Ascending the King Follett Discourse: A Historical Retracing of Joseph Smith s Understanding of God and the Doctrine of

Ascending the King Follett Discourse: A Historical Retracing of Joseph Smith s Understanding of God and the Doctrine of Deification between 1820 and 1844 By Jess Paul Jones REL C 624 Dr. Richard Bennett Brigham Young University 12/8/14

Introduction- Ascending the Peak Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us and to tell us all about it. -Joseph Smith 1 7 April, 1844. The Saints were gathered to hear their prophet in general conference just beyond the walls of the partially constructed Nauvoo temple. For two and a half hours, to a throng of twenty thousand, Joseph Smith preached what would become a sermon of monolithic proportions. Commemorating the passing of Elder King Follett, who was recently crushed by a tub of rocks as he was digging a well 2, the Prophet Joseph intend[ed] to edify [the congregation] with the simple truths from heaven. 3 What he then taught publicly was to become one of his most widely examined addresses of his ministry the King Follett Discourse (KFD). He declared that men could become as God, that many gods existed, one above another innumerably, and that God was once a man like we are now. In his sermon, Smith said, Here then, is eternal life to know the only wise and true god; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. 4 Brigham H. Roberts claimed that, Perhaps no passage in the [Prophet Joseph Smith s] discourse has given more offense than the one here noted, and yet men are coming to think and feel the truth of what he said. 5 This monumental tapestry of doctrinal declarations has shaped the study of Mormon theology concerning deification. 1 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 350. Hereafter referred to as TPJS. 2 Joseph Smith, TPJS, 342. 3 TPJS, 342. 4 TPJS, 346. 5 B.H. Roberts, TPJS, 346. 1

Nevertheless, this doctrine of LDS theosis may seem to some to be drastically different to the doctrines expressed by other western Christian religions such as Methodism or Presbyterianism. This discourse has been the cause of bitter resentment from some critics. One detractor haled Smith s address as, one of the most infamous sermons of blasphemy ever preached from the pulpit. 6 Another said, That Joseph Smith (in that case) taught a worse doctrine than the Devil did in the Garden of Eden. The Devil only taught that men should be as Gods. But Joseph taught that men should be Gods. 7 Arguing on behalf of the rest of Christianity (or so they may have felt) these critics raise a very good question: If Joseph Smith was born and raised a protestant Christian, believing in the same creeds and affirming the same conceptions of God, how then could he stand and say such statements as, you have got to learn how to become gods yourselves? Considering the assertions of Methodism and Presbyterianism and that Joseph s own family was affiliated with the aforementioned religions, the question arises how did Joseph Smith come to understand and teach deification in such a way if he had been raised in a religious environment that is in utter opposition to the claims he made in the King Follett Discourse? Understanding the Past The Religious Upbringing of Joseph Smith Briefly mentioning the religious affirmations of the faiths that Joseph Smith learned from will help set the stage to contrast how far Joseph would have to go before he could stand atop his King Follett Discourse and say what he did. The Westminster Confession which is still presently affirmed by Presbyterianism asserts that, There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most 6 Granville Hedrick, Truth Teller 1 (September and October 1864), 37. 7 William Cadman, Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ (Roscoe, Pa.: Roscoe Ledger print, 1902), 16. 2

free, most absolute. 8 Such a tone blockades the would-be disciple from ever aspiring to be like God. God was invisible, without body, parts, or passions. Men couldn t see God let alone know him, and be like him. His professed absolute -ness precludes and discussion of equality or even sociality as Joseph would later declare. Such was the affirmation of this Confession. As he later noted, Joseph s family was affiliated with the Presbyterian movement during his childhood. 9 Joseph s own mother joined in their worship services. It is most likely that Joseph would have at least heard, if not been taught by his own family, that God was such a spirit as the confession suggests. Yet LDS scholar David Paulsen noted, While creedal god-concepts like those found in the Westminster Confession were largely the product of rational theologizing, Joseph s understanding was not derived this way. 10 Joseph Smith s spiritual education was much more incremental and divine. What then did Joseph learn in the twenty four year interim that spanned the first vision in 1820 and the KFD in 1844? What revelations and instruction did Joseph received that reshaped his view of God to the point that he would declare with such fervor and clarity that God is an exalted man and that man could become like him. Was Joseph aware of the God s nature and corporeality from the very beginning? Or did his understanding evolve over time? Was he always aware of man s potential to be a god? Using historical accounts of the Visions, scripture, latter-day revelations, documents and sermons of Joseph, this paper aims to explore whether or not there is a progressive path of instruction leading Joseph up to the doctrines taught in the KFD. 8 The Confession of Faith 2:1, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church: Confessions and Catechisms (http://www.opc.org/wcf.html#chapter_02, accessed 16 October 2014). 9 Joseph Smith History 1:7. 10 David L. Paulsen, The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment, Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS perspectives on the Christian apostasy, edited by Noel B. Reynolds (Salt Lake City, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005), 240. 3

Setting up Base Camp- Identifying Central Doctrines of King Follett Discourse. Like almost any seasoned mountaineer would admit, the importance of knowing your route up the mountain is of highest priority. Before ascending the King Follett Discourse, highlighting the basic doctrinal tenets of deification as found in the KFD is a crucial first step. LDS gospel scholar, Van Hale, identified four prevailing themes on which Smith focused. They are as follows: 1. Men can become Gods 2. There exist many gods, 3. The gods exist one above another innumerably, 4. God was once as man now is. 11 This simple outline of these doctrines provides a helpful structure for our analysis. Each doctrine is supported extensively by the notes of numerous scribes who were in attendance of the meeting on 7 April 1844. Analyzing the accounts recorded by these four men: Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff. 12 Despite the numerous amalgamations and editions that were published 13, the doctrines taught by the Prophet, as recorded by the four men, showed remarkable consistency 14 in their reports. If anything, the 11 Van Hale, The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse, BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978), 4. Obviously, more doctrines and teachings occupied the Prophet s discourse on this occasion but for those here listed are those dealing specifically with the doctrine of deification. 12 Bullock and Clayton had been assigned as clerks for the conference. Their accounts were published with the minutes of the conference in the Times and Seasons 15 August 1844. Woodruff and Richards, who had simply taken notes, had their accounts added later by Jonathan Grimshaw in 1855, preparatory for the six-volume History of the Church. This edition would become the standard edition used in later teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. For further Historical background on the documentation and amalgamation of the King Follett Discourse, see Van Hale, The King Follett Discourse: Textual History and Criticism Sunstone September-October (1985), 6. See also Donald Q. Cannon and Larry E. Dahl, The Prophet Joseph Smith s King Follett Discourse: A six Column comparison of Original Notes and Amalgamations (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 1983), 1-3. 13 For publication History, see Cannon and Dahl, The Prophet Joseph Smith s King Follett Discourse, 4-5. 14 Cannon and Dahl, The Prophet Joseph Smith s King Follett Discourse, 12. 4

evidence in the multiple-- and independent accounts lends credence and vitality to the authenticity of these doctrines. 15 Immediate Reactions to the King Follett Sermon- Pausing to examine immediate reactions of those that heard Joseph s discourse would prove helpful to show they wide array of responses and that not everyone immediately accepted his statements. Although greeted with much approval and satisfaction, the immediate reactions of some both inside and out of the church ranged from uneasiness to outrage. Reactions ranged from brief comments in diaries, lengthy articles in newspapers, to gossip in personal letters. 16 However, many of the thousands who listened did not leave any written commentary on the sermon. 17 This makes the paper trail of testimonials thin yet extant. Some did leave their thoughts from that day. Joseph Fielding Smith expressed how the discourse profoundly moved him. He wrote, April 6 th -7 th 44. Our annual conference began and continued 4 days Joseph s discourse on the origin of man, the nature of God and the resurrection was the most interesting matter of this time, and anyone that could not see in him the Spirit of Inspiration of God must be dark, they might have known that he was not a fallen Prophet, even if they though he was fallen I never felt more delighted with his discourse than at this time, They [sic] said at his oration, it is the voice of a god not of a man. 18 15 See Appendix 1 for side-by-side comparison of each of the manuscript accounts. 16 Donald Q. Cannon, The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith s Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective, BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978), 5. 17 Donald Q. Cannon, The King Follett Discourse, 6. 18 Joseph Fielding Smith, April 1844, Journal of Joseph Fielding, Church Archives, 29. Donald Q. Cannon noted entry in his findings in The King Follett Discourse. Having researched over 300 journals at the LDS Church Archives and at Brigham Young University, Cannon notes that Most did not comment on the discourse, however those who did comment made meaningful observations (Cannon, King Follett Discourse, 12). 5

Wilford Woodruff called the sermon, important, edifying, and interesting. 19 Some like Joseph Lee Robinson were amazed and caused to wonder. 20 Edward Stevenson hailed Joseph s discourse, as the Grand funeral sermon of King Follett. 21 Conversely, some did not approve so whole heartedly of the Prophet s remarks not all of whom were persecutors of the church. Cannon noted, some who heard the King Follett Discourse were converts who had just joined the Church and had been raised in religions where the ideas Joseph taught would have been considered horrid blasphemy. 22 Having only heard preached the first principles of the Gospel in their native lands, these new-coming saints found these deeper doctrines challenging to say the least. 23 Others were more ardently opposed. William Law, Joseph s own second counselor in the First Presidency and later excommunicate member of the church disagreed immensely with the prophet concerning the issue of the plurality of gods. He, along with others, could not accept the new doctrines and vocally opposed Joseph s teachings. In the single-edition publication of the Nauvoo Expositor, they seriously attacked the doctrines that Smith presented in his sermon. He wrote, Among the many items of false doctrine that are taught the Church, is the doctrine of many Gods, one of the most direful in its effects that has characterized the world for many centuries. We know not what to call it other than blasphemy, for it is most unquestionably, speaking of God in an impious and irreverent manner. It is contended that there are innumerable Gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us O Lord! Shall we set still and be silent, while thy name is thus blasphemed 24 19 Wilford Woodruff Journal, Church History Library. 20 Journal of Joseph Lee Robinson, at Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 21 Edward Stevenson Journal. Church History Library, Salt Lake City, UT. 22 Donald Q. Cannon, The King Follett Discourse, 7. 23 See Donald Q. Cannon, The King Follett Discourse, 7. Cannon examines difficulties for those arriving to Nauvoo. The doctrines taught concerning deification and the exaltation of God were not the only difficult doctrines that new saints encountered: Plural marriage, temple ordinances and others. 24 William Law, Nauvoo Expositor, 7 June 1844. 6

This public attack on the Prophet, bolstered by affidavits from church dissenters including William Law, led to the destruction of the Expositor s press. This act of destroying the printing house later led to charges that would send Joseph Smith to his final imprisonment at Carthage Jail. Though not directly linked in causality, the doctrines taught in the King Follett Discourse may have played a part in fanning the flames that would eventually end in the demise of the Prophet. Although written in the spirit of persecution these attacks against Smith highlight an imperative that often goes unaddressed. Indeed, the claims made by Joseph of numerous gods and the deification of man may seem far-reaching and even blasphemous to the new coming listener. Yet if the doctrines were examined under the lenses of revelation that had been steadily trickling into the restoration from its very beginning, it would be more feasible to understand, and perhaps concur with, the declarations Joseph made on that day in April. However, several precautions must be taken before such a journey can be made. Spanning the Conceptual Crevasse- Hazards of Assumption and Over-Attribution You don t know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. -Joseph Smith 25 Returning to the analogy of a mountaineer, knowing beforehand the crags and crevasses, the wind and weather conditions all lend to a safer expedition. Likewise, in mapping our ascent of the doctrines taught in the KFD, flagging the conceptual crevasses in Joseph s education will ease our journey. There are certain gaps and uncertainties that must be openly recognized to avoid falling into error historically and theologically. As Stan Larson observed, 25 Joseph Smith, TPJS, 361. 7

It may, in all fairness be wondered just how accurate the reports of the King Follett Discourse are. In an absolute sense, it is impossible to determine since there is no way to recover the words actually spoken that day in April of 1844 and thereby judge the accuracy of the reports. However, it should be noted that the reports have no irreconcilable parts not contradictory statements and it is sometimes quite amazing how easily the various accounts combine Of all the speeches given by Joseph Smith, this one has the greatest contemporary manuscript support, which certainly strengthens claims of its reliability and authenticity. 26 Again, referring to our pitfalls of analysis, it must not be assumed that what is written is for certain what Joseph said. Assuming when Joseph learned these doctrines based on the chronology of appearance is theologically hazardous at best. A pre-requisite to this conversation is admitting to the reader that in no way can this paper accurately determine when Joseph knew for himself the truths that will be hereafter discussed. Such an assumption would be inaccurate academically irresponsible. As Steven Harper exclaimed, Assuming is the enemy of seeking. The word assume has many definitions. The ones meant here are to pretend to possess, to put forth claims or pretensions, to take for granted as the basis of argument or action, to suppose. To assume is to avoid the hard work of seeking. 27 He continues, Disciplined historians build their interpretations of the past on historical facts. Practitioners of the historical method could think of their reconstruction of the past as if it were a house of cards. They can confidently construct only a single level on a firm factual foundation. To build any higher increases exponentially the likelihood of error. Reliable historians do not, therefore interpret far beyond what they know. And they clearly communicate what they know and how they know it. 28 Examining The King Follett discourse and the revelation of doctrines is such a house of cards. It is difficult to substantiate historically when Joseph first came to know what he later professed on 7 April, 1844. Joseph himself admitted, You don t know me; you never knew my 26 Stan Larson, The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text, BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978), 2. Stan Larson provides a new amalgamation of the King Follett accounts that examines additions by Grimshaw s amalgamation as well as presents a new text that includes deletions from former publications. 27 Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith's First Vision: A guide to the Historical accounts (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2012), 7. 28 Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith's First Vision, 10. 8

heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don t blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself. 29 Indeed, evidence indicates that Joseph could have known more concerning man s potential as Gods in the early stages of his Ministry; yet, it would be presumptuous and overreaching to say exactly when Joseph knew these truths for himself. Harper introduces an important dichotomy of knowledge that lends itself to the spiritual education of the Prophet Joseph Smith knowledge that is a priori versus knowledge that is a posteriori. He states, a priori knowledge does not rely on experience for verification. It is based on definitions, widely shared beliefs and reason. Knowledge derived from experience is a posteriori. 30 Joseph s divine education was essentially a posteriori. He experienced these revelations and teachings first hand. What is then left is for the rest of us, who did not experience such revelation, is to decide whether or not his experiences and conveyance of those events fit within our own epistemology. Our examination of Joseph s claims therefore becomes purely a priori using his testimonies, historical records and second hand accounts to ascertain what he taught. Whether it is true or not is a personal quest which each honest seeker much undergo they must seek God in personal prayer and study. Therefore, the conclusions of this paper are suppositions at best not statements of fact and are representative of the outlined historical experiences as they have been discovered. Understanding the Development of the Doctrines in the King Follett Discourse 29 TPJS, 361. 30 Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith s First Vision, 68. Emphasis in original. 9

Upon examining the teachings and appearance of themes of theosis throughout Smith s ministry, scriptural translations, and other resources, there appears to be a gradual unfolding of doctrinal understanding. Although, as was previously discussed, it is not certain when Smith knew what he declared in the KFD, it is important to note the trend. Van Hale argues that the numbering and ordering of these doctrines are deliberate that such was the chronological order of when these truths were revealed and taught from 1830 to 1844. He asserts the doctrines were taught in the following timeline: 1. 1832- Man can become equal with God 2. 1835-1839 the plurality of gods, and 3. 1835-1839- the existence of gods one above another innumerably 4. 1838-1841 God had not always been a God, having once existed as a man. 31 However, for the sake of understanding how Joseph grew from his childhood immersed in creedal confessions, simply jumping to 1832 to begin our examination of Joseph s understanding of God would be in the very least a historical misstep. Joseph said, It is necessary for us to have an understanding of god himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right. 32 Before examining the historical evolution of each doctrine, the foundational elements of Joseph s spiritual tutorial must be considered. This is possible by going to the very beginning of Joseph s historical encounters with God personally and doctrinally. The following experiences will each be considered: the First Vision, the translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph s 31 Van Hale, Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse, 4. See Appendix 2 for a comprehensive listing of all known records of these four concepts as they appeared chronologically from 1830 to 1845. It is noteworthy that, upon examination, there is a pattern of each concept being taught in sequence, one before the next, with more and more references occurring as they approach the year of the KFD. 32 TPJS, 343. 10

translation of the King James Bible. These three points of Joseph s spiritual training add depth and context to any serious study of the doctrines found in the KFD. The First Vision I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it. -Joseph Smith 33 The First Vision for Latter-day Saints what Ezra Taft Benson called, the greatest event that has occurred in this world since the resurrection of the Master. 34 Church president Gordon B. Hinckley also affirmed its paramount importance when he said, I submit that in the few minutes that Joseph Smith was with the Father and the Son, he learned more of the nature of God the Eternal Father and the risen Lord than all the learned minds in all their discussions through all centuries of time 35 The tradition-shattering 36 importance of this event to Latter-day Saints is beyond debate; yet there may be some misrepresentations and misguided attributions of church doctrine to this sacred event. The impact that this revelatory experience had on Joseph Smith cannot be overstated. In what Joseph called a war of words and tumult of opinions, He often asked, what is to be done? (JSH 1:10). He later confided in Oliver Cowdery, admitting that a portion of his spiritual quest 33 Joseph Smith History 1:25. Hereafter referred to as JSH. Originally published in Smith 1838 Account of the First Vision. 34 Ezra Taft Benson, Life is Eternal, Ensign, June 1971, 34. 35 Gordon B. Hinckley, Church News, 24 Oct. 1998, 6. 36 Paulsen, Early Christians in Disarray, 240. 11

was to know if a Supreme being did exist. 37 His inquiry wasn t merely a question of which church to join it was a longing to know concerning his salvation and standing before God. Laboring under extreme difficulties cause by the contest of these parties of religionists, 38 Joseph referred to James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him ( James 1:5). This scriptural direction led Joseph to his sacred grove jumpstarting his spiritual schooling that would eventually lead him to the King Follett Discourse. As a preface to examining the vision, certain limitations must be acknowledged. Regarding the spiritual acquisition of knowledge Joseph Smith himself said, Reading the experience of others, or the revelation given to them can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more that you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject. 39 The experience was seen by one person and one alone Joseph. This means that his recollection and detail of the event are the only sources we have. As Steven C. Harper pointed out, expecting and assuming from records dictated from memory is difficult at best. He said, What one remembers depends not only on the external event but on the choices one makes about it memory is an active process in which a person continuously selects, interprets, and integrates what is remembered. In short, Joseph s accounts of his first vision represent the event as he experienced it, both at the time and over time. Such is the power and process of human memory. 40 37 Oliver Cowdery, Letter IV, LDS Messenger and Advocate, Feb. 1835, I:77-80. Included The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories vo. 1, edited by Dean C. Jesse, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard L. Bushman (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian s Press, 2013), 56. 38 JSH 1:11. 39 Joseph Smith, Remarks on the Demise of James Adams, 9 October 1843, published in the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1978) 6:50. Hereafter referred to as HC. 40 Stephen Craig Harper, Joseph Smith's First Vision, 95. 12

Therefore, it is paramount to avoid assuming too much from what was conveyed by Joseph such as his motives for telling or omitting details that he gave 41. And although it is believed that Joseph did see and learn more from his first vision experience with God, Latter-day Saints and scholars also run the risk of over-attributing doctrinal significance and understanding to Smith s encounter. Some official Latter-day Saint publications have included listings of doctrines that were learned from the first vision. These lists include doctrinal statements such as God the Father and Jesus Christ live, The Father and the Son are real, separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones, We are created in the image of God, God hears and answers prayers and cares for us, and, None of the churches on earth had the fullness [sic] of Christ s gospel. 42 Although all of these doctrines are now accepted as vital tenets to the LDS faith, they may not have all originated with Joseph s encounter with deity at the sacred grove in 1820. Joseph s personal accounts, along with the secondary accounts given by others, must be examined. Throughout primary accounts shared by Joseph Smith himself, there seem to exist several underlying patterns. Excerpts from each account are included at the end of this paper. 43 Concerning the patterns that emerge from vision, first, Joseph testified that he spoke with God the Father and Jesus Christ two separate beings in a face-to-face, first person encounter. Second, Joseph consistently emphasized the Lord s forgiveness of his sins. Third, Joseph repeated the Lord s stressed imperative to Joseph in avoiding membership to any of the existing 41 See Steven C. Harper, Joseph Smith s First Vision, 67-83. In his masterful treatment of Smith s accounts, Harper discusses several common arguments against Joseph s claim to have seen a vision. 42 See Doctrine and Covenants and Church History: Gospel Doctrine Teacher s Manual, Lesson 3: I had Seen a Vision (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1999), 11 15. See also The Pearl of Great Price: Teacher Manual, Joseph Smith History 1:11 20:The First Vision (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2000), 56 58 43 See Appendix 3 for excerpts of direct transcriptions of the primary and secondary accounts of Joseph s Vision. 13

congregations at that time. Finally and perhaps most importantly there are many other things that Joseph saw (including angels) of which he does not give a complete record. The only physical description that Joseph notes in his primary accounts is that of God the Father pointing to the other. It is not until secondary accounts that any further detail of physical description is given. Although the Hyde, Pratt, and White accounts all detail similar communications between Joseph and the Lord Alex Neibaur contributes an added detail of singular importance that God the father s personage had a light complexion, with blue eyes, a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders and his right arm bear [sic]. 44 Neibaur s account, of all the historical accounts given of the first vision, contains the most detailed physical description given of God. Given that Neibaur s secondhand account was recorded one month prior to the King Follett discourse, it is plausible to think that, although Joseph had seen the Father, later revelations and visions may have added to his understanding of God. At least we cannot say for certain all that Joseph knew as he left the sacred grove. Furthermore, later teachings and revelations also affirm that Joseph continued growing line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little (2 Nephi 28:30). The Book of Mormon I want to ask this congregation ever man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own heart,...what kind of being is God?" - Joseph Smith 45 44 Alexander Neibaur, Journal excerpt, 24 May 1844; in Alexander Neibaur, Journal, 5 Feb. 1841 16 Apr. 1862 (included in the Joseph Smith Papers Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, UT), 23 24. Hereafter referred to as the Neibaur Journal), 23. 45 TPJS, 343. 14

Following the First Vision, Smith s most compelling interaction with deity came in the form of The Book of Mormon. Being visited by the Angel Moroni, Joseph was told that God had a work for [him] to do. (Joseph Smith History 1:33. Hereafter referred to as JSH). After four more years of angelic tutelage, Joseph received the ancient record and began its translation. In a private meeting with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Smith described the unparalleled nature of the book saying, I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book. 46 Although the doctrinal depth of impact that the Book of Mormon initially had on Joseph Smith s mind at the time of its translation is debatable, the textual evidence of God s nature found therein is undisputable. Scattered throughout its pages, the Book of Mormon holds references to both the body parts and passions of the Father and the Son. In her study to God s nature as found in the Book of Mormon, Susan Easton Black tabulated 283 references to God s bodily parts and 320 references to God s passions. 47 At the very outset of the book, the Prophet Lehi saw the heavens open, and he though he saw God sitting upon his throne (1 Nephi 1:8. emphasis added). Later Lehi exclaimed to his sons, But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love (2 Nephi 1:15, emphasis added). Then, almost a millennia later, the historian prophet Mormon exclaimed as he gazed across the innumerable host of slain descendants of Father Lehi, O ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye 46 Joseph Smith, 28 November 1841. HC, 4:461, emphasis added. This statement was later included in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon. 47 Susan Easton Black, The Book of Mormon: Nature of God (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1979). 15

have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you (Mormon 6:17, emphasis added.). Although the impact of passages such as these are perhaps unsubstantiated historically, it is not unlikely that Joseph Smith s views shifted from the God he knew that was invisible, without body, parts, or passions 48 to that of a God that is both embodied and endowed with the sense of love, mercy and judgment. 49 Adding furthermore to Joseph Smith s education through his work on translating the Book of Mormon, the sermons of the prophets including Christ himself hinted towards the possibilities of deification. Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life ( 2 Nephi 31:20) Upon appearing to the Nephites in the new world, Christ said, Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect (3 Nephi 12:48. Emphasis added). 50 Moroni, son of Mormon, later invites, Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness that ye may be perfect in Christ that ye become holy, without spot (Moroni 10:32-33). Though many have argued different ontological differences between man and Christ Christ being a divine anomaly, different to the rest of mankind the expectation, though dimly referenced, is clear in the Book of Mormon man is to become something more than what he is now. Within 48 Westminster Confession- The Confession of Faith 2:1. 49 See Susan Eason Black, The Book of Mormon: Nature of God. Concerning God s nature, Black notes that references to Gods love and mercy outnumber those referencing his judgmental attributes 2 to 1 (221 references to loving attributes and 99 references to Judgmental attributes.) 50 Contrast this with Matthew 5:48, Be ye therefor perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. The Self- addition of Christ to the statement in 3 Nephi is significant. Not only was that statement made after his resurrection but it indicates a shift, a possibility that perfection is possible. An argument can be made that Christ had achieved perfection like his Father and he was commanding man to become like himself and God the Father. 16

the Book of Mormon, man s potential to become as God, though hinted at, perhaps remained embryonic at best. Further light and knowledge would be needed before Joseph s King Follett declarations could be backed or understood. Joseph Smith Translation and the Doctrine and Covenants I will say that amid all the trials and tribulations we had to wade through, the Lord, who well knew our infantile and delicate situation vouchsafed for us a supply of strength and granted us line upon line of knowledge here a little and there a little, of which the following was a precious morsel. -Joseph Smith. 51 The next step in the education of Joseph Smith came as he began the translation and correction of the Bible. As a group of scholars have observed, [Joseph Smith] s translation and revision of ancient scripture formed a foundational part of his religious beliefs and teachings. 52 In years past, some scholars have overlooked this crucial period in the Prophet s development, looking only at the revelations given in the Doctrine and Covenants. Nevertheless, the origins of the New Translation (referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation or JST) and many of the revelations found Doctrine and Covenants are synonymous some of those instances will be discussed later on. According to one LDS scholar, The roots of the Doctrine and Covenants and the roots of the JST are not just intertwined; they are the very same. 53 Not only do many of the revelations come in the Doctrine and Covenants as a result of the translation but recreating the historical framework provides a relationship between the JST and D&C. 54 Sorting chronologically through the translation of the JST and the revelations in D&C can quickly weave 51 Joseph Smith, HC 1:98. Emphasis added. Journal entry from June 1830. As it is found in the History of the Church, this was written immediately prior to the vision of Moses. 52 The Joseph Smith Papers: Documents vo. 1, edited by Dean C. Jesse, Ronald K. Esplin Richard L. Bushman, and Matthew J. Grow. (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian s Press, 2013), 151. 53 Robert J. Matthews. The Joseph Smith Translation: A primary source for the Doctrine and Covenants, Sperry Symposium Classics: The Doctrine and Covenants, edited by Craig K. Manscill (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2004), 143. 54 Robert J. Matthews, The Joseph Smith Translation, 144. 17

together the evidence of Smith s education regarding God and the possibilities of deification. For the sake of this paper, however, only several instances will be mentioned. In June 1830, a few weeks after the organization of the Church, Joseph Smith received the Visions of Moses, the lost preface to the Book of Genesis (now found in the Pearl of Great Price). Whether this vision was the beginning of or a later addition to his larger effort to revise Genesis is unknown, but the doctrinal contributions provided shed light on God s nature and relationship with man. The Vision of Moses opens with the Prophet Moses being caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses: therefore Moses could endure his presence God spake unto Moses saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name And, behold, thou art my son And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten: and my Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me. For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:1-4, 39, paragraphing changed). From the very outset of this vision, the clear relationship between man and God is that of a father and son 55. The Nature of God is further highlighted through the Vision of Moses as Enoch is seen speaking with the Lord face-to-face. Contrasting the vengeful persona that some have attributed 55 This concept of being a son of god was not new doctrine but had been implicitly referenced throughout the Bible (Exodus 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Psalms 2:7; Hosea 11:10; Matt. 5:48; 6:9; Ephesians 4:6) and Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 17:36; Alma 40:11) but explicitly in revelations of the D&C predating the Vision of Moses (see D&C 6:33; 9:1; and D&C 11:23). Likewise, it is no small matter to note that in the following month after revealing the Vision of Moses, God also refers to Emma Smith as my daughter (D&C 25:1). God is God, equal to none. Even the Savior who thought it not robbery to be equal with God (Philippians 2:6) is in subjugation to him. There is also taught here that a sanctification process is necessary for man to endure God s presence. The Lord taught Moses that, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth (Moses 1:5). 55 There must be a change in nature and being to endure and comprehend those things which God knows and comprehends and it would appear that to fully achieve such communion is not possible and remain in or return to the flesh in mortality. 18

to the God of the Old Testament, Enoch views God weeping over the wickedness of God s children (see Moses 7:28-33). 56 In his preaching, Enoch proclaimed that, [God] called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh (Moses 6:51). 57 Later, Enoch exclaimed to the Lord in vision, thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne (Moses 7:59). Society, comradery, kinship, and coronation with God were all beginning to emerge as results of exaltation. According to LDS Scholar and Author, Terryl Givens, This encounter by Enoch and revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith became The first intimations of theosis. 58 Along with contemporary life experiences in the Joseph s fledgling role as prophet 59, these scriptures could only add to his understanding of God s nature and man s divine potential. 56 This golden moment of budding Mormon theology adds to the piling evidence that God s nature is a loving Father just, but loving. Enoch, sharing in his God s lamentation, cries out, I will refuse to be comforted; but the Lord said unto Enoch: Lift up your heart, and be glad, and look (Moses 7:44). Enoch beheld the coming of Christ the Messiah, the King of Zion, the Rock of Heaven (Moses 7:53) and he witnessed the Son of Man lifted up on the cross after the manner of men; And he heard a loud voice and the earth groaned; and the rocks were rent; and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with crowns of glory (Moses 7:55-56, emphasis added). The Lord turning to Enoch exclaims, Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen (Moses 6:68). 57 This not only highlights man s identity as a creation of God, but hints at man s pre-mortal existence spiritually created before we came to earth. 58 Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel (New York City: Oxford University Press, 2015), 264. Givens depicts a marvelous survey of the theological origins of theosis within LDS doctrine, including not only well documented sources of historical not but also an analysis of themes and discussions that may pertain to the life and nature of a deified human. 59 Such doctrinal expositions like those in the Book of Moses were not isolated to Joseph s translating scripture. As a side note, Joseph Smith s work in receiving and publishing the Book of Abraham also added to Joseph s understanding of God specifically concerning the plurality of gods. Though not originating from the examination of an extant biblical text, the revelation of Book of Abraham lends stunning wealth of doctrinal insight to Joseph. Because of its exclusive nature in teaching the doctrinal concepts of the plurality of gods, discussion on the Book of Abraham will be treated later on in this paper in greater detail. During the early hours of his ministry, Joseph perhaps began to understand that man would have a close society with Christ and God-- crowned with glory. In a conference held on 9 June 1830, Joseph described the following event involving Newell Knight, He [Newell Knight] saw heaven opened, and beheld the Lord Jesus Christ, seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, and had it made plain to his understanding that the time would come when he would be admitted into his presence to enjoy His society forever and ever (Joseph Smith, HC 1:85. First Conference of the Church, Fayette New York, 9 June 1830). 19

Nevertheless, much would need to be revealed before Joseph would and could in good conscience say men may become as gods. Mapping the trail A Historical Breakdown of important teachings on Deification. As we have previously mentioned, it is difficult to trace the exact time at which Joseph learned for himself the truths surrounding theosis. Nevertheless, we can and should understand when they were taught. If not for any other reason, such an analysis would bolster the claim that such statements as those made by Smith in the KFD were not singular nor resultant of a late term eruption of doctrine nor a deviation of what he had previously taught. The following, therefore is a compilation of key events, scriptures and teachings that were either translated or taught by the Prophet. 1. Man may become as Gods Here, then is eternal life to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you... -Joseph Smith 60 On February 16, 1832 received a revelation that would be heralded as, a revelation which gives more light, more truth and more principle than any revelation contained in any other book we ever read. 61 While translating the 5 th Chapter of John, Joseph and Sidney Rigdon had opened to their eyes a consecutive string of visions that would become known as The vision. In this revelation Joseph saw those that would inherit the celestial kingdom, or the highest Glory God would bestow on his children. They are who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed 60 TPJS, 346-7. Each of the four following sections will include the main quote from the KFD highlighting the doctrine JS taught. For a complete comparison of what he said concerning each doctrine, see Appendix 1. 61 Wilford Woodruff, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff (Salt Lake City UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 120-121. 20

on his name and were baptized according to the commandment which he has given, that by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even sons of God. Wherefore all things are theirs and they are Christ s, and Christ is God s (D&C 76:52-59, see also Evening and Morning Star 1.2 [July 1832], 2.). Although Joseph had earlier received the Book of Moses prior to these revelations in which Enoch s claim to deification is, at best, cryptic this verse becomes the seminal declaration of man s potential to be as God. Months later, revelation to Joseph Smith again affirmed that, the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him (D&C 88:107). 62 LDS doctrines of deification were known long before 1844 to members and nonmembers alike. In 1836, Lorenzo Snow, then a recent convert to the church, had the following experience with Joseph Smith Sr., the Patriarch. Father Smith stated said, You will become as great as you can possibly wish EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD, and you cannot wish to be greater. 63 By February1838, critic La Roy Sunderland had published a multi-part attack condemning such teachings as nonsense and blasphemy. 64 Parley P. Pratt in turn launched a scathing counter-offensive against Sunderland s claims in his pamphlet. Mormonism Unveiled: Zion s Watchman Unmasked saying, Now this is nonsense and blasphemy in Mormonism, but in the Bible it becomes sublime truth. Or has the Ignoramus [Sunderland] never read the 62 D&C 88:107. See also Terryl Givens, Wrestling the Angel, 379. Givens notes that Before appearing in the Doctrine and Covenants, allusion to Saints being made equal with [God] occurred five times in a church editorial. [Evening and Morning Star] 2.17 (February 1834), 135-36. 63 Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1884), 10. The exact date is difficult to determine concerning this statement made by father smith. Record indicates that Lorenzo Snow was baptized June 1836 and that several weeks had transpired before his encounter. 64 La Roy Sunderland, Zion s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. 21

Bible? 65 Such dialogue shows that is further evidence that discussion concerning Mormon theosis was extant long before 1844 and not originally introduced in the KFD. 66 2. There exist many Gods The head God called together the gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time. -Joseph Smith 67 Joseph s teachings concerning the plurality of Gods the existence of many gods are among those that critics have most vehemently contested. 68 Even within the KFD itself, little was said regarding the plurality of Gods. Calling his audience to the Grand councils of the Pre-Earth life, Smith said, The head God called together the gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time. 69 Much more beyond this reference concerning 65 Parley P. Pratt, Mormonism Unveiled: Zion s Watchman Unmasked, and its editor, Mr. L.R. Sunderland Exposed: Truth Vindicated: The Devil Mad, and Priestcraft in Danger! (New York: Parley P. Pratt, 1838), 27. 66 See Terryl Givens, Wrestling the Angel, 265. Givens notes that, these affirmations of a robust Mormon version of theosis were the first to appear in print, a full six years before the doctrine s elaboration in Smith King Follett Discourse. See also Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1978), 22. Pratt carried further the implications and significance of equality with God in his work Key to the Science of Theology. He states that, In [an exalted man] dwells all the fulness of the powers and attributes of the Eternal God, or, in other words, he possesses endless life, together with all intelligence, knowledge, light, and power. He therefore has the same mind as all the others; he is in communication and in perfect union with each and all of them. All these are Gods, or sons of God-- They are Kings, Princes, priests, and nobles of eternity. But over them all there is a Presidency or Grand Head, who is the Father of all. And next unto him is Jesus Christ, the eldest born and first heir of all the realms of light. 67 TPJS, 348-9 68 See Cannon and Dahl, The Prophet Joseph Smith s King Follett Discourse, 30. They write, Although not generally accepted by other Christians, the notion of plurality of gods finds ample proof in the scriptures (See Deut. 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Psalms 82:1, Acts 17:24-29). 69 TPJS, 348-9. Joseph substantiates his claim of a Head God by examining Genesis 1:1, specifically the word BERESITH ELOHEIM. He claimed that BE was added to the Original word ROSHITH which means the head. Because of this amalgamation by the old Jew, the true meaning was lost in translation the meaning that the head god called together the gods. See Cannon and Dahl, The Prophet Joseph Smith s King Follett Discourse, 30. Cannon and Dahl state that, According to Dr. Kent Jackson, BYU Religion faculty, there are some alternative interpretations of the word BERESHITH. Joseph Smith s explanation is acceptable, but goes beyond the popular usage. His interpretation is a product of revelation, not linguistics (Emphasis Added). 22