Development of Joseph Smith's Doctrine of God

In the 19th Century Joseph Smith's belief in and practice of plural marriage was the doctrine which captured the interest of more people, by far, than any other. In the twentieth century it is probably still number one, but followed closely by interest in the Book of Mormon which is followed by interest in Joseph Smith's doctrine of deity. This last topic is the subject of this paper. I will discuss several aspects of the development of Joseph Smith's doctrine of deity. Although there has been some development of LDS doctrine since Joseph Smith, I will focus here on the period beginning with the production of the Book of Mormon in the spring of 1829 and ending with Joseph Smith's murder in the summer of 1844.

To apply this principle to the topic at hand, from Joseph Smith's perspective, his doctrine of deity would consist of truths revealed by God anciently and partially preserved in the Bible combined with the revelation of truths which either had not been preserved in the written record or which God had reserved to be revealed in the last days. His doctrine developed and expanded as his own capacity to comprehend increased. Like Paul, Joseph Smith considered even the most enlightened of men, including himself, were still "looking through a glass darkly" awaiting God's eventual full revelation.

Another of Joseph Smith's basic tenets was his claim of an early Christian apostasy. Not long after the beginning of the Christian era original Christianity was fragmented. Men without the authority of revelation took fragments of the original truth and after controversy and compromise produced the creeds of Christendom central to most of the denominations Joseph Smith encountered. Some original Christian truths were lost and the others were scattered among the various branches of Christianity where they were mixed with the doctrines of men. Christianity was thus sufficiently diluted to require new revelation and direction from Jesus Christ to establish a purer form of his church. Quoting Joseph Smith:

With this introduction it would follow that Joseph Smith's initial doctrine of deity at the beginning of the LDS movement in 1829 differed significantly from his doctrine at his death in 1844. History clearly demonstrates this to be the case. Some elements of his doctrine of deity remained constant from 1829 to 1844 while others were either changed, expanded or were clarified.

It is agreed on all sides that at his death in 1844 Joseph Smith's doctrine of God was non-trinitarian. But, by his own declaration, his doctrine of God had not been static. It was a developing doctrine. Did his doctrine perhaps evolve from one of acceptance of the trinity in 1829 to one of rejection of it in 1844, as some have asserted?

By the dawn of the Christian era, Jewish belief had become emphatically monotheistic, and anything which was viewed as challenging the lone supremacy of God was blasphemy. As the New Testament has been carefully scrutinized over the past century, there has been considerable controversy among scholars as to what titles Jesus did or did not claim for himself. Clearly, the title he most frequently used of himself was Son of Man, at which the Jews apparently took no offense. Other titles included Prophet, Servant of God, and probably, although reluctantly Messiah or Christ. The highest title Jesus apparently claimed for himself--the title which offended and infuriated the Jews--was the Son of God. It was too high of a claim for a man to call God his Father. To the Jews it was to claim a certain equality with God (John 5:18) forbidden in the Law (Lev. 24:16). It was his claim to this title which brought the principal charge against Jesus by Jewish authorities. "We have a law" they said, "and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God". (John 19:7). Two titles Jesus did not claim for himself include Lord, and God. His message was not "I am the Lord" or "I am God" or "I am God incarnate".

However, even for the New Testament Christians, the titles Jesus claimed for himself were inadequate. Of the 82 times "Son of Man' occurs in the New Testament all but two are from the lips of Jesus. To them he had become Savior, Redeemer, and Lord. To Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews he had been the pre-existent Creator. Frequently in the Book of Revelation, Old Testament terms used to describe God are used to describe Jesus. Alpha and Omega, used twice for God (Rev. 1:8; Rev. 21:6), is applied to Jesus (Rev. 22:13). And John, who began his Gospel with the declaration "what God was, the Word was" (John 1:1 NEB), concluded it with Thomas' exclamation, when confronted by the resurrected Jesus, "My Lord and my God." (John 20:28). And yet, at the conclusion of the New Testament the Christian message had not yet become "Jesus is God." Of the 1200 times the title "God" appears in the New Testament there are only ten for which it has been claimed that the title has reference to Jesus. Of these ten, one New Testament expositor, William Barclay, has explained that:

The message of Jesus soon spread from Palestine to the Greek and Roman world--a world of many gods, and many sons of the gods. In the Jewish world the claim of Jesus to be the Son of God was blasphemy. In the Greek and Roman world this claim would hardly have been impressive. The New Testament writers had claimed that Jesus was the unique Son of the one God. Among the Greeks and Romans he would only have been one of many sons of many gods. The intense devotion Christians felt for Jesus, naturally resulted in each generation of Christians progressively elevating Jesus from the titles he had claimed for himself until the proclamation of his full deity became the standard of orthodoxy in the creeds of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. To the orthodox Christian he had become fully God, or, as it has been said, "the Son of God has become God the Son."

From early in the 2nd Century the title of God was frequently applied to Jesus. The Doctrinal problem this created was only resolved after at least two centuries of violent controversy. The central issue was how to reconcile the monotheism Christianity inherited from Judaism with the Christian proclamation that the Father is God, and Jesus is God.

Many different approaches were advanced with, of course, two extremes. The one extreme discarded Jewish monotheism claiming that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three persons, and three Gods. This has been called "tritheism." The other extreme claimed that there is no numerical distinction among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There are simply three different names used on various occasions for the one Divine Person who alone is God. This has been called "patripassianism." The one claimed three persons and three Gods; the other claimed one person and one God. These were the extremes, and were not views widely held.

Most of the debate involved ideas between these two extremes. How could the Father be God, and the Son be God, and the Holy Ghost be God if there is only one God? In what sense are there three, and in what sense is there only one? The idea which finally prevailed declared that while there are three, yet there is only one. The three are separate and distinct, and the one is in no way divided. The three are persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the one is undivided substance or essence which is God. The persons cannot be confounded--that is, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, neither is the Son the Holy Ghost, nor the Holy Ghost the Father. And the substance cannot in any sense be divided--that is, each of the three is not one-third of the substance, or one-third of God, but rather each is all of the substance, and all of God. There are in a humanly unexplainable way three distinct persons of one undivided substance. This allowed Christians to declare the full deity of the three while claiming belief in one, and only one, God.

This was finally codified in the Athanasian Creed of the 5th Century or later, and has remained the technical definition of the trinity for both Catholics and Protestants to the present. While this has been the technical definition of the scholars and theologians, the popular definition has always been much less precise, frequently confounding the persons, and dividing the substance. Today, the common explanations of laymen and even many ministers, who claim belief in the trinity, represent virtually all of the contested ideas of the 3rd and 4th Centuries. The popular definition would go something like this: In some way there are three, but in some other way the three are only one.

Turning now to Joseph Smith, his initial doctrine is found in three main sources, the Book of Mormon, The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Determining Joseph Smith's initial beliefs on several key points is quite a puzzle. In comparing the doctrine of these early Mormon Scriptures with the technical definition of the trinity two important parallels are immediately apparent.

1) The most hotly contested issue in the trinitarian controversy was the question of the deity of Jesus, with the orthodox conclusion being that he is fully God. The early Mormon scriptures, beginning with the title page of the Book of Mormon, frequently and emphatically declare the deity of Jesus. He is God, Everlasting God, Eternal God, Lord God, God of the whole earth, and God of Israel. The full deity of Jesus in these scriptures is beyond question.

2) Trinitarian doctrine declares that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. This three-in-one formula is much more common in early LDS scripture than it is in the Bible, occurring nine times in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. It appears only once in the King James Bible and there only in one verse (1 John 5:7) which textual critics agree was not in the original text, and which has been deleted from most modern versions of the Bible.

1) As previously stated, the technical trinitarian definition is more specific than that there are three who are one. The Athanasian Creed defined the three as persons, and the one as substance--three distinct persons of one undivided substance. The Mormon scriptures nowhere use this trinitarian terminology. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are never referred to a persons, and their oneness is never defined as undivided substance. Joseph Smith's failure to employ established terminology suggests that he either was not familiar with the terminology, or that he was not explicitly trying to present trinitarian doctrine.

2) More important than this, in fact the most important contrast, is the relationship between the Father and the Son. One of the central points of the Athanasian Creed is emphatic that the three persons are not to be confounded--the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. In the early Mormon scriptures Jesus is declared to be the Father and the Son.

Precisely what did he mean in these early scriptures when he called Jesus the Father? One view amply supported from these writings is that the Father became the Son leading logically to the conclusion that there is only one person who is both the Father and the Son. In the Book of Mormon Christ is called the "Lord Omnipotent", the "Father of heaven and earth" "who shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay." (Mosiah 3) And again "God himself shall come down" and will be called the Son of God because he dwelleth in the flesh " thus becoming the Father and the Son," "and they are one God... the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth." (Mosiah 15) Jesus is called the "Eternal Father" elsewhere five more times, and the "Father and the Son" five more times.

The answer to this question from the passages just cited seems to be that there is only one person who is both the Father and the Son, and thus the Son was not numerically distinct from the Father before the incarnation. These passages seem to contain doctrine similar to that of the Modalists of the second and third century who claimed only one Divine Person who appeared in different modes as the Father and the Son. This concept is rejected by the technical definition of the trinity in which the Father and the Son are two distinct persons. The Father did not become the Son, he sent the Son, and thus the Son has existed numerically distinct from the Father from all eternity. And so it would be accurate to say that the early LDS scriptures contain language not acceptable to the technical definition of the trinity.

Further examination reveals that the early LDS scriptures present the Father and the Son as two distinct persons; the Father sent the Son; and thus the Son did exist numerically distinct from the Father before the incarnation. In the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi the Father and the Son are in different locations. The Father speaks from heaven and remains in heaven while Jesus ministers on earth (3 Nephi 11:28). Jesus speaks, not of having been the Father, but rather of coming from the Father, and returning to the Father (3 Nephi 15:1; 17:4; 18:27,35; 27:13; etc.) The position of the Son is subordinate to that of the Father. The Son glorifies the Father (3 Nephi 11:11), does the will of the Father (3 Nephi 27:13), carries out the commands of the Father (3 Nephi 15:18,19), teaches the doctrine the Father gave him (3 Nephi 11:32), and prays to the Father (3 Nephi 17:14-17). In a number of references it is stated, not that the Father became the Son, but that the Father sent the Son. (3 Nephi 27:13; 26:5; Alma 14:5; D&C 20:21; JST John 1:16; 6:65, 44). These are all distinctions which better fit the doctrine of two persons than of one person.

So far, we have seen that there appear to be two divergent, or opposing, or even contradictory doctrines scattered through Joseph Smith's earliest writings from 1829-1833. However, it is hard to accept that he was actually contradicting himself by moving back and forth between two opposite doctrines, in passages sometimes written by him within a period of time of less than a month, particularly on the doctrine of God.

In Alma 11:38 Amulek is asked "Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?' To which he answered "yea, he is the very Eternal Father[,] of heaven and earth." Is this possibly the key? Is "of heaven and earth" a modifier explaining that the Son, because he was the creator, is the Father in the sense of being the Father of heaven and earth, thus allowing that he has a Father, and thus the existence of two Fathers? This declaration that the Son is the Father of heaven and earth does occur six more times in the Book of Mormon. While this may be an acceptable explanation, the early scriptures nowhere present such an explanation, and the verses which call Jesus Eternal God, the Eternal Father, Everlasting God, and Lord God Omnipotent seem to be speaking of him as the one Supreme Being.

He that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father. (Ether 3:14)
Here in a single phrase is one of the apparently contradictory ideas I have been discussing. In this verse there is not the choice of whether the Father sent the Son, or became the Son, because he did both. The Father sent the Son, and is the Son. That seemingly divergent doctrines can be found in passages written within a week of each other, or, as in this case, even in a fragment of a single verse, argues that Joseph Smith saw no contradiction in them. In fact, it was many years before any Mormon, including Joseph Smith, saw any need to explain or harmonize these passages.

The key, then, is that in the beginning his doctrine of God was not a systematically formulated doctrine purged of all ambiguity and inconsistency. The purging took some time. Doctrinal development, therefore, was not simply an adding to, or expanding of early ideas, but also the weeding out of inconsistencies, and the refining of both thought and terminology. In Mormonism the development of the doctrine of God has followed the same basic course as the development of Jewish monotheism in the Old Testament; the New Testament Christology; and the doctrine of the trinity in early Christianity. The earliest writings contain inconsistencies and ambiguities which have either been purged or harmonized in later writings.

I now return to the question, was Joseph Smith's doctrine initially trinitarian? Throughout the development of his doctrine of God, there was no point in time when it would have been accepted by one who believed the technical orthodox definition of the trinity. On the other hand, during the first decade of Mormonism, the trinity was not an issue. Mormon doctrine was not being criticized or denounced for being non-trinitarian. The reason for this is that the technical definition of the trinity has never been widely understood by the Christian populace whose definition has been much broader. Any doctrine would have been viewed as trinitarian which proclaimed belief in one God; belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and belief in the full deity of Christ. Thus Mormon doctrine from the popular position, would have been viewed as trinitarian until the 1840's when Joseph Smith began denouncing the trinity and proclaiming belief in three distinct Gods. Finally, then, it can be said that Joseph Smith's doctrine of God developed from an ambiguity acceptable to popular trinitarians, to a clear position emphatically rejected by both.

His eventual rejection of the Trinity was not an attempt to create a new doctrine of deity since the trinity itself was not a doctrine of original Christianity, but one which developed over several centuries. There is wide support for this assertion among historians of Christian doctrine. In his book The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949, p 205, 236), Emil Brunner repeats the conclusion of many other historians:

When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a particularly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message...
Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity," but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness to the faith ...The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical doctrine, and this indeed not by accident but of necessity. It is the product of theological reflection...

Let us return to the second century, when it was first sensed that the formulations of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers were not sufficient to describe the nature of the divinity. A new way of doing this was attempted. Thus the so-called Monarchian controversy occurred . . . In addition to the Modalists (such as Sabellius), for whom Christ and the Holy Spirit were modes in which the one Godhead appeared, there were the Dynamists or adoptionists, who conceived of Christ either as a man who was raised up by being adopted by God, or as a man filled with God's power.
In his highly acclaimed book Early Christian Doctrine (New York: Harper & Row, 1978, p. 87, 88) J.N.D. Kelly discusses these pre-trinitarian theories, some of which he asserts are more satisfactory than the trinity:

The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three co-equal Persons formally ratified. Tentative theories, however, some more and some less satisfactory, were propounded in the preceding centuries...
Anthropomorphic God

We see this, for example, in Joseph Smith's first work, the Book of Mormon (1829), in the story of the brother of Jared several thousand years B.C. in the course of God's communication with the brother of Jared he saw God's finger. It so appeared as the finger of a man that the brother of Jared concluded, to his surprise, that the Lord had flesh and bones. The Person then showed himself to the brother of Jared and identified himself as the pre-existent Jesus Christ and explained:

Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.
Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. (Ether 3)

One of the four standard LDS books of scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants, was first published in 1835. The doctrine section consisted of seven lectures called the Lectures on Faith. The fifth is on the nature and attributes of God. While it seems certain that these lectures were not written by Joseph Smith, it also seems certain that their inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants acknowledges Joseph Smith's endorsement of their doctrine.

The fifth Lecture on Faith declared that in the Godhead there are two personages, the Father and the Son, by whom all things were created. Note the use of personage rather than person. The Father is a personage of Spirit, the Son, who was begotten of God before the foundation of the world is a personage of tabernacle who is the express image of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, and possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit. Those who become joint heirs with Jesus will possess this same mind, or Spirit with the Father and the Son, and will thus become one, even as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. The Father and Son are two distinct personages, and have been so from the beginning, before the foundation of the world. The Son is not the personage of the Father, their oneness consists of the Son possessing the same mind, wisdom, glory, power, and fullness, a fullness the redeemed will also possess.

In the 1840's Joseph Smith's doctrine of deity saw several new developments. In the 1830's, although the Son was the express image of the personage of the Father, the Son was a personage of tabernacle (that is flesh and bone) in contrast to the Father who is a personage of spirit. However, in the 1840's Joseph Smith taught that the Father is a resurrected personage of tabernacle like the Son, having experienced mortality as did Jesus. John 5:19-26 became his proof-text for this idea.

That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones. John 5:26. As the Father hath life in himself, even so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. God the Father took life unto himself precisely as Jesus did. (1841, Teachings, p. 181)
As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again; so He has a body of His own; each one will be in His own body; and yet the sectarian world believe the body of the Son is identical with the Father's. (1843, Teachings, p. 312; see also p. 373)

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the Great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, - I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form - like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another. (1844, Teachings, p. 346)

Again, Joseph Smith in his anthropomorphic view of God was not attempting to create a new doctrine of deity. Rather, he believed the ancient concept of God to have been distorted in the Christian creeds. He is not alone in this view. Many Christian scholars in recent works have addressed the ancient concept of deity as being anthropomorphic. For example, G. Ernest Wright, in his article "The Faith of Israel" in the Interpreter's Bible states that throughout the Old Testament God

...is simply depicted as a person by means of a free and frank use of anthropomorphic language. . . . In general, God is depicted as possessing practically all the characteristics of a human being, including bodily form and personality, though excluding sex... [He] is conceived in personal, even corporeal terms, and perhaps the most vivid example and the climax of this anthropomorphism is to be found in the doctrine of the Incarnation. . . . God is not to be depicted by a mixture of metaphors drawn from nature as in polytheism; he is not conceived as an abstract idea or principle; he cannot be apprehended primarily by means of an undefined analogy drawn from wind or breath... He is a living, active forceful personality whom men can meet, know and worship...
Further, Edmond Cherbonnier, chairman of the Religion Department at Trinity College, addressed himself directly to Joseph Smith's views in his paper "In Defense of Anthropomorphism."

What then do biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases - anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings . . . When impersonal terms are applied to him, as they occasionally are, they are used as they would be in the case of any other person, to emphasize some particular characteristic. One speaks of Stonewall Jackson or Richard the Lion-Heart; similarly, the Bible may refer to God as a rock, to underscore his steadfastness. To common sense the meaning of such terms is self-evident. Problems only arise when it is assumed in advance that God is not a Person. The effect of scholarship is thus to rehabilitate the plain meaning of the biblical text, after centuries during which it has languished in theological obscurity....

The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person. They need not apologize for literal interpretation, for that does most justice to what the biblical authors meant. Nor need they apologize to traditional theology, for it has finally come to the end of a blind alley. Where then is the vitality in Christianity today? Where is it growing instead of shrinking? Among the so-called fringe groups who frankly do acknowledge that God is a Person. (Reflections on Mormonism, Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1978, p. 155-173)

As God now is, man may become.
Although penned in this form by Snow he derived the concept from Joseph Smith. I do not find the idea in any form in the Book of Mormon (1829) or in any early sources until 1832. In February of that year Joseph Smith recorded a vision in which those who attain the highest, or Celestial, glory are promised to receive of God's "fullness, and of his glory" becoming "gods, even the sons of God" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:58). Seven months later in a revelation, Jesus Christ, speaking of the "elect of God," promised "all that my Father hath shall be given" (D&C 84:38). Three months later another revelation declared that in the resurrection "the saints shall be filled with his [God's] glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him" (D&C 88:107). What this probably meant to the Latter-day Saints of the 1830's who noticed it was probably that as joint heirs with Jesus Christ one would inherit from the Father what he has inherited. The concept does not appear to have blossomed until 1843 and 1844. During these last two years of his life, Joseph Smith expounded on the subject several time publicly and on a number of occasions privately. He taught that those who are exalted to the highest degree will reign over kingdoms as God does, but under his authority. As the God of greater beings, our Father "...is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children." (1844, Teachings, p. 348)

And again in this idea of the possible deification of man, Joseph Smith did not consider that he was creating a new doctrine. He believed that the Bible is filled with this idea. Here again he is not alone. For several centuries the possible deification of man was widely taught by such early Christians as Justin, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Novatian, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Maximus, John of Damascus, Basil, Theodore and Augustine. Hubert Cunliff-Jones in his volume History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981, p. 149) states:

...we have touched on various aspects of patristic thought about man's salvation. There are two central ideas repeatedly expressed by the writers of this period... The first of these is the concept of 'deification' ...as the goal of salvation ... The most direct, and indeed startling expression of the idea of deification in the New Testament is the characterization of believers as 'partakers of the divine nature' ... in 2 Pet. 1:4; but the usual scriptural basis of ... this idea is the Pauline teaching on adoptive sonship towards God and recreation of believers in the likeness of the Son of God.
The great historian of Christian dogma, Adolph Harnack stated that the idea of deification "is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church, and that in a primary position." (as cited in Journal of Theological Studies, 1916, p. 257-262)

In no other Christian doctrine is the connection between God and man so closely conceived, the idea of man as the image of God so concretely and literally interpreted, man brought into such close proximity to God, and God, on the other hand, so strongly directed to man, as in Mormonism ...
One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church ... Athanasius, the great Bishop of Alexandria, the head of the Church in all Egypt, summarized the Christian doctrine of salvation in the words, "God became man so that we may become God." The goal of salvation is deification, and Athanasius invokes in this context the words of Jesus: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect..." ("Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God" in Reflections on Mormonism, p. 201-221)

Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry - "The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."
It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter...

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it? (Teachings, p. 369-376).

By his own admission he had not taught clearly the views he announced in this sermon and his similar April sermon to the Church. While there are statements going back to the Book of Mormon (1829) in which a clear distinction is drawn between the Father and the Son, it is doubtful that the congregations or the elders interpreted that distinction as a plurality of Gods. The thirteen Articles of Faith published by Joseph Smith in 1842 begins with a statement of LDS belief on the Godhead:

In this sermon Joseph Smith goes on to declare the existence of a council of Gods which initiated the creation, and also of the existence of Gods of other systems beyond our known universe. The first indication of these ideas in any known sources is found in a letter Joseph Smith dictated March 20, 1839 where he speaks of "A time to come in which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest." Later in the letter, in speaking of the creation, he refers to the "council of the Eternal God of all other Gods before this world was..." (D&C 121:28, 32).

Even though this suggests that th concept of the existence of many gods has been withheld by God, the belief in a council or assembly of gods over whom God presides is acknowledged by many scholars to be an Old Testament belief. Mitchell Dahood in his three volume commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor Bible series translates Psalm 82:1 "God presides in the divine council, in the midst of the gods adjudicates." He comments that "The picture of God in the midst of the assembly of gods recurs again and again in the Psalter." He discusses the concept further in his comments in a dozen other Psalms. (17:269) In his discussion in the Interpreter's Bible G. Ernest Wright states that "references to the heavenly assembly are numerous" and adds another dozen references to those of Dahood. (1:360-361)

However, to use these as possible arguments for use of the term monotheism for Joseph Smith's doctrine would only be misleading. A term such as monotheism loses its value if different people re-define it in a new or novel way. Similarly it was considered inadequate to refer to the doctrine of the trinitarians. To define the trinity as monotheistic would dilute the term for use in referring to the belief in one lone Supreme Being - one person without superiors, equals or even any others of the same nature or in the same class. Because monotheism would be misleading to describe trinitarian belief a new term was coined. Joseph Smith's views cannot appropriately be designated by any of the historic terms. A new term is needed, but does not appear to be forthcoming. Plurality of Gods is the closest acceptable term at present, but it is not used often enough to designate his specific views to be of much value.

Is Joseph Smith's doctrine polytheistic? The answer to this is "no" except in the most technical sense. Neither Joseph Smith nor any LDS leaders have used the term polytheism in reference to LDS doctrine. Through the centuries, polytheism has been used to describe a system of heterogeneous beings who were often rivals. These gods were often depicted as immoral, quarrelsome, and often guilty of adultery, fornication, incest, rape, lying thievery, drunkenness and murder. This negative connotation makes it inappropriate in describing Joseph Smith's doctrine. It also does not denote the absolute oneness of action of the Gods in Joseph Smith's belief.

While I feel confident in stating that Joseph Smith's doctrine of deity differs in substantial elements from any other specific doctrine of deity throughout Israelite and Christian history it was not his intent to create a new doctrine of deity, but rather, in fulfillment of the historic role of a prophet to bring together things both new and old into a new synthesis for a new gospel dispensation.