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 as 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 and
brothers. 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. These notions 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, perhaps 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. KJV 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 almost certainly 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 mystical 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 disclosure 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.
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. From 1839 going forward, Joseph Smith preached the
individuality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost with increasing publicity. For
example, he told Reverend George Moore: “We believe in three Gods, equal
in power and glory. There are three persons in heaven, but those three are not
one" (Moore Journal, June 3, 1842). His Nauvoo theology had indeed evolved
quite a distance since he translated the Book of Mormon's simplistic
soteriological-focused narrative. Continuing the timeline of Smith's
developing theology:
[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[Eternal/Everlasting].” But in Nauvoo,
man also is 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 induction (Bushman, Joseph Smith:
Rough Stone Rolling, p. 449), it is more likely that Bennett was the main
Masonic 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 his 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)
In the middle of March, Joseph finally
observed the Masonic rites firsthand during 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 during the same period. 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 excerpts showcase 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 the esoteric Christian tradition.
[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 recorded 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, having
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
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, 1841-42, 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 while the prophet was often eclectic,
he 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 progressive
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
impersonal 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
public 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 one may
argue. Lance Owens makes the 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. But 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 probably 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 suggests
the reversal of subject with object, as does Joseph Smith here. Can the
consequences of this connection 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 very 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 aberrant 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 another 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 observed 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 his/her 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. So,
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, amongst other factors. Finally, the tremendous
family pressure of prophetic expectation bore heavily on the young prophet’s
heart and mind. Eventually he made the endeavor, and to spectacular effect!
Fallible as his career was, it is still earmarked by exceptional charisma,
ambition, and imagination. 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, in the general
direction of Binitarianism – a very common precept among the upstart Restorationist
movements of the time. 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 validated 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 an 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? I believe 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)
