Continued from Part II…
Having previously established the
disruptive evolution of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal teachings concerning God –
from tentative Modalism to Binitarianism to Social Trinitarianism – I will now
demonstrate how the prophet’s last contributions on the subject led to a
radical, new pluralistic conception of the Godhead. In the generations that
followed, his patriarchal brand of Henotheism (or territorial polytheism)
eventually led to a mass of doctrinal contention and confusion concerning the
identity of deity; yet it also led to the pinnacle of Mormonism’s theological
speculation and charisma. The prophet’s own words on the matter are insightful:
“If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong
we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.”
On June 16, 1844, the Saints were
gathered beneath billowing storm clouds just East of the Nauvoo temple to hear
their prophet’s Sunday morning sermon. The first and final press of the Nauvoo
Expositor (available here) had been issued only a week prior, so many were
likely anxious for a rebuttal. The paper had been published by a slew of soured
apostates still fuming over the discovery of Joseph’s hidden agendas – things
“taught secretly, and denied openly.” Polygamy and politics aside, they
complained that Joseph was teaching false doctrines and was therefore a fallen
prophet. Whereas they believed “that the religion of the Latter Day Saints, as
originally taught by Joseph Smith, … is verily true,” yet they insisted that he
was introducing new blasphemies like “the doctrine of many Gods.”
According to the Expositor’s
editor, former-First Presidency member William Law, Joseph “contended that
there are innumerable gods as much above the God that presides over this
universe, as he is above us.” It is true; beginning with a powerful funeral sermon
in April, the prophet openly taught that God was an exalted man and advised,
“you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves … the same as all gods have
done before you.” Evidently William and others had some difficulty correlating
these new ideas with the previously published revelations. So it was that
Joseph took to the pulpit just days before his death and expounded a climactic
discourse on the plurality of Gods:
“I
have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate
and distinct personage from God the Father, and 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? Our
text says, ‘And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.'
The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for John says God was
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures,
and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ. …
“Many
men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one
God. I say that is a strange God anyhow – three in one, and one in three! … I
learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of
heaven. ‘In order to do that,' said he, ‘suppose we have two facts:
that supposes another fact may exist – two men on the earth, one wiser than the
other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may
exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them.'
“If
Abraham reasoned thus – If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered
that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a
Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there
ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring
into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul
says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence
if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise
the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of
it.” (Smith, History of the Church,
Vol. 6, p. 473; “Sermon
in the Grove")
As a student approaching Nauvoo’s
uniquely LDS views of Trinitarian ontology, it is readily apparent that Joseph
Smith’s late revelations deftly defied the Biblical purview while at the same
time explicitly citing its support. Previous theological distinctions fell
mostly within the confines of historical Christianity’s heretical
contemplations, but the overt shift to polytheism proved a sharp contrast for
many. Protestant cries of ‘Heresy!’ notwithstanding, Joseph’s position as
prophetic revelator permitted him to interpolate these ideas back into the
scriptural canon ‘ex nihilo’ (i.e. out of nothing). He borrowed from disparate
and abstruse biblical passages to certify in a moment what his revelations
illustrated over time – that his doctrine was culturally accrued.
There are two specific cultural
experiences that I believe were major factors in the late evolution of Joseph
Smith’s pluralistic theology: namely, his efforts to learn biblical Hebrew and
reinterpret biblical text, and his translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics into
the Book of Abraham. These two experiences had profound effects on the
doctrinal teachings of Mormonism’s founder. Significantly, both of them
ultimately trace their motivational origin back to Joseph’s beginnings in magic
folk culture.
In his boyhood, Joseph Smith
inherited a strong affinity for the occult sciences due to the influence of his
father. Indeed, it appears it was a family practice; magic parchments, lamens,
and a ceremonial dagger survive as authentic Joseph Smith family heirlooms.
Lucy Mack Smith’s biography of her son the prophet, told that “trying to win the
faculty of abrac[,] drawing magic circles, [and] soothsaying” were among
“important interest[s]” for the family in those early years (Ingleton,
comp., History of Joseph Smith by
his Mother, p. 109). Joseph certainly had other magic mentors in the
community as well, from amateurs like Sally Chase to professional conmen like
alchemist-magician, Luman Walters, who joined the church early on for a brief
period. At a young age, Joseph showed a remarkable capacity for “peeping” and
eventually succeeded his father, his siblings, and his peers as the village
scryer (or seer).
So what is significant about this
magical heritage in relation to Joseph’s translation projects, and ultimately
the changing Mormon doctrine of God? Put straightforwardly, his upbringing resulted
in a lifelong fascination with mystery religion, and more specifically aspects
of the Hermetic tradition. Hermeticism emphasizes hidden wisdom, in three related
practices: that of Alchemy, Astrology, and Theurgy. Many themes common in these
philosophical practices show up in Joseph’s peculiar interpretations of
protestant Christian dogma, and are the natural result of his heterodox faith
framework. Because mystery religions rely so heavily on symbolic
interpretation, it is not surprising that Joseph perpetually interpreted and
reinterpreted scripture and doctrine throughout the duration of his calling
(and with little regard for consistency). Although he later deemphasized his
involvement with the occult and its popular appendages – treasure-digging,
spirit conjuring, crystal-gazing, etc. – the influence of American rural
mysticism shows through quite clearly at various points in his prophetic
career.
For example, occult conventions
sanctify patterns of three; the same ritual finds prominence in many aspects of
Mormonism – particularly in early accounts of Joseph Smith’s spiritual
epiphanies. Another is signified by the prophet’s obsessive concern with
reconnecting to humanity’s primal mystics, from Adam & Eve to the Jewish
patriarchs and so forth; this is a hallmark of the hermetic subculture.
Additionally, Joseph was provoked, both privately and in his public ministry,
to extract meaning from the planets and stars in their celestial movements. In
this respect, Abraham 3 follows hermeticism’s philosophy of astrology exactly.
Perhaps the biggest giveaway,
however, is in the thoroughly hermetic conviction that sacred languages have
hidden meanings, and that God’s noblest servants are the exclusive custodians
of secret rituals and philosophies required to recover these higher spiritual
truths. Is it any wonder that his first major revelatory production proclaimed,
“A seer is greater than a prophet … a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and
a gift which is greater can no man have … by them shall all things be revealed,
or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come
to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them” (Mosiah
8:15-17)?
The religious undercurrent
revolving around “seership” traces its alternative influences back millennia
before Christ, to times when the newly distinguished Semitic religion competed
with local “wisdom cults” for dominance. Ideas were incestuous in that early period,
and philosophies constantly mingled. As a result, it was common even for
Israelite priests and shamans to consult sacred runes that conveyed hidden
truths and imbued supernatural powers. The Semites eventually came to revere
the Hebrew script as a sacred vessel of God’s word, and his power. This same
Gnostic vein reputedly thrived in Egypt when Moses combated the legendary
sorcerers, Jannes and Jambres, in pharaoh’s court. Anthropological studies in
Joseph Smith’s time suggest these “magicians” were typically understood as
harnessing divine powers, and were notably “skilled in the interpretation
of hieroglyphical characters”
(1823 ed. of Jahn’s Biblical
Archaeology as cited in Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p. 32, emphasis mine).
Some of Israel’s latter prophets
seem to have inherited a similar culture of esoteric symbolism and Gnostic
motifs during the Babylonian exile; the same tradition that was shortly purged
into obscurity by King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform. But it found repeated
resurgence and marginalization in the centuries that followed, viz. in
Essenism, Christian Gnosticism, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Kabbalah, etc. All
of these various traditions draw on the same hermetic motifs, and most
importantly, they contributed greatly to the philosophy and culture of American
folk magic. Michael Quinn’s thorough treatise on the subject points out the
popular antebellum views on Egyptian hieroglyphics in particular:
“The
conventional Anglo-American view was that Egyptian ‘characters and
hieroglyphics were occult symbols invented by Hermes Trismegistus, the father
of the ancient occult sciences [or the Hermetic tradition].
… The 1811 New York edition of Adam Clarke’s popular commentary on the Bible
observed that the word ‘magicians … may probably mean no more than interpreters of abstruse and difficult
subjects; and especially of the Egyptian
hieroglyphics, an art which is now entirely lost.” (Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View,
p. 194, emphasis his)
The point is that Joseph’s
childhood was steeped in a strange conglomeration of magical mysticism and
frontier Christianity that encouraged his later translation endeavors and
strongly affected their outcome. His earliest interactions with the
supernatural were blatantly occult; they involved the conjuring of a deceased
spirit by the use of a peep stone and astrological calculations in pursuit of hidden treasures in the earth – valuable lost
relics containing hidden wisdom which once belonged to the ancients. Clay Chandler’s
article, Scrying For The Lord, presents an excellent study of
the translation of the Book of Mormon in relation to Joseph's background in
mysticism. Joseph's subsequent efforts at interpretation followed a similar course, but
with more restrained hermetic content. The same mechanics involving revelation
of ancient parchments and secret systems are consistently present; however, it
was not until the latter-half of Joseph’s career that its influence on his
doctrine fully resurged.
Keeping in mind Joseph’s
background and his previously cited claim to consistency, let’s first
try a critical reading of the Book of Abraham text alone as a case study. The
first few chapters propound monotheism as the overarching theme and strongly
sanctify an aversion from acknowledging alternative deities. They are
largely consistent with the late Jewish Deuteronomic movement’s emphasis
on Jehovah as one true God – in other words, the cultural context
that produced the Old Testament (which postdates the patriarchs by more than
a millennium). Abraham reports conditions in Chaldea, saying, “My fathers
… turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the
Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the
heathen. … Virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bow
down to worship gods of wood or of stone” (Abr. 1:5, 11). The pluralistic
religious culture in Abraham’s environment is associated with human sacrifice
and idolatry, which he resists. These cultists respond with hostility, and he
records a divine interposition:
“As
they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away
my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord
hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the
angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;
“And
his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have
heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy
father’s house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou
knowest not of;
“And
this because they have turned their hearts away from me, to worship the god of
Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of
Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; therefore I have come down to
visit them, and to destroy him who hath lifted up his hand against thee,
Abraham, my son, to take away thy life.
“Behold,
I will lead thee by my hand, and I will take thee, to put upon thee my name,
even the Priesthood of thy father, and my power shall be over thee.
“As
it was with Noah so shall it be with thee; but through thy ministry my name
shall be known in the earth forever, for I am thy God.” (Abr. 1:15-19)
The Almighty God saves Abraham
from his captors and reveals himself as Jehovah, destroyer of pagan worship.
Although these passages seem to discredit the biblical narrative on one hand (Exo.
6:3),
they definitely cement Jehovah’s reputation as a jealous god. The Lord God
further asserts his singular sovereignty over humanity and the cosmos:
“I
have purposed to take thee away out of Haran, and to make of thee a minister to
bear my name in a strange land which I will give unto thy seed after thee for
an everlasting possession, when they
hearken to my voice.
“For
I am the Lord thy God; I dwell in heaven; the earth is my footstool; I stretch
my hand over the sea, and it obeys my voice; I cause the wind and the fire to
be my chariot; I say to the mountains—Depart hence—and behold, they are taken
away by a whirlwind, in an instant, suddenly.
“My
name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall
be over thee.” (Abr 2: 6, 7, 8)
Abraham and his kin travel
through the land of Canaan, an “idolatrous nation,” and the chapter terminates
with their arrival in Egypt. At this point the narrative takes an abrupt turn.
Although Abraham mentions a record in his possession concerning the creation of
the planets and his intent to share it in his own narrative, the remainder of
Abraham’s record instead consists of a spectacular visionary rehearsal of the
very same material: astronomical relativity and a modified creation myth. Here
God narrates for the patriarchal prophet the order of cosmological governance
in the universe. The Lord then reveals an astronomical rule with astronomical implications:
“If
two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater
things above them…
“If
there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then
it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it…
“As,
also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the
other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the
other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they
shall exist after, for they are … eternal.
“And
the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits,
one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent
than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.” (Abr.
3:16-19)
Abraham learns that there is
almost infinite gradation among the intelligent spirits, both above and below.
But Jehovah God is quick to put a cap on this line of logic. “I am the Lord thy
God, I am more intelligent than they all.” Here then is the reasoning that
Joseph Smith makes reference to in his argument for the plurality of Gods,
although by 1844 he ignores Jehovah’s claims to absolute supremacy. The
gradation principle in combination with the concept of spirit eternality is the
seed from which Joseph’s Nauvoo theology blooms; it’s a real breaching point
from traditional Christian ontology (i.e. the created/uncreated gap).
The remainder of the Book of
Abraham qualifies as the strongest, most explicit scriptural support for
Joseph’s pluralistic views of the Godhead and a divine pre-mortal council.
Still insisting on his consummate dominion, the Lord God nevertheless councils
with his co-existent spirits. One of them proposes the creation of a world on
which man may exist and be tested:
“And
God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and
he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were
spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art
one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
“And
there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who
were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of
these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
“And
we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the
Lord their God shall command them;
“And
they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not
their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep
their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory
added upon their heads for ever and ever.” (Abr. 3:23-26)
After the Lord selects a savior
from amidst the congregation, Abraham regurgitates a creation account similar
to Genesis, but altered in light of the new, revealed cosmology. A
not-so-subtle polytheistic veneer then takes the limelight. Virtually every
pronoun in the rendition is plural or followed by a brief parenthetical
clarification, leaving no doubt as to the status of God’s pre-Earth
collaborators. Who created the world? They, the Gods!
“And
then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and
they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
“And
the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not
formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep,
and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.
“And
they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. …
“And
the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in
our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
“So
the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods
to form they him, male and female to form they them.” (Abr. 4:1-3, 26, 27)
The fifth and final chapter of
the Book of Abraham continues the biblical recitation in like manner. The
creation narrative is reported as a joint venture between the Gods; they take
counsel together and are thereafter referenced exclusively in the aggregate. As
I consider this critical reading as a whole, the developing portrayal of deity
throughout Abraham’s record seems to correlate loosely with the timing of
Joseph’s progressive doctrinal insights up to the end of his career. In this
respect, I believe the Book of Abraham may be viewed as a microcosm for the
later development of the prophet’s own conception of God. To wit, the evidence
strongly suggests that Abraham was not written in a single series of successive
dictations like the Book of Mormon. Quite the contrary, it was a production
composed of material gathered over several years’ time, analogous to the
chronology of Joseph’s parallel epiphanies. Consider now the evidence regarding
the translation process of the Egyptian papyrus.
Around July 3, 1835, Michael
Chandler traveled to Kirtland, Ohio soliciting an exhibition of four Egyptian
mummies and several rolls of papyrus containing Egyptian hieroglyphics. Given
Joseph Smith’s past with Egyptian characters and the occult, Chandler’s
presence excited a great deal of enthusiasm from the Saints who were anxious to
hear the prophet’s assessment of these “curiosities.” According to John
Whitmer’s commissioned history, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record[s] and by the
revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records, which gave an account
of our forefathers, even abraham … Which when all translated
will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints” (Westergren,
ed., From Historian to Dissident:
The Book of John Whitmer, 167).
Joseph encouraged the purchase of
Chandler’s mummies and the several rolls of papyrus which they transacted for
the amount of $2400. Joseph identified the hieroglyphics as the writings of
Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, as well as the record of Katumin, an Egyptian
princess. He promised a translation of the texts, and began in earnest within
days. Of course, the Book of Abraham is the only scripture that was ever
published as a result of these efforts. Along with my interjected commentaries,
the following timeline contains a few helpful documentary citations that
evidence both the translation’s progress and the first public mention of key
doctrines/concepts later subsumed in the Book of Abraham:
[July
6-8, 1835] Joseph Smith: “With W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I
commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much
to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham.” (HOTC 2:236)
[July
17-31, 1835] Joseph Smith: “The remainder of this month, I was
continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and
arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the
ancients." (HOTC 2:238)
[Sept.
1835] Oliver Cowdery borrows language from Abraham 1:2 in transcribing earlier
patriarchal blessing records: “We diligently sought for the right of the
fathers and the authority of the Holy Priesthood, and the power to administer
in the same; for we desired to be followers of righteousness and the possessors
of greater knowledge, even the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of
God.” (Patriarchal Blessings Book 1:15,
Church History Library, as cited in Hauglid, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions,
p. 214)
[Sept.
11, 1835] W.W. Phelps: “Nothing has been doing in the translation of the
Egyptian Record for a long time, and probably will not for some time to come.”
(W.W. Phelps Letter to Sally Phelps, Sept. 11, 1835)
[Oct.
1, 1835] Joseph Smith: “This after noon labored on the Egyptian
alphabet, in company with brsr [sic] O Cowdery and W W Phelps: The system of
astronomy was unfolded." (Jessee, The
Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, Vol. 1, p. 67)
[Oct.
7, 1835] Joseph Smith: “This afternoon recommenced translating the ancient
reccords [sic].” (Ibid., p. 71)
[Nov.
19-26, 1835] Joseph Smith: “Spent the day in translating the Egyptian records …
made rapid progress, [etc.]” (Ibid.,
p. 107)
[Dec.
16, 1835] Joseph Smith: “Elder[s] … called and paid me a visit, … I exhibited
and explained the Egyptian Records to them , and explained many things to them
concerning the dealings of God with the ancient<s> and the formation of
the planetary System.” (Ibid., p.
123, 124)
[Dec.
1835] Oliver Cowdery: “When the translation of these valuable documents will be
completed, I am unable to say.” (LDS Messenger
and Advocate, Dec. 1835)
By 1836, translation manuscripts
Ab1-Ab4 were scribed by W.W. Phelps, Frederick G. Williams, and Warren Parrish,
containing Abraham 1:1-2:18, as well as various Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar (EAG) materials. All of these
documents are unique among the Abraham manuscripts because the text is composed
opposite hieroglyphic characters in the margins, taken from the Egyptian
papyrus. This indicates Joseph and company’s earliest intentions to perform a
linear translation, which intent is notably absent from Nauvoo-era Book of
Abraham manuscripts. Although the ‘Ab’ documents suggest some editorial
iteration between manuscripts, these materials were initially produced by
dictation, probably using Joseph’s seer stone.
In terms of content, the earliest
text produced contains themes and views that are largely consistent with
Joseph’s views circa 1835-1836. Genesis 1, 2, 11, and 12 are clearly
incorporated into the text, as well as other sources that will be discussed
shortly. Strikingly, contemporary witnesses were most impressed by the scroll’s
description of “the formation of the planetary System” rather than the
available Book of Abraham text at the time. Because there is no manuscript
evidence for the existence of Abraham 3 until late 1841, and contemporary
descriptions of Abraham’s “system of astronomy” are consonantly vague, these
witnesses are most probably describing the material found in the Egyptian
Alphabet & Grammar (or Joseph’s descriptions of that material). To be sure,
ideas and elements of the EAG project eventually contributed to the formation
of Abraham 3 as it was published in 1842. However, there are many, many odd,
substantial variations as well. I’ll briefly interrupt the timeline to show a
few relevant excerpts from the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar (presented in
the original as transliterations and translations opposite Egyptian
characters):
“[Ho-e-oop-hah-phah-eh]:
The principle of rule, or ruling or reigning upon the principle of Justice
equity and righteousness.
“[Zub-Zool-eh]:
The earth as it was in the beginning: or at its creation; creation or
beginning.
“Zub-eh[:]
To be with as [in?], as light is
in the earth.
“Zub[:]
pointing to that which has been created To the first institution or first
principle. …
“Jah-oh-eh[:]
The earth under the governing power of oliblish, Enish go on dosh, and Kai e
van rash, which are the grand governing Key or in other words,
the governi[n]g power, which governs
the fifteen fixed stars (twelve ________) that belong governs
the earth, sun, & moon, (which have their power in one) with the other
twelve moving planets of this system. Oliblish – Enish go on dosh, and Kaii ven
rash, are the three grand central stars which powers that
govern all the other creations, which have been sought out by the
most aged of all fathers, since the beginning of the creation, by means of the
Unim and Thummim: The names of the other twelve of the fixed stars are: Kolob,
Limdi, Zip, Vusel, Venisti, Waine, Way oh- ox- oan, oansli, _Kible Shineflis,
flis, os. The Egyptian names of the fifteen moving planets are: Oan isis, Flos
isis, floe se: Abbesels, Ele ash, Subble, Slundlo, Car roam, Crash ma Kraw,
obbles isim, I zins bah, missel Nah mesile Ohee oop Zah, Zool.
“Flo-ees[:]
The moon, the earth and the sun in their annual revolutions.
“[Flos-isis]
– The highest degree of light, be[-]cause its component parts are light. The
gove[r]ning principle of light
Because God has said Let this be the centre for light, and let there be bounds
that it may not pass. He hath set a cloud round about in the heavens, and the
light of the grand gover[n]ing of 15
fixed stars centre there – and from there its is drawn by the heavenly bodies
according to their portions; according to the decrees that God hath set, as the
bounds of the ocean, that it should not pass over as a flood, so God has set
the bounds of light lest it pass over and consume the planets.
“[Kli-flosisis:]
signifies Kolob in its motion, which is swifter than the rest of the twelve
fixed stars; going before, being first in motion, being delegated to have power
over others to regulate others in their time, for example, one cubit of times
signifies six three days Therefore that which is
appointed to run six three days, runs one cubit according to
the measure of time in cubits a cubit of motion is increased or lessened
according to the sign of the degrees.
“Veh
Kli flos-isis[:] it signifies less power than the fo[u]rth fixed governing star but greater power than the sixth
governing star fixt [fixed?] star,
in consequ[e]nce of its slowness of
motion.
“Kolob[:]
signifies the first creation nearer to the Celestial, or the residence of God,
first in government, the last pertaining to the measurement according according to
Celestial time which signifies one day to a cubit which day is equal to a
thousand years according to the measurement of this earth or Jah-oh-eh. …
“[Kahtu-ain-tri-eth]:
An other Kingdom governed by different laws, a second King, or governed by
another or second person not having been exalted.
“[Zip-Zi-Iota-veh:]
I saw five women.
“[Jah-ni-hah]
– one that with delegated and redeeming power, and second in authority; being a
swift messenger going before, and having redeeming power, as second in
authority: and stand[s] next to
_______ an the right hand of power.
“Jah-oh-eh
– The earth and power of attraction it has with the third fixed Star, which is
called Kui-e ven-ra_h.
“Flo-ees.
The moon in its revolutions with earth, showing or signifying the earth going
between, thereby forming an eclipse. …
“Kolob
in the second degree[:] It signifies the wonder of Abraham the eldest of all
the Stars, the greatest body of the heavenly bodies that ever was discovered by
man.
“Ah
me-os – God without beginning or end.
“[Al-ki-beth:]
minister of God under or the less.
“[Ba-eth-ku:]
The next from Adam, one one ordained under him, a patriarch or the right of the
firstborn. …
[Kolob
in the first degree:] It signifies the first great grand governing fixed star
which is the fartherest that ever has been discovered by the fathers which was
discovered by Methusela and also by Abraham.” (Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, p.
40,41,52-59,68-73; sic all, italics his)
This material has never been
published by the church, although it was translated with the same authority as
the Book of Abraham text at the time, and is obviously the rudimentary basis for more than
Abraham’s astronomy (see Christopher C. Smith’s “The Dependence of Abraham
1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar,” JWHA Journal, Vol. 29, p. 38ff.). If the now defunct EAG can be
taken as token, Joseph was in 1835-1836 contemplating God’s supreme eternality,
his role as creator, his use of delegation and hierarchical order of
governance, and also a belief in relative measurements in the universe. The
details hadn’t quite been ironed out yet, but like Abraham Joseph desired to
convey “a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets,
and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers” (Abr. 1:31).
Here again we see the substantial
evidences of Joseph’s background in mysticism and hermeticism. Although Abraham
3 was most likely not produced for several more years, we can see reflections
of sources in the EAG. And the Abraham content produced up to this point is
closely paralleled by several available resources in Smith’s surroundings –
resources we know he was exposed to. Historian Grant Palmer cites them at
length:
“In
1835, the year [Joseph] produced the opening chapters of Abraham, his counselor
Oliver Cowdery, in the Messenger and
Advocate, mentioned Josephus three times in interpreting the pictures from
the ‘Joseph of Egypt’ scroll. In the Antiquities
of the Jews, Josephus wrote about how Noah, who had trouble with his son
Ham, ‘cursed his posterity,’ whereas the lineage of Abraham and others ‘escaped
that curse.’ Joseph Smith expanded this original curse (Gen. 9:20-27) to
include denial of priesthood ordination to blacks (Abr. 1:21-26) [which was
also a very common view of the time.] …
“Josephus
further identified Abraham as a resident of Chaldea and ‘a person of great
sagacity’ who ‘began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he
determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have
concerning God.’ Abraham’s preaching was not welcome. They ‘raised a tumult
against him … and by the assistance of God, he came and lived in the land of
Canaan.’ While in Canaan, a land promised to his posterity, Abraham encountered
a famine. This brought him and his wife Sarah to Egypt, where he successfully
pretended to be his wife’s brother.
“The
pharaoh eventually allowed him to ‘enter into conversation with the most
learned among the Egyptians; from which conversation his virtue and his
reputation became more conspicuous than they had been before. … He communicated
to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before
Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning’ …
“The
astronomical phrases and concepts in the [LDS] Abraham texts were also common
in Joseph Smith’s environment. For example, in 1816 Thomas Taylor published a
two-volume work called The Six Books
of Proclus on the Theology of Plato. Volume 2 (pp. 140-146) contains
phrases and ideas similar to the astronomical concepts in Abraham 3 and
Facsimile No. 2. In these six pages, Taylor calls the planets ‘governors’ and
uses the terms ‘fixed stars and planets’ and ‘grand key.’ Both works refer to
the sun as a planet receiving its light and power from a higher sphere rather
than generating its own light through hydrogen-helium fusion …
“LDS
scholar R. Grant Athay, a research astronomer and director of the University of
Colorado Observatory, has written, ‘At the time that the Book of Abraham was
translated … the energy source of the sun was unknown,’ and ‘the concept of one
star influencing another was also a common concept of the time.”
(Cowdery, “Egyptian Mummies,” Messenger
and Advocate 2:236; Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus, 1:6:37, 1:7:38, 1:8:39; Taylor, The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of
Plato, 2:140-146; Athay, “Astronomy in the Book of Abraham,” Book of Abraham Symposium, ix, p. 60,61;
all as cited in Palmer, An Insider’s
View of Mormon Origins, pp. 17-22)
An LDS academic, Klaus Hansen,
expanded on probable sources for what would eventually make up Abraham 3 –
again, sources that were possessed by Joseph Smith and quoted by Oliver Cowdery
in the Messenger and Advocate:
“The
progressive aspect of Joseph’s theology, as well as its cosmology, while in a
general way compatible with antebellum thought, bears some remarkable
resemblances to Thomas Dick’s Philosophy
of a Future State, a second edition of which had been published in 1830. …
“Some
very striking parallels to Smith’s theology suggest that the similarities
between the two may be more than coincidental. Dick’s lengthy book, an
ambitious treatise on astronomy and metaphysics, proposed the idea that matter
is eternal and indestructible and rejected the notion of a creation ex nihilo.
Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of
innumerable stars spread out over immeasurable distances. Dick speculated that
many of these stars were peopled by ‘various orders of intelligences’ and that
these intelligences were progressive beings’ in various stages of evolution
toward perfection.
“In
the Book of Abraham, part of which consists of a treatise on astronomy and
cosmology, eternal beings of various orders and stages of development likewise
populate numerous stars. They, too, are called ‘intelligences.’ Dick speculated
that ‘the systems of the universe revolve around a common centre … the throne
of God.’ In the Book of Abraham, one star named Kolob ‘was nearest unto the
throne of God.’ Other stars, in ever diminishing order, were placed in
increasing distances from this center.” (Hansen, Mormonism and the American Experience, p. 79,80)
All of these ideas were
incorporated into the Book of Abraham eventually. However, the translation
process going forward slowed considerably, leaving instead a very
transparent display of the gradual development in
Joseph’s ideas in his public discourse. It should be noted there is little indication that any progress
was made in the translation again until 1841. In view of the intervening
period, it's obvious the prophet’s attention was occupied elsewhere. 1836 and
1837 brought the Kirtland Safety Society scandal into focus, along with the
Saints’ expulsion from Missouri, which produced rampant apostasy among the church’s core
membership. In 1838, Joseph was largely occupied with the migration and
reorganization of Mormon headquarters in Far West, Missouri – although he
evidently continued preaching the EAG material:
[May
6, 1838] Joseph Smith: “Instructed the Church, in the mistories of the Kingdom
of God; giving them a history of the planets &c. and of Abrahams writings
upon the Plannettary System &c.” (Jessee, The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, Vol. 1, p. 266; sic all)
Later that summer, William
Swartzel says he was involved in “getting out logs for brother Joseph Smith’s
house, in which he intends translating the hieroglyphics of the Egyptian
mummies” (Swartzel, Mormonism
Exposed, p. 25). Unfortunately, bad politics and neighbor relations led
shortly to distractions with the Mormon War in August. Joseph’s eventual
surrender and subsequent incarceration once again prevented any progress on the
Book of Abraham. However, his time spent in Liberty Jail served to reawaken within
him mystic aspirations to reveal the hidden things, things which
were never before revealed:
[Mar.
20, 1839] Joseph Smith: “God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit,
yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed
since the world was until now;
“Which
our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the
last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve
for the fulness of their glory;
“A
time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God
or many gods, they shall be manifest.
“All
thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set
forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
“And
also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land,
or to the sun, moon, or stars—
“All
the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and
all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and
set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of
times—
“According
to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of
all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the
finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal
presence and into his immortal rest. (“Letter from Liberty Jail,” HOTC, 3:289–300; see also D&C 121:26-32)
It is curious that this inspired
utterance seems at odds with what is eventually translated as the Book of
Abraham. Suggesting the revelation of information “that has not been
revealed since the world was until now” surely implies Abraham and the
patriarchs were, like the Latter-day Saints up to this point, ignorant of the
plurality of Gods, the Lord’s astronomy, and the pre-mortal council. By all
accounts though, and contrary to his insistence in Nauvoo, this is the first
explicit suggestion in Joseph’s ministry that there was a multiplicity of Gods,
and that the Lord took council with them prior to the construction of this
planet. Considering this in tandem with the documentary evidence and the
silence of the Saints on the subject, we may with assurance infer that Joseph
had yet to fully formulate the latter half of Abraham’s record.
From 1839 going forward, Joseph
Smith preached the individuality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost with varying
degrees of publicity. His release from incarceration and transfer to Nauvoo did
not immediately mean the continuation of the translation process, however. As
well as addressing economic and political concerns, Joseph first sought to
refresh the Saints with new and expanded cosmological teachings concerning God
and man. Many of these themes would eventually find expression in the Book of
Abraham, and ultimately be combined to create his impactful King Follett
discourse. Continuing the timeline:
[Aug.
8, 1839] Joseph Smith: “The Spirit of Man is not a created being; it existed
from Eternity & will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be Eternal.
… Our Savior speaks of Children & Says their angels always stand before my
father. The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of Man &
organized them. He (Adam) is the head, was told to multiply. The Keys were
given to him, and by him to others & he will have to give an account of his
Stewardship, & they to him.” (“Willard
Richards Pocket Companion” as cited in Cook, Ehat, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 9)
[Dec.
1839] George Woodward: “The Prophet preached ‘upon astronomy and told where God
resided. It was very interesting.” (“Woodward
Reminiscence” as cited in Ibid.,
p. 45, fn 1)
[Feb.
5 1840] Joseph Smith: “I believe that God is eternal. That he had no beginning,
and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I
believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end.” (HOTC 4:78-80)
Here we observe Joseph beginning
to abandon his identification of God as uniquely eternal. Now Joseph teaches
the spirit of man is expressly eternal or co-equal with God, whereas it had
previously only been suggested that “man was also in the beginning with God”
(D&C 93:29, circa May 1833) in general terms, perhaps referencing the
priority of man's spiritual rather than temporal creation (Moses 3:4,5). As
indicated earlier, the early portions of the Book of Abraham clearly portray
God in the context of the Old Testament name-title Jehovah (i.e. I Am
That I Am, usually contracted to I
Am or I Shall Be – meant
to signify God’s unique eternal existence): “Abraham, behold, my name is
Jehovah,” “I will take thee, to put upon thee my name… my name shall be known
in the earth forever, for I am thy God,” “I will give unto
thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession… For I am the Lord thy God…
My name is Jehovah.” But in Nauvoo, man is also from eternity to eternity.
This change lays the foundation
for a pantheon of ruling Gods and elevates the significance of humanity in the
eternal scheme of things. This in turn led to other serious theological transformations.
By 1840, Joseph had already aired his intentions to disclose that which had
“not been revealed since the world was until now,” and by introducing the
doctrine of baptisms for the dead (again addressing the immortality of the
soul), he began to make good on that promise. In fine Kirtland tradition, he
made preparations for building a new temple in which this ordinance could be
revealed and practiced. But with the summer conversion and hierarchical ascent
of John C. Bennett in Nauvoo, the prophet’s hermetic ambitions became freshly
roused and shortly resumed the limelight.
In the short year leading up to
construction on the Nauvoo temple in 1841, Bennett became Mayor of Nauvoo,
University of Nauvoo chancellor, Assistant President of the Church, and close
personal confidant of Joseph Smith. He was also a staunch Freemason, and for
months campaigned for the establishment of a Mormon Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo.
The Times and Seasons editor
during the period, Ebenezer Robinson, later observed that “heretofore the
church had strenuously opposed secret societies, such as Free-Masons, Knights
of Pithias, and all that class of secret societies … but after Dr. Bennett came
into the church a great change of sentiment seemed to take place”
(Robinson, The
Return,
2:287).
It is apparent that Bennett’s
opinions held tremendous weight with the impressionable prophet. For example,
Bennett had a history of extra-marital lasciviousness and promiscuous conduct –
his arrival in Nauvoo happens to parallel the onset of Joseph’s active efforts
at polygamy. Even longtime leadership like Sidney Rigdon were perturbed at
Joseph’s enchantment with Bennett. So while it is both plausible and
interesting that Richard Bushman suggests Hyrum Smith (the prophet’s brother
and a Freemason since New York times) as having likely shared details of the
Masonic rites with Joseph before his own induction (Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p.
449), it is much more likely that Bennett was the main influence. Much to
Joseph’s chagrin after their fallout, history shows Bennett had the propensity
for “loose lips” on secretive subjects. Considering how close they were at the
time, it is altogether probable that Bennett revealed the Masonic rites to
Joseph between 1840-1841.
Regardless, Bennett’s obvious
Masonic interests and his peculiar terming of Joseph’s initial concept for the
Council of Fifty as an “Order of the Illuminati” clearly demonstrate their
mutual interest in hermetic institutions. In fact, once John C. Bennett
achieves the prophet’s good graces, we see all sorts of allusions to
forthcoming revelations of new, esoteric ordinances. These climaxed in the
formal commission to build the Nauvoo temple on January 19, 1841:
“And
verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal
mine ordinances therein unto my people;
“For
I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before
the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the
fulness of times. And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining
to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be
built.” (D&C 124:40-42)
Finally, in the middle of March
Joseph observed the Masonic rites firsthand by his initiation into the
newly-founded Nauvoo Masonic lodge. It was only two months later that Joseph
conducted a select few of his closest associates through the first LDS temple endowment. Along with other threads
relating to Joseph’s Christian-occult upbringing, it relied heavily on borrowed
Masonic components. Plurality and council of Gods, pre-mortal man’s involvement
in the creation, transmission of secret teachings to Adam and Eve – all major
aspects of Joseph’s hermetic worldview. Not coincidentally, the same general
materials were assembled and published as the Book of Abraham during the exact
same period of time.
Before concluding the Book of
Abraham timeline and discussion, however, it will be constructive to make a few
observations about what specifically reignited Joseph’s interests in Hebrew
biblical studies. This will further exhibit how he gleaned a polytheistic view
of God from Genesis, the end result of which was Abraham 4 & 5. Both of the
following quotes indicate the progress of his theology to that point, showing
that his Hebrew studies were probably as strong a catalyst as Bennett’s influence
in propelling him toward re-embracing the ideals of esoteric Christianity.
[Jan.
5, 1841] Joseph Smith: “In the translation, ‘without form and void’ it should
read ‘empty and desolate.’ The word ‘created’ should be formed or organized. …
That which is without body or parts 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 the son to have life in himself’. God the father
took life unto himself precisely as Jesus did.” (“William Clayton’s Private Book” as cited in Cook, Ehat, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 60; see
also fns. 8,9 which say respectively: Joseph here cites the substantial
alterations made to “Inspired Translation” manuscripts of Gen. 1:1,2 – changes
made sometime subsequent to the original 1830 translation process but
incorporated exactly in Abraham 4:1,2; also, this occasion was the Prophet’s
first mention of God the Father having a mortal probation and a physical,
resurrected body – Ehat calls it a launch into new, distinctive doctrinal
territory!)
[Probably
early 1841] William Clayton quoting Joseph Smith: “Everlasting Covenant was
made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates
to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages according
to Abraham’s record are called God the first, the Creator, God the second, the
Redeemer, and God the third, the Witness or Testator.” (“William Clayton’s Private Book,” undated, as cited in Ibid., p. 220)
By way of background on some of
Joseph’s history with Hebrew, the 1833-1836 Kirtland “School of the Prophets”
was a foundational factor in latent LDS doctrinal distinctions. Much of their
discourse focused on ecclesiastical and scriptural training as preparation for
the elders’ impending missions. As discussed in a previous post, Sidney
Rigdon’s more rigid theological acumen pushed Joseph’s ideas into a more
systematic framework generally. Mormon doctrine afterwards became more taut,
more specific. In addition to spiritual pursuits, however, the lay ministry
regularly engaged in secular studies throughout the school’s duration. Key to
the prophet’s Book of Abraham text and his consummate Nauvoo teachings were his
early endeavors in studying biblical Hebrew with his brethren.
The First Presidency hired Joshua
Seixas, a fluent Hebraist and textbook writer from New York, to teach classical
Hebrew to the elders in the Kirtland school. He traveled there from nearby
Oberlin, Ohio and taught the eager Mormon students for about 3 months (26 Jan.
1836 – 29 Mar. 1836). Joseph Smith is reported to have been the school’s most
proficient pupil – no surprise considering his past enthusiasm for linguistic exercises. Although Seixas’
basic investigations into the Hebrew syntax (from his own textbook, Manual Hebrew Grammar for the Use of
Beginners)
most likely encouraged the traditional Jewish interpretation of God, it was
during these brief lectures that Joseph first became aware of the ancient
Semitic term Elohim/Eloheim.
Stated briefly, Elohim is the
plural form of the name-title Eloah (or Eloi), the expansion of an even older
Northwest Semitic term for God - El.
In Hebrew, the ‘–im’ suffix signifies a masculine plurality; this pluralism is
most often quantitative in nature, as in many angels (seraph-im, cherub-im). In
the case of a few exceptions, however, the intent can be specifically
qualitative, as in a multiplicity of attributes describing a singular subject.
For example, the word teraphim is a plural conjugation, but is most often used
in the Tanakh (i.e. Old Testament) with reference to a “terrible thing,” usually a divining idol. The contextual grammar therefore conveys
the tense.
So despite the plural construction
of the word Elo(a)h-im, this primitive appellation for deity is almost always
considered singular because of its nearly universal connection with singular
verbs and adjectives. The vast majority of Hebrew linguists and theologians are
in agreement; Elohim is a singular term for God that emphasizes the plurality
of his virtues. This grammatical interpretation is reinforced by the Hebrew
scriptures’ monotheistic emphasis on Jehovah as “one true God,” and the only
being worthy of worship. The frequent biblical recurrence of the name-title
“Lord God [Jehovah Elohim]” is itself an affirmation of Jehovah as the only
“Elohim” for Israel. Thus the Jewish Shema: “Hear, O Israel: [Jehovah] is our
[Elohim], [Jehovah] is one” (Deut. 6:4).
As I said, Joshua Seixas’ was a
fairly conventional Hebraist and by all indications, his instruction to the
School of the Prophets stuck closely to this basic understanding of Hebrew
grammar and the traditional Jewish etymology for God. Nevertheless, Joseph had
by this point already reevaluated his strictly monotheistic concept of deity
and tentatively adopted Binitarianism (although one could argue that he only
viewed the Father as God in the true sense, with Jesus relegated to the
position of demigod). Did the concept of a covenanted council of Gods in
Genesis first occur to Joseph in Kirtland? If so, he gives no indication of it.
Nevertheless, it may well have been the planted seed that eventually blossomed
in Nauvoo. What then pushed Joseph over the edge, causing him to reevaluate his
previous “inspired translations” of the Bible and reconsider his formal studies
in Hebrew?
Well, it just so happens that he
supplies the answer in his “Sermon in the Grove," cited at the start
of this article. In 1844, Joseph argues for an alternative reading of the
Hebrew Genesis text that supports his view of plural Gods:
“I
once asked a learned Jew once–if the Heb[rew] language compels us to render all
words in heam[/-im] in the plural–why not render the first plural–he replied it
would ruin the Bible–he acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate
these things precisely as I believe it–hear & judge for yourself–& if
you go away satisfied–well & good–in the very beginning there is a
plurality of Gods–beyond the power of refutation–it is a great subject I am
dwelling on–the word Eloiheam (sic) ought to be in the plural all the way
thro[ugh]–Gods.” (Thomas Bullock Report, Ehat & Cook, ed., The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 379)
Obviously Joseph was considering
polytheism at least as early as 1839, and perhaps earlier in connection with
his Hebrew studies. An interaction with a nameless, learned Jew served to
confirm his ideas. This man was almost certainly Alexander Neibauer. Possibly
the first Jewish convert to Mormonism in 1837, he was a well-educated man, only
three years the prophet’s junior. He attended rabbinical school in Poland, and
received a degree in dentistry from the University of Berlin. He was also
fluent in seven languages, and apparently an avid student of Kabbalah. These items
earned him a private friendship with Joseph upon their meeting in Nauvoo that
lasted until the the prophet’s death.
Within days of his arrival in
April 1841, “Joseph Smith would again begin to study Hebrew under Neibauer.
Along with his studies in Hebrew, Joseph would also study Greek, Latin, and
German. Under Neibauer’s direction, Joseph would learn to read the four
languages with a certain degree of competence” (Widmer, Mormonism and the Nature of God, p.
81-82). Both the prophet and his enigmatic tutor notate their various language
sessions from 1841-1844 at odd intervals in their private journals (Neibaur Journal, 1841-62, LDS archives; Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries
and Journals of Joseph Smith, pp. 460, 481, 487, etc.). Considering from
their accounts that Neibauer was an almost constant companion to the prophet in
1844, it appears probable that Neibauer was the man to whom Joseph referred
with regards to his questions about the syntax of Elohim.
Certainly Neibauer would have
been cognizant of Joseph’s violent re-interpretation of Genesis 1:1 and
probably reacted accordingly, as Joseph implied. But Joseph always held his own
views on scripture in higher esteem than that of its original authors; as Louis
Zucker once said, “He used the Hebrew as he chose, as an artist, inside his
frame of reference, in accordance with his taste, according to the effect he
wanted to produce, as a foundation for theological innovations” (Zucker, “Joseph
Smith as a Student of Hebrew," Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 3:53). Might Alexander Neibauer have had
further impact on the prophet’s preferential exegesis though? Lance S. Owens
explains the man’s relevance in this regard:
“In
the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library
of Kabbalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism
who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander
Neibaur [sic], would soon become the prophet's friend and companion.” (Owens, “Joseph
Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection,” as originally published
in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
Thought, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 117-194)
Alexander Neibauer disclosed his
loyalty to the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition in two minor articles on
resurrection which were published in the Times and Seasons in 1843 under the heading, “The Jews”
(Taylor, ed., Times and Seasons,
3:723,724). In both articles, Neibauer quotes extensively from Kabbalistic
authors and especially from varied and precise passages of the foundational
work of Jewish Kabbalah, the Zohar.
The Zohar is a compilation of rabbinical Torah commentaries that is similar to
the Midrash, but espouses an esoteric, mystical approach to scriptural
exegesis. It extracts inspired, hidden meaning from the scriptures on topics
ranging from the nature of God to the origin and structure of the universe, and
also addressing the nature of human souls. In other words, Alexander Neibauer
was fixated on the same hermetic tradition in Jewish Kabbalah as Joseph was
experiencing in Masonry and elsewhere. By introducing the prophet to the Zohar
and Kabbalah, doubtless this man distinguished himself to Joseph as a very learned Jew.
Considering his private relation
to Neibauer from 1841-1843, it should come as no surprise that this same
timeframe happens to coincide with the introduction of the Nauvoo temple
endowment and the translation and publication of the final portions of the Book
of Abraham – both revelations narrating a pre-mortal council, the plurality of
Gods, and the reformatting of the Genesis creation account.
[Feb.
19, 1842] Wilford Woodruff: “The Lord is Blessing Joseph with Power to reveal
the mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate through the urim &
Thummim Ancient records & Hyeroglyphics as old as Abraham or Adam, which
causes our hearts to burn within us while we behold their glorious truths
opened unto us. … Joseph has had these records in his possession for several
years, but has never presented them before the world in the english language
untill now. But he is now about to publish it to the world.” (“Wilford Woodruff Journal”, Feb. 19,
1842, sic all)
[Mar.
1-4, 1842] Publication of Abraham 1:1-2:18 and explanation of Facsimile 1.
[Mar.
8, 1842] Joseph Smith: “Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham, for the
10 No of the Times and Seasons – and was engaged at his office day &
Evening.” (Jessee, Papers of Joseph
Smith, Vol. 2, p. 367)
[Mar.
9, 1842] Joseph Smith: “Examining copy for the Times & Seasons presented by
[John] Taylor & [John C.] Bennett … in the afternoon continued the
Translation of the Book of Abraham … & continued translating &
revising, & Reading letters in the evening.” (Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 367)
[Mar.
15-19, 1842] Publication of Abraham 2:19-5:21 and explanation of Facsimile 2.
[May
16-20, 1842] Publication of Facsimile 3 and explanation.
[Feb.
1, 1843] John Taylor: “We have given this timely notice that our friends may
prepare themselves. We would further state that we had the promise of Br.
Joseph, to furnish us with further extracts from the Book of Abraham.” (Times & Seasons 4/6: 95, Feb.
1, 1843)
With the publication of the final
chapters of the Book of Abraham, Joseph fully relocated Mormon theology into
polytheistic realms. The book is an excellent miniature of Mormonism’s evolving
doctrinal revisionism. Once again, it begins with a jealous, omnipotent Lord
God (Abr. 1,2) who transitions into a sovereign, finite being without the
capacity to create the human soul (Abr. 3), and finally dissolves into an
ambiguous council of co-equal creator Gods (Abr. 4,5). As stated in this
article’s thesis and portrayed in the timeline, the Book of Abraham’s
production also directly parallels the chronological development of Joseph’s
personal views on God. That being the case, it is unfortunate that Joseph never
lived to see the promise fulfilled of “further extracts from the Book of
Abraham,” because his last public remarks on the nature of God were by far his
most striking. Imagine what further writings from Abraham may have been
unfolded!
On April 7, 1844, Joseph unloaded
all of his ammo. Masonry and the temple endowment, his Hebrew studies and the
Book of Abraham, the hermetic hermeneutic of Biblical passages – he coalesced
these disparate elements into a brilliant but radical reinterpretation of the
divine cosmogony. He assigned four scribes to record the sermon, admitting his
view of the gravity of its content. He preached the King Follett discourse,
excerpted here:
“God
Himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a Man like unto one of
yourselves—that is the great secret! … Here then is eternal life—to know the
only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in
order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods
have done—by going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small
degree to another, from grace to grace, until the resurrection of the dead,
from exaltation to exaltation—till you are able to sit in everlasting burnings
and everlasting power and glory as those who have gone before, sit enthroned. …
What
did Jesus Christ do? ‘Why I do the same things that I saw my Father do when
worlds came rolling into existence.’ ‘Saw the Father do what?’ ‘I saw the
Father work out His kingdom with fear and trembling and I am doing the same,
too. When I get my kingdom, I will give it to the Father and it will add to and
exalt His glory. He will take a higher exaltation and I will take His place and
I am also exalted, so that He obtains kingdom rolling upon kingdom.’ So that
Jesus treads in His tracks as He had gone before and then inherits what God did
before. …
I
suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not
contained in the Bible… I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.
I will go to the very first Hebrew word—BERESHITH—in the Bible and make a
comment on the first sentence of the history of creation: ‘In the beginning…’ I
want to analyze the word BERESHITH. BE—in, by, through, and everything else;
next, ROSH—the head; ITH. Where did it come from? When the inspired man wrote
it, he did not put the first part—the BE—there; but a man—a Jew without any
authority—put it there. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head
of any man. It read in the first: ‘The Head One of the Gods brought forth the
Gods.’ This is the true meaning of the words. ROSHITH [BARA ELOHIM] signifies
[the Head] to bring forth the Elohim. If you do not believe it you do not
believe the learned man of God. No learned man can tell you any more than what
I have told you. Thus, the Head God brought forth the Head Gods in the grand,
head council.” (Larson, “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly
Amalgamated Text,” BYU Studies 18,
No. 2, pp. 7-9, EMPHASIS his)
Van Hale, an LDS scholar,
analyzed the discourse and highlights four key concepts which have had a
lasting impact on Mormon doctrine: namely, men are eternal and can therefore
become Gods, there exists a pantheon of Gods, these Gods exist one above
another innumerably, and God was once as man now is (Hale, “The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett
Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18
: 213). The latter two points were doubly reinforced in his succeeding
“Sermon in the Grove,” in which he insisted once again that his teachings were
self-consistent and uniform with scriptures both ancient and modern. At the
root of Joseph’s extrapolations in both of these discourses is his use of
Hebrew in Genesis 1:1, or misuse of Hebrew as the case may be. Lance Owens
makes a point:
“By
any literate interpretation of Hebrew, this is an impossible reading. Joseph
takes Elohim, the subject of the clause, and turns it into the object, the
thing which received the action of creation. Bereshith (‘in the beginning’) is
reinterpreted to become Roshith, the ‘head’ or ‘Head Father of the Gods,’ who
is the subject-actor creating Elohim. And Elohim he interprets not as God, but
as ‘the Gods.’” (Owens, “Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection,” as
originally published in Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 117-194)
Despite his extra-curricular
studies, Joseph is abusing the Hebrew text here. His cut against convention is
intentional. That being the case, does Joseph mean something more when he says
“I will go to the old Bible and
turn commentator today?” In Kabbalistic traditions, the Zohar contains the
oldest traditions hidden in the biblical text, and is therefore often referred
to as “the old Bible.” Joseph is
already discussing hermetic concepts here, but is he really deriving his
interpretation from a medieval Jewish Gnostic text? Yes, as it turns out,
he absolutely is. The Zohar begins with commentary on Bereshith bara
Elohim:
“It
is written: And the intelligent shall shine like the brightness of the
firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and
ever. There was indeed a ‘brightness' [Zohar]. The Most Mysterious struck
its void, and caused this point to shine. This ‘beginning' [Reshith] then
extended, and made for itself a palace for its honour and glory … Thus by means
of this ‘beginning' [Reshith] the Mysterious Unknown made this palace.
This palace is called Elohim, and this doctrine is contained in the words,
"By means of a beginning [Reshith, it,] created Elohim.” (Zohar I:15a)
In other words, this evidently
longstanding esoteric tradition also interpreted the first phrase in
Genesis as signifying a nameless, Mysterious “Beginning” organized the
Gods, rather than God/Gods organizing the heavens and earth. The Zohar
suggested the reversal of subject with object, as does Joseph Smith here. Can
the consequences of this connection possibly be overestimated? In his last
sermon, he likewise calls on Genesis 1:26 to support his belief in a plurality
Gods – the same scripture cited by the Zohar in support of the same principle
(Zohar I:23b). Is it not incredible that the prophet’s entire premise for his
late theological innovations are precipitated by a medieval Jewish Gnostic book
to which he was introduced shortly beforehand? Joseph is here orchestrating a
combination of heretical doctrines that consummate in something altogether
different from anything that came in his revelations before: God is finite.
Like all the righteous before him,
God the Father started from a lower, mortal state and progressed to the station
of a God – “going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small
degree to another, from grace to grace.” No longer is the Lord God an eternally
consistent, self-sustained being whose power and righteousness are native to
his personality. Although he was greater than the assembled intelligences yet
he was elected to the prominent position of God: “the heads of the Gods
appointed one God for us.” In like manner, God chose his own cabinet of divine
delegates in the pattern of all Gods before him. In another eon, God the Father
served the same role as Jesus under the direction of his Father God, and so on
for generations before them. According to Joseph, this order of priestly
patriarchs has been in process forever: “Where was there ever a son without a
father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?”
The prophet’s newly formulated
cosmogony casts God the Father as the most recent in a long line of designated
deities, each responsible for the salvation of their own kindred kingdoms. In
this respect, it may be accurately said that Joseph is here exploring Gnostic
territory beyond polytheism even; he invented his own familial brand of
Henotheism. Henotheism itself is the belief in territorial deities, each
reigning over its own jurisdiction. Joseph’s contribution is the patriarch
angle, with an emphasis on the existence of many kingdoms with different Gods
at the helm of each, all of them fathers and sons progressing for eternity.
Joseph’s final theological addendum was that of patriarchal Henotheism.
In conclusion, I believe Joseph
Smith, Jr. was in many ways a very brilliant man. Nevertheless, he was a
product of his place and time, the same as all other men. His teachings are
similarly stamped by the cultural context and prejudices native to various
worldviews of the period. Joseph was instilled with passion for exposing hidden
things to the masses, an ambition that was nurtured in his magic-fraught youth.
The Victorian religious influence compounded with economic pressures to create
a need for God’s intercession in his life. Finally, the tremendous family
pressure of prophetic expectation bore heavily on the young prophet’s heart and
mind. Eventually he made the endeavor, to spectacular effect! Fallible as his
career was, it is still earmarked by exceptional charisma and ambition. Joseph
sought to unify the heavens and the earth in a way that few educated ministers
were willing to consider. Perhaps most impressive was his ability to learn and
adapt his theology to the perceived truths of his day, as he interpreted them.
Joseph Smith began his career
with something like a Modalist’s view of God – any divine intervention through
any role or representation was ultimately a manifestation of the Deity. This definition of God
in very absolute terms was probably the prophet’s primitive interpretation of
frontier revivalist rhetoric. But within years he was attracting converts more
traditionally trained in theology. Their influence helped conventionalize his
beliefs away from the heretical for a time and in the general direction of
Binitarianism – a very common precept among the upstart Restorationist movements. But Joseph’s ambition would be
reawakened again and again by hermetic inspirations. As they presented
themselves, he capitalized on opportunities to reveal hidden meaning from
ancient characters, and innovate on protestant Christianity’s premise. His
talent for telling tales and re-interpreting scripture allowed him to construct
these innovations into a Judeo-Christian context. All of these cultural
influences ultimately led Joseph to a belief in multiple Gods and beyond. To
the discerning eye, his fourteen year career offered a single constant relative
to the Mormon concept of God – change.
How then can we receive Joseph as a true prophet of God, if we judge his doctrine according to his own revelations? He claimed ownership of divinely disclosed truth, and yet there is clear conflict and evolution in his teachings. Would Joseph himself have been satisfied if he received multiple conflicting answers the morning he stepped into the sacred grove as a young boy in pursuit of truth? I think not. Without a institutional culture to call his own, he clearly rejected the confusion and discord he saw in the religious authorities of his surroundings. Why should we not do the same? Those seeking God's transcendent gospel in Mormonism will inevitably be disappointed that the Lord failed to communicate the end from the beginning to his “choice seer." Lest we forget, the Mormon prophet himself reminds us of his ultimate failing:
“It
is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of
God.” – Joseph Smith, Jr. (Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 345)
Joseph Smith evidently did not know God.
