the Church’s first state-ment of faith and practice. With some additions,the "Articles" became section 20 of the Doctrinearid Covenants. The "Articles," which accordingto correspondence in the Star was used with theBook of Mormon in proselytizing, indicated that"there is a God in heaven who is infinite andeternal, from everlasting to everlasting, thesame unchangeable God, the framer of heavenartd earth and all things which are in them." TheMessenger and Advocate published numbers 5 and 6of the Lectures on Faith, which defined the"Father" as "the only supreme governor, anindependent being, in whom all fulness and per-fection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent,an~d omniscient; without beginning of days orenid of life." In a letter published in the Messengerand Advocate, Warren A. Cowdery argues that "weh~.ve proven to the satisfaction of every intelli-gent being, that there is a great first cause, primemover, self-existent, independent and all wisebeing whom we call God ... immutable in hispurposes and unchangeable in his nature.’’6

On the doctrine of creation, these worksassumed that God or Christ was the creator, buttl~ey did not address the question of ex nihilo crea-tion. There is little evidence that Church doc-trine either accepted or rejected the idea or that itspecifically differentiated between Christ andG,od.~

Indeed, this distinction was probably consi-dered unnecessary since the early discussionsalso supported trinitarian doctrine. Joseph Smith’s1832 account-of the First Vision spoke only ofone personage and did not make the explicit sep-aration of God and Christ found in the 1838version. The Book of Mormon declared that

Mary"is the mother of God, after the manner oithe flesh," which as James Allen and RichardHoward have pointed out was changed in 1837 to"mother of the Son of God.’" Abinidi’s sermon inthe Book of Mormon explor,,e,d the relationshipbetween God and Christ: God himself shallcome down among the children of men, and shallredeem his people. And because he dwelleth inflesh he shall be called the Son of God, and hav-ing subjected the flesh to the will of the Father,being the Father and the Son--The Father,because he was conceived by the power of God;and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becomingthe Father and Son--And they are one God, yea,the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth."(Mosiah 15:1-4.)s

The Lectures on Faith differentiated betweenthe Father and Son somewhat more explicitly,but even they did not define a materialistic, tri-theistic Godhead. In announcing the publicationof the Doctrine and Covenants which includedthe Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocatecommented editorially that it trusted the volumewould give "the churches abroad ... a perfectunderstanding of the doctrine believed by thissociety." The Lectures declared that "there aretwo personages who constitute the great match-less, governing and supreme power over allthings~by whom all things were created andmade." They are "the Father being a personage ofspirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom ofthe Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, orfashioned like unto man, or being in the form andlikeness of man, or, rather, man was formedafter his likeness, and in his image." The "Arti-cles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, andHoly Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead,a term which Mormons generally use today toseparate themselves from trinitarians.9

The doctrine of the Holy Ghost presented inthese early sources is even more striking com-pared to the point of view defended in our time.The Lectures .on Faith defined the Holy Ghost asthe mind of the Father and the Son, a member ofthe Godhead, but not a personage, who binds theFather and Son together. This view of the HolyGhost reinforced trinitarian doctrine by explain-ing how personal beings like the Father and Sonbecome one God through the noncorporeal pres-ence of a shared mind.~0

If the doctrines of the Godhead in the earlyChurch were close to trinitarian doctrine, theteachings of man seemed quite close to MethodistArminianism, which saw man as a creature ofGod, but capable of sanctification. Passages inthe Book of Mormon seemed to indicate that intheological terms man was "essentially and totallya creature of God."~ Alma’s commandments toCorianton in chapters 39 through 42 definedman as a creation of God who became "carnal,sensual, and devilish by nature" after the Fall(Alma 42:10). Man was in the hand of justice, andmercy from God was impossible without the

Much of thedoctrine thatearly investiga-tors found inMormonismwas similar tocontemporaryProtestantchurches.

MAY 1985 / SUNSTONE 9

Persecutionintensified the

emphasis on erfectionism--

which eventu-ally led to the

doctrine ofeternal

progression.

atonement of Christ. King Benjamin’s discussionof creation, Adam’s fall, and the atonement inMosiah chapters 2 through 4 viewed man and allcreation as creatures of God (Mosiah 2:23-26;4:9, 19, 21). Warren Cowdery’s letter in theMessenger and Advocate argued that though "man isthe more noble and intelligent part of this lowercreation, to whom the other grades in the scale ofbeing are subject, yet, the man is dependent onthe great first cause and is constantly upheld byhim, therefore justly amenable to him."12

The Book of Mormon included a form of thedoctrine of original sin, defined as a"condition ofsinfulness [attaching] as a quality or property toevery person simply by virtue of his human-ness." Though sinfulness inhered in mankindfrom the fall of Adam according to early works, itapplied to individual men only from the age ofaccountability and ability to repent, not frombirth. Very young children were free from thissin, but every accountable person merited pun-ishment.13 Lehi’s discussion of the necessity ofopposition in 2 Nephi 2, particularly verses 7through 13, made such sinfulness a necessarypart of God’s plan, since the law, the Atonement,and righteousness--indeed the fulfillment of thepurposes of the creation--were contingent uponman’s sinfulness. An article in The Evening and theMorning Star supported this view by attributing"this seed of corruption to the depravity ofnature. It attributeth the respect that we feel forvirtue, to the remains of the image of God, inwhich we were formed, and which can never beentirely effaced. Because we were born in sin, theGospel concludes that we ought to apply all ourattentive endeavors to eradicate the seeds of cor-ruption. And, because the image of the Creator ispartly erased from our hearts, the gospel con-cludes that we ought to give ourselves wholly tothe retracing of it, and so to answer the excel-lence of our extraction."14

These early Church works also exhibit a formof Christian Perfectionism, which held man cap-able of freely choosing to become perfect likeGod and Christ but which rejected irresistablegrace. The Evening and Morning Star said that "Godhas created man with a mind capable of instruc-tion, and a faculty which may be enlarged inproportion to the heed and diligence given to thelight communicated from heaven to the intellect;and that the nearer man approaches perfection,tlhe more conspicuous are his views, and thegreater his enjoyments, until he has overcomethe evils of this life and lost every desire of sin;and like the ancients, arrives to that point of faiththat he is wrapped in the power and glory of hisMaker and is caught up to dwell with him.." TheLectures on Faith argued that we can becomeperfect if we purify ourselves to become "holy ashe is holy, and perfect as he is perfect," and thuslike Christ.is A similar sentiment was expressedin Moroni 10:32 which declared "that by hisgrace ye may be perfect in Christ."

As Marvin Hill and Timothy Smith have ar-gued, much of the doctrine that early investiga-tors found in Mormonism was similar to con-temporary Protestant churches. The section onthe nature of God in the "Articles and Coven-ants," now Doctrine and Covenants 20:17-28,was similar to the creeds of other churches. Infact, what is now verses 23 and 24 is similar topassages in the Apostle’s Creed.~

On the doctrines of God and man, the positionof the LDS church between 1830 and 1835 wasprobably closest to that of the Disciples of Christand the Methodists, though differences existed.Alexander Campbell, for instance, objected tothe use of the term "Trinity" but argued that"the Father is of none, neither begotten norpreceding; from the Father and the Son."Methodist teaching was more explicitly trinitar-ian than that of either the Disciples or theMormons. All three groups believed in an abso-lute spiritual Father. Methodists, Disciples, andMormons also believed to some degree in theperfectability of man. As Alexander Campbellput it, "Perfection is... the glory and felicity ofman .... There is a true, a real perfectability ofhuman character and of human nature, throughthe soul-redeeming mediation and holy spiritualinfluence of the great Philanthropist." Methodistsbelieved that all "real Christians are so perfect asnot to live in outward sin.’’17

Mormons rejected the Calvinistic doctrines ofelection, which were basically at odds with theirbelief in perfectionism and free will, but so didthe Methodists and Disciples. In the discussion ofthe Fall and redemption, Nephi declared that"Adam fell that men might be and men are theythey might have joy" (2 Ne. 2:25). This joy wasfound through the redemption from the Fallwhich allowed men to "act for themselves andnot to be acted upon, save it be by the punish-ment of the law at the great and last day, accord-ing to the commandments which God hathgiven" (2 Ne. 2:26). Like Methodist doctrine,however, the LDS doctrine of perfectionismbegan with the sovereignty of God and thedepravity of unregenerate man. A careful read-ing of Mormon scriptures and doctrinal state-ments, however, leads to the conclusion thatLDS doctrine went beyond the beliefs of theDisciples and Methodists in differentiating moreclearly between Father and Son and in anticipat-ing the possibility of human perfection throughthe atonement of Christ.~s

Nevertheless, that there was disagreement--often violent disagreement--between theMormons and other denominations is evident.The careful student of the Latter-day Saint pastneeds to determine, however, where the sourceof disagreement lay. Campbell in his Delusions, AnAnalysis of the Book of Mormon lumped Joseph Smithwith the false Christs because of his claims toauthority and revelation from God, and he ob-jected to some doctrines. He also attacked the

10 SUNSTONE / MAY 1985

sweeping and authoritative nature of the Book ofMormon with the comment that Joseph Smith"decides all the great controversies--infant bap-tism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, re-pentance, justification, eternal punishment, [and]who may baptize." Nevertheless, he recognizedsomewhat backhandedly that the Book ofMormon spoke to contemporary Christians withthe comment that "the Nephites, like their fathersfor many generations, were good Christians,believers in the doctrines of the Calvinists andMethodists." Campbell and others before 1835objected principally to claims of authority, mod-ern revelation, miracles, and communitarianismbut not to the doctrines of God and man.19

LAYING THE BASIS FOR DOCTRINAL RECONSTRUCTION 1832-1890During the remaining years of Joseph Smith’s

lifetime and into the late nineteenth century,various doctrines were proposed, some of whichwere later abandoned and others adopted in thereconstruction of Mormon doctrine after 1890.Joseph Smith and other Church leaders laid thebasis for the reconstruction with revelation anddoctrinal exposition between 1832 and 1844.Three influences seem to have been responsiblefor the questions leading to these revelations andinsights. First was the work of Joseph Smith andothers, particularly Sidney Rigdon, on the in-spired revision of the Bible (especially John’sGospel and some of the letters of John). Ques-tions which arose in the course of revision led tothe revelations contained in Doctrine andCovenants 76 and 93, and perhaps section 88.These revelations were particularly importantbecause they carried the doctrine of perfection-isrn far beyond anything generally acceptable tocontemporary Protestants, including Methodists.Evidence from the period indicates, however,that the implications of this doctrine were notgenerally evident in the Mormon communityuntil 1838.20

’]’he second influence was the persecution ofthe Saints in Jackson County. This persecutionalso intensified the emphasis on perfectionism--which eventually led to the doctrine of eternalprogression. As the Saints suffered and perse-vered, the Star reemphasized the idea that thefaithful could become Christlike, and a side ofman’s nature quite apart from his fallen statewas thus affirmed.~l

The third influence was the work of JosephSmith and others on the Book of Abraham.Though Joseph Smith and others seem to haveworked on the first two chapters of this bookfollowing 1835, the parts following chapter 2were not written until 1842. Still Doctrine andCovenants 121:31-32 indicates that Joseph Smithbelieved in the plurality of gods as early as1839.22

Thereafter, between 1842 and 1844 JosephSmith spoke on and published doctrines such asthe plurality of gods, the tangibility of God’s

body, the distinct separation of God and Christ,the potential of man to become and function as agod, the explicit rejection of ex nihilo creation, andthe materiality of everything including spirit.These ideas were perhaps most clearly stated inthe King Follett discourse of April 1844.23

Because doctrine and practice changed as theresult of new revelation and exegesis, somemembers who had been converted under thedoctrines of the early 1830s left the Church. JohnCorrill exhibited disappointment rather thanrancor and defended the Church against outsideattack, but left because of the introduction ofdoctrine which he thought contradicted those ofthe Book of Mormon and the Bible.2~

It seems clear that certain ideas which devel-oped between 1832 and 1844 were internalizedafter 1835 and accepted by the Latter-day Saints.This was particularly true of the material anthro-pomorphism of God and Jesus Christ, advancedperfectionism as elaborated in the doctrine ofeternal progression, and the potential godhoodof man.

Between 1845 and 1890, however, certain doc-trines were proposed which were later rejectedor modified. In an address to rulers of the worldin 1845, for instance, the Council of the Twelvewrote of the "great Eloheem Jehovah" as thoughthe two names were synonymous, indicatingthat the identification of Jehovah with Christhad little meaning to contemporaries. In addi-tion, Brigham Young preached that Adam wasnot only the first man, but that he was the god ofthis world. Acceptance of the King Follett doc-trine would have granted the possibility of Adambeing a god, but the idea that he was god of thisworld conflicted with the later Jehovah-Christdoctrine. Doctrines such as those preached byOrson Pratt, harking back to the Lectures onFaith and emphasizing the absolute nature ofGod, and Amasa Lyman, stressing radical perfec-tionism which denied the necessity of Christ’satonement, were variously questioned by theFirst Presidency and Twelve. In Lyman’s case, hisbeliefs contributed to his excommunication.2S

The newer and older doctrines thus coexisted,and all competed with novel positions spelled outby various Church leaders. The Lectures onFaith continued to appear as part of the Doctrineand Covenants in a section entitled "Doctrineand Covenants," as distinguished from the "Cove-nants and Commandments" which constitutethe current Doctrine and Covenants. The Pearlof Great Price containing the Book of Abrahamwas published in England in 1851 as a missionarytract and was accepted as authoritative in 1880.The earliest versions of Parley P. Pratt’s Key to theScience of Theology and Brigham H. Roberts’s TheGospel both emphasized an omnipresent, non-personal Holy Ghost, though Pratt’s emphasiswas radically materialistic and Roberts’s moreallegorical. Both were elaborating ideas addressed

The doctrineof the HolyGhost in earlysources isstriking com-pared to thepoint of viewdefended in ourtime.

MAY 1985/SUNSTONE !1

Somedoctrines wereabandoned andothers adopted

in the recon-struction of

Mormon doc-trine after

1890.

in the King Follett sermon.26 Such fluidity ofdoctrine, unusual from a twentieth-century per-spective, characterized the nineteenth-centuryChurch.

THE PROGRESSIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF DOCTRINE 1893-1925By 1890 the doctrines preached in the Church

combined what would seem today both familiarand strange. Yet, between 1890 and 192,’5 thesedoctrines were reconstructed principally on thebasis of works by three European immigrants,J ames E. Talmage, Brigham H. Roberts, and JohnA. Widtsoe. Widtsoe and Talmage did much oftheir writing before they became Apostles, butRoberts served as a member of the First Councilof the Seventy during the entire period.

Perhaps the most important doctrine addressedwas the doctrine of the Godhead, which wasreconstructed beginning in 1893 and 1894. Dur-ing that year James E. Talmage, president ofLatter-day Saints University and later presidentand professor of geology at the University ofUtah, gave a series of lectures on the Articles ofFaith to the theological class of LDSU. In the fallof 1898 the First Presidency asked him to rewritethe lectures and present them for approval as anexposition of Church doctrines. In the process,Talmage reconsidered and reconstructed thedoctrine of the Holy Ghost. In response to ques-tions raised by Talmage’s lectures, George Q.Cannon, "commenting on the ambiguity existingin our printed works concerning the nature orcharacter of the Holy Ghost, expressed his opin-ion that the Holy Ghost was in reality a person,in the image of the other members of theGodhead~a man in form and figure; and thatwhat we often speak of as the Holy Ghost is inreality but the power or influence of the spirit."The First Presidency on that occasion, however,"deemed it wise to say as little as possible on thisas on other disputed subjects.’’27

In 1894 Talmage published an article in theJuvenile Instructor elaborating on his and Ca~nnon’sviews. He incorporated the article almost verba-tim into his manuscript for the Articles of Faith, andthe Presidency approved the article virtuallywithout change in 1898.

The impact of the Articles of Faith on doctrinalexposition within the Church seems to havebeen enormous. Some doctrinal works like B. H.iRoberts’s 1888 volume The Gospel were quite alle-gorical on the nature of God, Christ, and theHoly Ghost. In the 1901 edition, after the publi-cation of the Articles of Faith, Roberts explicitlyrevised his view of the Godhead, modifying hisdiscussion and incorporating Talmage’s moreliteral interpretation of the Holy Ghost.2,s

By 1900 it was impossible to consider the doctrines of God and man without dealing wiith evo-lution. Darwin’s Origin of Species had been in printfor four decades, and scientific advances togetherwith changing attitudes had introduced manysecular-rational ideas. James E. Talmage and

John A. Widtsoe had confronted these ideas asthey studied at universities in the United Statesand abroad. As early as 1881 Talmage hadresolved to "do good among the young," possiblyby lecturing on the "harmony between geologyand the Bible." In 1898 Talmage urged George Q.Cannon to have the General Authorities give"careful, and perhaps official consideration to thescientific questions on which there is at least astrong appearance of antagonism with religiouscreeds.." Cannon agreed, and Talmage recorded anumber of interviews with the First Presidencyon the subject. In a February 1900 article Talmageargued that science and religion had to be recon-ciled since "faith is not blind submission, passiveobedience, with no effort at thought or reason.Faith, if worthy of its name, rests upon truth;and truth is the foundation of science.’’2~

Just as explicit in his approach was John A.Widtsoe. Norwegian immigrant and graduate ofHarvard and Goettingen, Widtsoe came early tothe conclusion that the "scriptural proof of thetruth of the gospel had been quite fully deve-loped and was unanswerable." He "set out there-fore to present [his] modest contributions fromthe point of view of science and those trained inthat type of thinking." Between November 1903and July 1904, he published a series of articles inthe Improvement Era under the title "Joseph Smithas Scientist." The articles, republished in 1908 asthe YMMIA course of study, argued that JosephSmith anticipated many scientific theories anddiscoveries.3°

Joseph Smith as Scientist, like Widtsoe’s later ARational Theology, drew heavily on HerbertSpencer’s theories and ideas elaborated fromJoseph Smith’s later thought. The gospel, Widtsoeargued, recognized the reality of time, space, andmatter. The universe is both material and eter-nal, and God had organized rather than created it.

Thus, God was not the creator, nor was heomnipotent. He too was governed by naturallaw, which was fundamental. Widtsoe correlatedthis view of the creation with Spencer’s views ondevelopment toward increasing heterogeneityand argued that Spencer’s theory was equivalentto Joseph Smith’s idea of eternal progression. Asman acquired knowledge, he also gained power,which allowed endless advancement.3~

God did not create~or rather organize~in away man might yet comprehend, since man’sunderstanding was still developing. Rather, "greatforces, existing in the universe, and set intoceaseless operation by the directing intelligence ofGod, assembled and brought into place the mate-rials constituting the earth, until, in the course oflong periods of time., this sphere was fitted forthe abode of man." This much he did know, thatGod, with the assistance of Jehovah and Michael,had worked through the "forces of nature act-[ing] steadily but slowly in the accomplishmentof great works."’32

Even though the publications of Talmage,

1]2 SUNSTONE/MAY 1985

Roberts, and Widtsoe had established theChurch’s basic doctrines of the Godhead, mem-bers and nonmembers were still confused. In1911, George F. Richards spoke in the Tabernacleoft the nature of God. Afterward, a member chal-lenged him, arguing that Father, Son, and HolyGhost were one God rather than three distinctbeings. Richards disagreed and cited scripturalrel!erences including Joseph Smith’s first vision.33

In February 1912, detractors confronted eldersin the Central States Mission with the Adam-God theory. In a letter to President Samuel O.Bennion, the First Presidency argued thatBrigham Young did not mean to say that Adamwas God, and at a special priesthood meetingduring the April 1912 general conference, theypresented and secured approval for a declarationthat Mormons worship God the Father, notAdam.34

]Reconsideration of the doctrine of God and thearribiguity in discourse and printed works overthe relationship between God the Father andJesus Christ pointed to the need for an authorita-tive statement on the nature and mission ofChrist.

During the years 1904-1906, Talmage had de-liwered a series of lectures entitled "Jesus theChrist" at Latter-day Saints University. TheFirst Presidency asked Talmage to incorporatethe lectures into a book, but he had suspendedthe work to fill other assignments. In September1914, however, the Presidency asked Talmage toprepare "the book with as little delay as possible."In order to free him "from visits and telephonecalls" and "in view of the importance of thewc, rk," he was "directed to occupy a room in theTemple where" he would "be free from interrup-tion." After completing the writing in April 1915,he said that he had "felt the inspiration of theplace and.., appreciated the privacy and quiet-hess incident thereto." The Presidency andTwelve raised some questions about specific por-tio:ns, but they agreed generally with the work,which elaborated views expressed previously inthe Articles of Faith.3s

It seems clear that by 1916, then, the ideaswhich Joseph Smith and other leaders had pro-posed (generally after 1835) were serving as theframework for continued development of thedoctrine of God. Talmage’s initial discussion inthe Articles of Faith had been followed by suchworks as Widtsoe’s Joseph Smith as Scientist andRational Theology; Roberts’s Seventies Course in The-olo~y, the revised New Witness for God, and History ofthe Church; and finally Talmage’s Jesus the Christ. Inretrospect, it seems that these three men hadundertaken a reconstruction which carried doc-tri~ae far beyond anything described in theLectures on Faith or generally believed by Churchmembers prior to 1835.

Official statements were required to canonizedoctrines on the Father and the Son, ideas whichwere elaborated by the progressive theologians.

A clarification was particularly necessary becauseof the ambiguity in the scriptures and in authorita-tive statements about the unity of the Father andthe Son, the role of Jesus Christ as Father, andthe roles of the Father and Son in creation. Astatement for the Church membership preparedby the First Presidency and the Twelve, appar-ently first drafted by Talmage, was published in1916. The statement made clear the separatecorporeal nature of the two beings and deli-neated their roles in the creaion of the earth andtheir continued relationships with this creation.The statement was congruent with the KingFollett discourse and the work of Talmage,Widtsoe, and Roberts.36

This elaboration, together with the reviseddoctrine of the Holy Ghost, made necessary therevision and redefinition of work previouslyused. By January 1915, Charles W. Penrose hadcompleted a revision of Parley P. Pratt’s Key to theScience of Theology. Penrose deleted or altered pas-sages which discussed the Holy Ghost as non-personal and which posited a sort of "spiritualfluid," pervading the universe.37

The clarification of the doctrine of the HolyGhost and the relationship between the threemembers of the Godhead also made necessarythe revision of the Lectures on Faith. A meetingof the Twelve and First Presidency in November1917 considered the question of the lectures,particularly lecture five. At that time, they agreedto append a footnote in the next edition. Thisproved unnecessary when the First Presidencyappointed a committee consisting of George F.Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, James E. Talmage,and Melvin J. Ballard to review and revise theentire Doctrine and Covenants. The initial rea-son for the committee was the worn condition ofthe printer’s plates and the discrepancies whichexisted between the current edition and Roberts’sedition of the History of the Church.3~

Revision continued through July and August1921, and the Church printed the new edition inlate 1921. The committee proposed to delete theLectures on Faith on the grounds that they were"lessons prepared for use in the School of theElders, conducted in Kirt!and, Ohio, during thewinter of 1834-35; but they were never pre-sented to nor accepted by the Church as beingotherwise than theological lectures or lessons."How the committee came to this conclusion isuncertain. The general conference of the Churchin April 1835 had accepted the entire volume,including the Lectures, not simply the portionentitled "Covenants and Commandments," asauthoritative and binding upon Church mem-bers.39 What seems certain, however, is that theinterpretive exegesis of 1916 based upon thereconstructed doctrine of the Godhead had super-seded the Lectures.

If the 1916 statement essentially resolved theLatter-day Saint doctrine of God along the linessuggested by Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts,

Fluidity ofdoctrine, un-usual from atwentieth-century per-spective, char-acterized thenineteenth-century Church.

MAY 1985/SUNSTONE 13

The recon-structed God-head doctrine

had supersededthe Lectures onFaith which did

not define theHoly Ghost as a

personage

the work of these three men, while suggesting adoctrine of man, did not lead to a similar authori-tative statement, except on the question of therelation of the creation to natural selection. Still,the work of these progressive theologians pro-vided a framework for understanding marl whichwent relatively unchallenged until the recentdevelopment of Mormon neo-orthodoxy.

Talmage’s Articles of Faith considered a numberof doctrines relating to man, such as the fore-knowledge of God, which have important conse-quences for the doctrine of free will. In the firstedition, Talmage wrote that "the Fall was fore-ordained, as a means whereby man could bebrought face to face with both good and evil."This was later changed, and the word "fore-ordained" was replaced by "foreseen," indicatingan unwillingness to take such a definite stand ona doctrine so close to freedom of the will.4°

Talmage also argued that the doctrine of freewill made impossible any predisposition to evil onthe part of "God’s children." "Man," Talmagewrote, "inherits absolute freedom to choose thegood or the evil in life as he may elect." God "hasleft the mortal creature free to choose and to act,with no semblance of compulsion or restraint,beyond the influences of paternal counsel andloving direction." Such a radical doctrine of freewill essentially rejected the ideas implicit in theBook of Mormon by denying man’s.predisposi-tion under any conditions to evil, whether’ beforeor after the Fall.41

The Articles of Faith also considered the questionof the movement from one kingdom of glory toanother after death. In the first edition "eternalprogression" included not only "advancementfrom grade to grade within any kingdom" butalso movement "from kingdom to kingdom."Later, probably to hedge on the certainty of thedoctrine, this was changed to say that thoughmovement within the kingdoms was certain, asto "progress from one kingdom to another thescriptures made no positive affirmation.’’42

The whole matter of the doctrine of man wastied up with the question of the eternality of thefamily and the importance of sexual relation-ships, here and hereafter, for procreation andlove. In his New Witness for God, B. H. Robertsconfronted this problem when he chastized thosewho objected to Mormon doctrine as too material-istic. "If anyone shall say that such view,,; of thelife to come are too materialistic, that they smacktoo much of earth and its enjoyments, myanswer is, that if it be inquired what thing hascontributed most to man’s civilization and re-finement, to his happiness and dignity, his trueimportance, elevation, and honor in earth-life, itwill be found that the domestic relations iin mar-riage, the ties of family, of parentage, with itsjoys, responsibilities, and affections will be se-lected as the one thing before all others." Man, hesaid, in this and other ways was becoming likeGod because man was God in embryo,a3

As Roberts prepared the New Witness and thefirst edition of Joseph Smith’s History of the Church,other questions relating to the doctrine of manarose. On 6 February 1907 in the First Presi-dency’s office, the First Presidency and six mem-bers of the Council of the Twelve heard Robertsread a passage on the pre-existence of man forinclusion in the New Witness. The chief point ofRoberts’s discussion was his view that the ele-ments of man became a spirit~a child to God--through pre-mortal birth. After all, he pointedout, the brother of Jared saw Christ’s pre-mortalspirit body. Following the discussion, the brethrenagreed to incorporate the passage essentially aswritten, and they also included this view in theFirst Presidency’s 1909 statement on the originof man.44

In 1911, however, while preparing the History ofthe Church, Roberts had somewhat more difficultyin selling his views on the nature of pre-existentintelligences. Roberts read his article on the philo-sophy of Joseph Smith to the First Presidency. Inthe article, he argued that intelligences were self-existent entities before becoming spirits. CharlesW. Penrose particularly opposed this view, andthe First Presidency asked Roberts to delete thesection. Anthon H. Lund~probably rightly--was convinced that Roberts wanted to prove thatman was co-eternal with God, something whichthe First Presidency then rejected. Roberts agreedto remove the passages but undoubtedly believedhis views were inspired. Penrose also consideredthe K|ng Follett discourse spurious, and the FirstPresidency had it deleted from the 1912 editionof Roberts’s History.4,s

Widtsoe also addressed the doctrine of man. In1914, Widtsoe further elaborated views expressedin Joseph Smith as Scientist by publishing A RationalTheology, which the Melchizedek priesthood quo-rum used as a manual. His view that all truthmust harmonize led to the position that the gos-pel expressed "a philosophy of life" which mustbe in "complete harmony with all knowledge"and "to which all men might give adherence.’’~

Widtsoe also moved to a consideration of thecreation. Without trying to explain the process,he argued that the biblical account of man’s crea-tion from the dust of the earth was figurative.The exact method of creation was unknown, andprobably at man’s current stage of developmentunknowable. Nor, he said, "is it vital to a clearunderstanding of the plan of salvation.’’47

His attempt to reconcile science and religionled to the view that the Fall came about throughnatural law. Thus the account of the Fall was alsofigurative. In addition, there "was no essentialsin" in the Fall, except that an effect follows theviolation of any law, whether deliberate or not.Thus, the "so-called curse" on Adam was actuallyonly an opportunity for eternal progression.Indeed, since all beings are bound by eternal lawssuch as that of free will, Satan himself must begoverned by law, and man must be allowed to

14 SUNSTONE / MAY 1985

react freely to temptation.48Agreeing with earlier positions spelled out by

Joseph Smith and elaborated by Roberts, Widtsoeargued that man’s existence was simply a reflec-tion, however inferior, of God’s. Thus, "we mustalso have a mother who possesses the attributesof: Godhood." Sexual relations will continue intoeternity both for joy and for procreation.49

The most controversial portion of the draftWidtsoe presented to the First Presidency con-cerned the eternal relationships between Godand man. If God had not created the universe orman, man must be coeternal with God and in factGod himself must be finite and may not alwayshave been God or have existed eternally in thesame state. It followed that "the man who pro-gresses through his increase in knowledge andpower, becomes a colaborer with God." Thus,God was not "a God of mystery," but rather abeing who operated on a different level ofadvancement than men. Like Roberts, Widtsoehad included a discussion of intelligences, whichhe said had existed as separate entities beforemen became spirit beings, and he included anexplicit statement that there was a time whenthere was no God.s0

This elaboration was simply too much for theFirst Presidency to accept. On 7 December 1914Joseph F. Smith, then in Missouri, telegraphedAnthon H. Lund to postpone the publication ofWidtsoe’s book. Lund called in Edward H.Anderson, who furnished the proof sheets. Afterreading the discussion of the evolution of Godfrom intelligence to superior being, Lund becamedisturbed. "I do not," he wrote, "like to think of atime when there was no God." On December 11Joseph F. Smith had returned from Missouri, andhe agreed with Lund. Changes in the proofs wereordered, and all references to the doctrine ofintelligences were eliminated from this work,just as they had been from Roberts’s, on theground that they were merely speculation. Intheir 1925 statement regarding evolution, theFirst Presidency again made no statement on thedoctrine of intelligences but simply stated that"by his Almighty power God organized theearth, and all that it contains, from spirit andelement, which exist co-eternally with himself.’’s~

Some of the attacks on evolutionary theorypublished by the Church came from the pen of anon-Mormon journalist, J. C. Homans, under thepseudonym Dr. Robert C. Webb. After theIml;,rovement Era carried a Homans article in theSeptember 1914 issue, Talmage came to see theFirst Presidency, read the article to them, andwith the help of Frederick C. Pack, who had suc-ceeded to the Deseret Chair of Geology at theUniversity of Utah, convinced at least Anthon H.Lund that Homans’s arguments were illogicaland did not touch the real "pith of evolution.’’s2

In January 1915 Talmage again brought aHomans manuscript, this time on the origin oflife, to the First Presidency, which they agreed to

reject. Lund wrote that they considered the arti-cle "abstruse," and failing to "meet points at issuebetween the old ideas and the Evolutionists."Homans believed that evolutionists held ideaswhich would kill religion. Unfortunately, Lundthought, he was not willing to deal with theproblem of harmonizing the ideas and "truthmust harmonize with itself. This is the greatproblem," he wrote. "It will be solved."s3

Talmage, Widtsoe, and Roberts gave at least asmuch effort to considering the doctrine of manas they did the doctrine of God, but their workdid not lead to the kind of authoritative state-ment on man that had been issued by the FirstPresidency on God. Several possible reasons forthe failure to settle questions regarding manseem plausible. First, it may be that the Churchleaders and members generally considered suchquestions settled by doctrines implicit in theBook of Mormon and other teachings of theperiod before 1835. Second, it may be that theygenerally took for granted the doctrines of theKing Follett discourse and the progressive theo-logians. Or, third, it may be that the Churchmembership never thoroughly considered theimplications of the problem.

Given the information available at this point intime, it seems probable that the reason questionswere not resolved is a combination of the secondand third hypotheses. Basically, concern over theincreasing vigor of the theory of evolutionthrough natural selection seems to have over-ridden all other considerations on the doctrine ofman. The First Presidency wanted to see thetruths of science and religion reconciled, andmuch of the work of Talmage, Widtsoe, andRoberts dealt with that challenge. On evolution,for instance, the progressive theologians gener-ally took the view that while evolution itself wasa correct principle, the idea of natural selectionwas not. The First Presidency statements of 1909and 1925 specifically addressed the problem ofevolution and of man’s essential nature, whichwas an important part of Talmage’s, Widtsoe’s,and Roberts’s works.s4

Because the evolution problem was constantlyin the background, it seems apparent that twothings happened. First, the Church membershiphad internalized the implications of the doctrineof eternal progression and assumed that man, asGod in embryo, was basically Godlike and thatthe flesh itself, since it was common to both Godand man, posed no barrier to man’s perfectibility.Second, members seem to have held JosephSmith’s statement in the Articles of Faith thatGod would not punish man for Adam’s trans-gression as equivalent to a rejection of the doc-trine of original sin, which held that man inher-ited a condition of sinfulness. In general, itseemed, the doctrine of absolute free will de-manded that any evil which man might do camenot because of any predisposition of the flesh butrather as a result of conscious choice.

The impactof Talmage’s"Articles ofFaith" on doc-trinal expositonwithin theChurch seemsto have beenenormous.

MAY 1985 / SUNSTONE 15

SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR TIMEThe long-range consequences of both the suc-

cess in reconstructing the doctrine of God andthe failure to reconstruct the doctrine of manalso bear consideration. During the period fol-lowing World War I, a movement developed inProtestantism which challenged the prevailingmodernism and proposed the reestablishment ina more sophisticated form of a theology whichreturned to the basic teachings of Luther andCalvin emphasizing the sovereignty of God andthe depravity of man. Since World War II, a simi-lar movement has taken place in Mormonismwhich is as notable for its differences from theProtestant movement as for its similarities,ss

A recent discussion of man by Rodney Turnerand George Boyd indicates the scope of thismovement with regard to the doctrine of man.While, as Kent Robson pointed out in a critiqueof the discussion, much of both Turner’s neo-orthodox and Boyd’s progressive exposition in-volves contradictory exegesis of the same scrip-tures and authorities, what is also apparent isthat Roberts, Talmage, and Widtsoe play a promi-nent part in Boyd’s view of man while they areconspicuously absent from Turner’ss6

As O. Kendall White has pointed out, Mormonneoortihodoxy has not gone as far as theProtestant movement in defining a sovereignGod and a depraved man entirely dependentupon grace for salvation. As should be apparent,statements by Joseph Smith, the progressivetheologians, and the First Presidency have specifi-cally rejected doctrines such as the absolute sov-ereignty of God and irresistible grace. In theabsence of an authoritative statement by theFirst Presidency, however, it is still possible toreturn to the early 1830s and find a basicallysensual and devilish man. Because of the recon-struction of the Mormon doctrine of God, how-ever, what we get today is a rather unsteadyneoorthodoxy lacking the vigor and certitude ofits Protestant counterpart, since the progres-sives amputated two of its legs and seriouslyweakened the third.

THOMAS G. ALEXANDER is professor of history and asso-ciate director of the Charles Redd Center for Western for Studies atBrigham Young University.

NOTES1. See, for instance, Joseph Fielding McConkie, "A HistoricalExamination of the Views of the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints and the Reorganized Church of JesusChrist of Latter-day Saints on Four Distinctive Aspects of theDoctrine of Deity Taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith,"(M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1968), pp. 31-32.

2. O. Kendall White, Jr., "The Transformation of MormonTheology," Dialogue: A ]ournal of Mormon Thought5 (Summer,1970): 9-24; Gordon C. Thomasson and Julian R. Durham,"Thoughts on Mormon ’Neo-orthodoxy,’" Ibid., 5 (Winter,1970): 123-28.

3. Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,1902-35), vols. 1 and 2 passim.4. A Book of Commandments for the Government of the Church of Christ(Zion: W. W. Phelps and Co., 1833); Joseph Smith, OliverCowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, Doctrineand Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints: Carefully Selectedfrom the Revelations of God (Kirtland, Ohio: F. G. Williams, 1835).Both these volumes are photoreproduced in Wilford C.Wood, ed., ]oseph Smith Begins His Work, 2 vols. (N.p.: Wilford C.Wood, 1958, 1962), vol. 2, and I have used this edition.

The problem of understanding doctrine at particular timesconsists not only in determining what was disseminated butalso in what contemporary members perceived it to be.Clearly, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants,and revelations published in the monthlies are the bestsources for doctrine as disseminated. One could use diaries,journals, and autobiographies to determine perceptions, butthey tend to represent one person’s rather than a collectiveview. This problem might De solved if a larger number ofdiaries were available for the pre-1835 period. This is, unfor-tunately, not the case. Autobiographies and journals, particu-larly if they were written considerably after events, tend toconfuse contemporary feelings and earlier perceptions. Thus,the monthlies and doctrinal expositons like the Lectures onFaith since they were meant for public dissemination providethe most reliable sources for contemporary perceptions ofdoctrine.5. Marvin S. Hill,"The Shaping of the Mormon Mind in NewEngland and New York," Brigham Young University Studies 9(Spring, 1969): 363-65.

For a discussion of the differences between Calvinism andArminianism, see James Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religionand Ethics (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 1:809-11.6. Evening and Morning Star, lune 1832, p. 2; May 1833, p. 189; (Ihave used the Kirtland reprint edition throughout); Messengerand Advocate, May 1835, pp. 122-23; W. A. Cowdery to Editor,March 17, 1835, Messenger and Advocate, May 1835, p. 113.

7. Alma 18:28, 22:9-12; 1 Ne. 17:36; D&C 14:9, 45:1; JamesR. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints, 1833-1964, 6 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,1965-75), 1:27.8. Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith: First Vision: The FirstVision in its Historical Context (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971),pp. 155-57; Richard P. Howard, Restoration Scriptures: A Study ofTheir Textual Development (Independence, Mo.: Herald House,1969), pp. 47-48; James B. Allen, "Line upon Line," Ensign 9(July 1979): 37-38. In citing scripture, unless there is a majordiscrepancy between the first editions and the editions cur-rently in use, I have cited the current edition used by TheChurch of Jesus Christ of l.atter-day Saints, since the chapternumbers in the Book of Mormon have been changed andthere are no verse numbers in the first edition and the sectionand verse numbers in the first edition of the Doctrine andCovenants are different than the current edition.

It might be argued that the apparent inconsistency of thesequestions can be resolved since the Lord and God the Fatherare one :in purpose and since God directed while Jesus imple-mented the creation. This is, however, falling into the trapmentioned in paragraph one of this essay in which currentdoctrine is used to interpret previously revealed scriptures.

9. Messenger and Advocate, May 1835, pp. 122-23; D&C 20:28.10. D&C (1st ed.), pp. 53-54.11. Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of theMormon Religion (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press,1965), p. 49 for the definition. The view presented here of thenature of Mormon doctrine, however, is quite at odds withMcMurrin’s position.

12. Messenger and Advocate, May 1835, p. 113.

16 SUNSTONE/MAY 1985

13. McMurrin, Theological Foundations, pp. 65-66. AgainMcMurrin would deny this is the case with Mormon doc-trine. I suspect that if asked about original sin, most Mormonswould say that they do not believe in it and then cite thesecond article of faith. They might not realize that they arealso denying that a condition of sinfulness attaches to everyperson by virtue of his humanness, but if pressed, they wouldprobably say that the statement that men will be punished fortheir own sins denied the possibility of original sin in eitherformulation. See also Mosiah 3:16-25; Alma 41:2-15; 42:2-13.14. Evening and Morning Star, October 1832, p. 77.

15. Evening and Morning Star, March 1834, p. 283; D&C (1sted.), p. 67.16. Hill, "Mormon Mind," pp. 352-53; Timothy L. Smith,"Righteousness and Hope: The Biblical Culture that Nur-tured Early Mormon Faith," paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Mormon History Association, Canandaigua,New York, May 2, 1980.17. Alexander Campbell, A Compend of Alexander Campbell’s The-ology, ed. Royal Humbert (St. Louis, Mo.: Bethany Press,196~[), pp. 85, 231; Jonathan Crowther, A True and CompletePortraiture of Methodism (New York: Daniel Hitt and ThomasWare, 1813), pp. 143, 178.¯18. Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the AmericanPeople, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 1:532.19. Alexander Campbell, Delusions, An Analysis of the Book ofMormon with an Examination of its Internal and External Evidences, anda Refutation of Its Pretences to Divine Authority with Prefatory Remarksby Joshua V. Himes (Boston: Benjamine H. Greene, 1832), pp.5-7,12-14; Thomas Campbell in Evangelical Enquirer I (Dayton,Ohio, March 7, 1831): 235-36; Evangelical Magazine and GospelAdw.cate 2 (New Series, 1913): 47 says that "The whole book isfilled with blasphemous nonsense, silly stories, pretendedprophesies, history, &c ... interlarded with unnumberedprofanations of the names of the Deity and Jesus Christ."Niles Weekly Register, July 16, 1831, p. 353 attacks the Churchon the basis of miracles and common ownership of property.The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Brattleboro: Fessenden &Co., 1835), p. 844 cites "pretensions" and the doctrine ofZio~. Campbell, in the Evangelical Emluirer, also objects to thecharacter of Joseph Smith, and the doctrine of authority andrebaptism.

In general, however, most of these attacks did not considerthe doctrines of God and man deviant. The principal opposi-tion developed against the announcement of new revelationsand ~cripture, and the presentation of these in the names ofGod and Christ was considered blasphemous.20. LaRoy Sunderland, whose book, Mormonism Exposed andRefu~ed (New York: Piercy & Reed, 1838), was also publishedas a ,.~eries entitled "Mormonism" in Zion’s Watchman betweenJanuary 13 and March 24, 1838, attacked a number of pas-sages from the Doctrine and Covenants. Sunderland used forhis sources the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Coven-ants (1835 edition) and Parley P. Pratt’s Voice of Warning (NewYor|~: W. Sandord, 1837). Sunderland attacked Mormonismon an ad hominem basis as many of the others calling thewritings "nonsense and blasphem~" p. 35, and he alsoopposed the rejection of infant baptism as many others did, p.25. The question of infant baptism, however, was a contro-versy within Protestantism, and opposition to the Mormonson that basis would not have separated them from theBaptists, for instance.

His major substantative attack, however, came on the doc-trine of perfectionism mentioned in D&C 76:58 and 88:107indicating the possibility of man becoming equal with Christand God (Sunderland, p. 35). The problem here is that it is notat all certain that until Parley P. Pratt’s reply to Sunderland inMormonism Unveiled: Zion’s Watchman Unmasked, and its Editor, Mr.L. R. Sunderland, Expased (New York: Privately printed, 1838),especially pp. 27 and 31, that these passages and the passageslike t~hem in the Bible (Ps. 82:6; John 10:34-36; and 1 John 3:2)would have been interpreted literally. Paul Edwards, "TheSec~lar Smiths," Journal of Mormon History 4 (1977): 5 arguesthat Parley P. Pratt played a central role in developing the-ology for the Church. Robert Matthews, "The ’New Transla-

tion" of the Bible, 1830-1833: Doctrinal Development duringthe Kirtland Era," BYU Studies 11 (Summer 1971): 411-15points out that many of the revelations between sections 76and 93 were received in connection with the new translationof the Bible, particularly as Joseph Smith revised the gospel ofJohn and the Book of Revelation. The headnotes for sections76 and 93 particularly reveal the relationship between thesesections and the new translation of the New Testament.21. Francis H. Touchet, "Perfectionism in Religion andPsychotherapy: Or on Discerning the Spirits," Journal of Psy-chology and Theology 4 (Winter 1976): 25-26; see also Evening andMorning Star, especially after the persecutions in Missouribegan, e.g. January 1834, p. 256; March 1834, p. 283.22. James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of theLatter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 1976), pp. 67-68;Joseph Smith said in June 1844 that the elders had beenpreaching "’plurality of Gods . . . for fifteen years." JosephSmith, History of the Church, 6:474. This statement does notrepresent the perception of Church members before 1835.Joseph Smith may have been referring to the rather explicitdivision between God and Christ in the 1835 Lectures onFaith or to D&C 76:58 which dates from February 1832. It isunclear that members of the Church would have perceivedthese references as explicit references to the 1844 doctrine.23. T. Edgar Lyon, "’Doctrinal Development of the Churchduring the Nauvoo Sojourn, 1839-1846," BYU Studies 15(Summer 1975): 435-66 deals with the broad range of devel-opment in Nauvoo; Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse:A Newly Amalgamated Text," BYU Studies 18 (Winter 1978):193-208; Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King FollettDiscourse," ibid., 209-25. It has been argued that much of thecurrent doctrine of the Chruch had been well clarified bymid-1833 when Joseph Smith finished his new translation ofthe Bible--particularly that Jesus was Jehovah of the NewTestament and that man had enjoyed a premortal existenceas a spirit child of God. See Robert Matthews, "A PlainerTranslation": A History and Commentary (Provo: BYU Press,1975), pp. 309-13.

The problem with this proposition is that it assumes thepresent Mormon tritheism, which is not at all obvious, par-ticularly in view of the doctrinal exposition of the 1834-35Lectures on Faith. An interpretation of Genesis 2:5 in theInspired Version for instance which assumes a premortalspiritual creation also assumes an understanding of the term"spirit" which may not have existed among the Mormons in1834. It may simply have meant that God created men intel-lectually or conceptually which was a contemporary meaningof the term "spiritual." (See Oxford English Dictionary, compactedition, s.v. spiritual) In fact, there is little evidence that acontemporary of Joseph Smith reading what became Moses3:5-7 in the Pearl of Great Price would have interpreted as wedo today to refer to mankind as the spirit children of God inany corporeal sense.

The same problem exists with Doctrine and Covenants93:29-38. Today, we interpret the term "intelligence" inthose passages to mean the essential uncreated essence ofeach person. The passage, however, discusses intelligence as"the light of truth," which it declares eternal, not as thepremortal essence of each individual. It also declares, "Theelements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparablyconnected, receive a fulness of joy." Until the development ofthe materialism associated with the King Follett discourse, itis not at all certain that the term "spirit" would have beenconstrued as in any sense corporeal. The Evening and MorningStar, May 1834, p. 314 uses the term "intelligence" to meanfact or information. The use of the term "beginning" wouldalso not necessarily have meant "in the presence of Godbefore the creation." See Ether 3:14-17; Mosiah 7:27. In fact, Iwould argue that contemporary meaning of these termswould have militated against such an interpretation beforeChurch leaders began to elaborate on them in 1838.

Another problem which I have not addressed in this paper,but which bears consideration, is that of biblical literalism.There is a tendency to see Mormons as biblical literalists.What those who claim this tendency apparently do not see is

MAY 1985/SUNSTONE 17

that biblical literalism is not absolute. In the final analysisbiblical interpretation is dependent upon a theological systemsince some scriptures must be interpreted allegorically. Cur-rently, for instance, the passage cited in note 8 above, indicat-ing the unity of Father and Son, would be interpreted allegor-ically while those indicating that Christ is the Son of God,"after the manner of flesh," would be interpreted literally.The system of interpretation which Mormons adopted in1830 was essentially drawn from contemporary Protestant-ism. After 1835 that system of interpretation was changedbecause of the work of those like Joseph Smith and Parley P.Pratt who elaborated the doctrine of perfectionism into asystem of radical materialism.24. John Corrill, Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter-daySaints... (St. Louis: Privately printed, 1839), pp. 10, 12-13.25. Clark, Messages, 1:253; 2:233-40; Journal of Discourses, 26vols. (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-86;reprint ed., 1967), 1:50-51; 7:299-302; Ronald W. Walker,"The Godbeite Protest in the Making of Modern Utah,"(Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utah, 1977), p. 183.26. See, for instance, Doctrine and Covenants, 1883 edition,pp. 1, 76; Allen and Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, p.383; Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, 3d ed. (SaltLake City: Deseret News, 1874), passim; B. H. Roberts, TheGospel: An Exposition of Its First Principles (Salt Lake City: TheContributor, 1888), pp. 212-13.27. Journal of James E. Talmage, Special Collections, BrighamYoung University Library, 5 January 1899; Juvenile Instructor 29(1 April 1894): 220; the entire series of lectures was repro-duced in ibid., 28 (15 November 1893) through 29 (15 August1894); James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lecturesan the Principal Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1899), pp. 164~-65.28. Roberts, The Gospel (3d ed.), pp. vi-vii, 196. The radicalnature of Talmage’s contribution can be overemphasized.The doctrine of the separate corporeal nature of Christ andGod had been well established before the Articles of Faith, andmembers who believed otherwise would probably have beenexceptional by 1893. In addition, Talmage continued to insiston the absolute attributes of God such as omniscience,omnipotence, and omnipresence (pp. 42-43). Still as a codifi-cation of generally accepted doctrines and as a formulation ofthe new doctrine of the Holy Ghost, it was semina’[.129. Talmage Journal, 21 January 1883, 15 March and 4 May1884,14 March 1898, and 13 September 1899; and ImprovementEra, February 1900, p. 256.

In this discussion, I have not gone into detail into thecontroversy over the question of evolution through naturalselection since the topic has been so well treated elsewhere.Those interested in considering the topic would do well tosee: Duane E. Jeffery, "Seers, Savants, and Evolution: TheUncomfortable Interface," Dialogue 8 (Autumn-Winter 1973):41-75 and Richard Sherlock, "A Turbulent Spectrum: Mor-mon Reactions to the Darwinist Legacy," Journal of MormonHistory 5 (1978): 33-59.30. John A. Widtsoe, In a Sunlit Land: The Autobiography of John A.Widtsoe (Salt Lake City: Milton R. Hunter and G. HomerDurham, 1952), pp. 66-67; Joseph Smith as Scientist: A Contributionto Mormon Philosophy (Salt Lake City: YMMIA General Board,1908).

31. John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology as Taught by the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: General Priest-hood Committee, 1915), pp.20-22.32. Ibid, pp. 45-46.33. Journal of George F. Richards, Library-Archives, Histor-ical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints, Salt Lake City (hereafter cited as Church Archives),28 March 1911.34. Joseph F. Smith to Samuel O. Bennion, 20 February 1912,cited in Clark, Messages, 4:266; and Journal of Anthon H.Lund, Church Archives, 8 April 1912; Journal of Discourses,1:50-51.35. Talmage Journal, 14 September 1914, 19 April 1915;Lund Journal, 4, 6 May 1915; Richards Journal, 15, 24 June1915; Journal of Heber J. Brant, Church Archives, 18, 20May, 8, 10 June 1915; Clark, Messages, 4:399-400; James E.Talmage, Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1915).

36. Clark, Messages, 5:23-24.37. Lund Journal, 21 January 1915, Pratt, Key to the Science ofTheology, 5th ed., pp. 68, 75, 97, 100-2,139; 7th ed., pp. 66, 73,48, 92-94, 1.00.38. Grant Journal, 15 November 1917, 20 August 1921;Talmage Journal, 3 January 1918, 11 March 1921; RichardsJournal, 11 March, 29 July 1921.

39. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:243-51.

40. Talmage, Articles of Faith, 1st ed., p. 71; 12th ed., pp. 69-70.41. Ibid., 1st ed., p. 54.42. Ibid., 1st ed., p. 421; 12th ed., p. 409.43. Brigham H. Roberts, A New Witness for God (Salt Lake City:George Q. Cannon and Sons, 1895), p. 462.44. Richards Journal, 6 February 1907; Roberts, New Witness,pp. 457-66; cf. 2d ed., 1:458-61. (See especially 1st ed., p. 466;2d ed., 1:461.)45. Lund Journal, 25, 29 August 1911; Donald Q. Cannon,"The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith’s Greatest Ser-mon in Historical Perspective," BYU Studies 18 (Winter 1978):190-92.46. Wi.dtsoe, Rational Theology, p. iii, 3.

47. Ibid., pp. 45-46.

48. Ibid., pp. 46-48, 81.

49. Ibid., pp. 64, 146.

50. Ibid., pp. 26-27, 61-62; Lund Journal, 7, 11 December1914.51. Ibid; Clark, Messages, 5:244.52. Improvement Era, September 1914, pp. 1040,1043-45. LundJournal, 22 September 1914; Richards Journal, 20, 21 January1915; Talmage Journal, 28 September 1914.53. Lund Journal, 16 January 1915.54. For the statements, see Clark, Messages, 4:199-206;5:243-44.55. White, "Mormon Theology," pp. 10-22.56. George Boyd, Rodney Turner, and Kent Robson, "Round-table: ’The Nature of Man," Dialogue: A Journal of MormonThough~ 3 (Spring 1968): 55-97.

18 SUNSTONE / MAY 1985