Let me direct your attention to the Authorcast series at the Greg Kofford Books site. These are interviews with Kofford authors, most recently a discussion of the development of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead with Charles R. Harrell. That’s Part 3 of 4, all based on Harrell’s book “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2011). They start as Facebook Live discussions with live comments, then are posted at the Kofford site. Part 4 of the Charley Harrell series is scheduled for this Thursday at 8 pm Mountain Time. You can find it somewhere on the Greg Kofford Books Facebook page.
The book as a whole takes the various strands of Mormon doctrine — the Restoration, the Godhead, the Atonement, the Priesthood, and so forth — and reviews their Christian origins, the earliest Mormon view, and the change and expansion of that doctrine over time within LDS pronouncements. There is really no LDS doctrine or practice that gets “restored” then doesn’t change. Everything changes. Official LDS discussions work hard to avoid that approach. Quotes from LDS scripture and early LDS leaders invariably appear to endorse current LDS teachings. But a careful review of the historical sources suggests change over time is the rule. No doubt most readers can cite several changes to practice and doctrine they have observed in real time during just the last generation or two.
The discussion in the cast and in the book on the Godhead, for example, notes the following phases of LDS Godhead doctrine (and the LDS use of the ungainly term “Godhead” itself is worth an entire discussion by itself):
- Book of Mormon trinitarianism, as depicted in the familiar phrase “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end” (2 Ne. 31:21).
- The Kirtland period view of the Father and the Son as separate persons, with the Father a spirit (as held by other Christians), the Son an embodied God, and the Holy Spirit a manifestation or emanation of the mind of God, as depicted in the Lectures on Faith.
- The Nauvoo period in the 1840s, in which Joseph Smith announced the bold view of the plurality of Gods, including God the Father and God the Son as embodied and God the Holy Ghost as a personage of spirit. Various speculations circulated about other Gods (the father of God the Father, and so forth).
- Brigham Young’s Adam-God views, which made waves in the early Utah period but quietly disappeared after about 1860.
- The First Presidency’s doctrinal exposition “The Father and the Son,” first published in 1909, which tried to clear up some of the confusion created by the earlier doctrines and identify a new orthodox position, essentially walking things back to the Kirtland view but with God the Father embodied. The link is to the April 2002 Ensign reprint of that doctrinal statement, a hint that the LDS Godhead doctrine was fairly stable across the entire 20th century.
- The latest development seems to be the inclusion of Heavenly Mother as sort of an ex officio member of the Godhead. The Proclamation on the Family, issued in 1995, used the phrase “heavenly parents.” The Gospel Topics Essays included one titled “Mother in Heaven.”
Another source for discussion of the development of LDS views of God is Thomas Alexander’s classic essay “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology.” You can access it at the Sunstone archive in pdf form. A shorter version of the essay is available online at the Signature Books Library as Chapter 5 in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, ed. Gary James Bergera (Signature Books, 1989).
So here are three things you can talk about in the comments:
- Any other good podcasts, LDS or otherwise, that you are listening to lately? I’ve been listening to the History of England podcast (as recommended by a co-blogger) and Philosophy Without Any Gaps when I work out at the gym. Well, when I used to workout at the gym. It has been closed for a month now, so I listen to podcasts when I take a walk.
- What do you think of the developing LDS doctrine of the Godhead?
- Has Mother in Heaven made it into the LDS Godhead yet, or is she still knocking on the door? It’s interesting that, in current LDS doctrine, God the Father has a name (Elohim), God the Son has two names (Jehovah and Jesus Christ), but God the Mother has not a name. Neither does the Holy Ghost.
Wheat & Tares 
“We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. ”
Our Relationship with the Lord, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, March 2, 1982
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/relationship-lord/
McConkie placed a millstone about the LDS Chruch’s theological neck with this talk.
We can change the Church logo to an image based on Thorvaldsen’s marble statue, the Christus. We can subtitle the Book of Mormon as “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” We can change the Church website title to “comeuntochrist.org.”
But there McConkie’s talk is. Casting a gloomy dark shadow.
I humbly ask President Russell M. Nelson to remove McConkie’s talk from all Church-related websites.
I used to state quite confidently that there’s a difference between the Church and the Gospel. The Church is the people, programs, and policies. The Gospel is the doctrine we teach and follow. But that was before I discovered that virtually all doctrine has evolved. The simple justification for evolving doctrine is modern day revelation. And we are taking that to a new level under President Nelson with the underlying theme “ongoing restoration”.
You know what they say: when your church changes it’s called apostacy; when my church changes it’s called revelation (i.e., ongoing restoration). It’s comforting on one hand to see Church leadership dealing with modern day issues and making changes in response to those issues. On the other hand, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not seem to be that different than other churches anymore. We evolve like everyone else apparently.
I read the Harrell book when it first came out and thoroughly enjoyed it. Great reference tool, one that I consult frequently. I had missed, however, the Bergera article in Sunstone. Thanks for that, Dave. It is a fine piece of scholarship.
It’s worth noting that once Joseph’s ideas about the Godhead began to change in the early and mid-1830s, he went back and amended certain passages in the Book of Mormon that were modalistic, i.e., the treated God and Jesus as the same being. These revisions were reflected in the second edition published in 1837. He didn’t catch them all, however.
It’s no coincidence, in my opinion, that Joseph’s changing views regarding the Father and the Son are also reflected in the various accounts of the First Vision. The first one (1832) only mentions one heavenly personage, but later accounts say there were two, each with a physical, albeit celestial, body. And I suspect, had he lived longer, Joseph would have refined his teachings on this subject even further. He was a visionary who never thought “enough is enough.”
Eric Facer: how does one change his views on the Father and the Son if he has seen them up close and personal and if the Father says, “this is my son”? Are you suggesting that was not made clear to Joseph Smith at the time of the First Vision? Or are you suggesting that he changed the narrative for some other reason? I know what I think but I’m not sure what you are getting at. It’s one thing to make changes and amendments after-the-fact for clarification purposes. But it’s also possible that changes and amendments are put into place for other reasons.
Likewise, changes in doctrine may be the result of ongoing revelation or increased understanding. Or, there might be other motives at play.
A great thank you to tomirvine999. His comments about BRM devastated the target. The way the Church seems to be dealing with BRM’s legacy, IMO, is to use the quiet passing of years to move away from his more extreme positions. Deseret News stopped printing Mormon Doctrine purportedly because of a lack of customer demand, but I have seen used copies of the paperback in less than ideal condition sell for $40 in used book stores. (I have a hardback copy of the first printing of the Catholic-Church-is-the-great-and-abominable-COTD, with the front cover partly separated from the spine, and Pioneer Books in Provo told me they would sell it for about $225. Good grief!) I think it is generally agreed that the Church wanted to move past McConkie’s influence without having to explicitly state that he was wrong.
It’s sort of like watching the May Day parade reviewing stand of leaders in Communist countries. If so-and-so is not present, that means he has fallen out of favor, but in the case of the Mormon Church, it is the dead leaders who are no longer quoted. I DO believe that BRM’s comments about not worshiping the Savior will eventually fade away.
You know, as Mormon theology develops, it is fascinating to see how s-l-o-w-l-y the Church moves to jettison past embarrassments. Think Priesthood Revelation of 1978 and almost 40 years after that to explicitly disavow the folklore theories that tried to justify the ban.
We’re in this for the long haul, I am afraid, Tom. I left Evangelical Christianity in 1974 and was baptized as a Mormon. My first real exposure to Wasatch Front culture was as a missionary in the late 1970s; when I referred to the grace of Christ, many of my fellow Elders (never a Sister missionary, interestingly) got quite upset with me, and told me that “we don’t believe in that (Christ’s grace) in the Church,” even though I pointed out that the BOM is chock-full of references to grace.
Well, things are much better now on that point, now, thank goodness, but it has been 40 years! Joshua H is right. We evolve like everyone else.
joshuah h: The Father did not say “this is my son” in the earliest account of the First Vision (the 1832 account), the only one written by Joseph’s own hand. Rather, Joseph simply refers to seeing the Lord. One personage. That’s it.
Human memories change over time and are influenced by new experiences and new learning. This happens to all of us and there is no reason to think it didn’t happen to Joseph Smith. As his understanding of the Godhead evolved, it influenced his recollection of the First Vision. Professor Stephen Harper, a member of BYU’s faculty, has written an excellent book, called the “First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins,” which discusses in great detail this process.
I’m not saying Joseph was a fraud. I’m saying he was human, just like all of us. The human memory is a critical survival tool, one whose primary function is to teach, not give us a perfect recollection of past events.
Policies and practices of the church can change, but doctrine does not and can not change. Ha ha ha. Every member that says this desperately needs to read Harrell’s book. The church is an infant church and is still trying to figure out how to define God. There is a reason the creeds of Christianity are vague, they learned that trying to make God like us is silly and paints yourself into a corner. The King Follett sermon sounds great, rip the veil down and you would see a man just like you and me. Well, that leaves out half the population that is female with no God to relate to. It gets better, God’s procreation powers are just like ours. And it turns out he is white, American, a capitalist and a republican. Just ask Benson and Brigham.
The thing that really bugs me is when you bring these things up people say that does not matter and that has nothing to do with your salvation. I agree, but that is what Mormonism is. It boldly declared the mysteries and gave details that people desperately wanted. Now we are running back to mainstream Christianity and begging to be let in the club because those ideas just don’t hold up.
As for Joseph Smith. I like that he tried to define God. I like that he tried to get people to have their own experience with God. I think something happened to him, but I don’t think he knew how to describe it. His story changed and that is ok with me. My definition of God has changed as I have matured, become a father, become aware of other people and how they experience life. If this sounds like apologetic gibberish, well it is. The collection of people’s ideas boldly declaring who God is gives me a large collection to sift through and form my own opinion.
Harrell’s book was an eye opener for me.
Before reading it I had noticed contradictions, for example in the BoM, places where God and Jesus are treated as one vs other places where they aren’t. Harrell lays it all out in chronological order so you can see the changes in doctrine over time. It was astounding.
I’m not much of a podcast person in general, but I’ll admit these sort of things might pull me in.
I know it sounds like a typical good LDS answer, but I do think that for the most part, the doctrine doesn’t change, but the Spirit may influence how we understand it over time both personally and as a Church. I read many things in Church History that some have a hard time reconciling that I feel the Spirit can at least present the dots, if not picture. This would apply to the Godhead, as well as other things.
I do think Heavenly Mother may still be knocking on the door, or may be content doing otherwise. I’ll admit a good part of me really wouldn’t mind seeing more of Her openly in LDS teachings. My Dad has a friend who is a falconer and animal trainer and rehabilitator by profession. He’s been inactive for years but generally has a solid testimony. He theorized to my dad once that while Heavenly Father and the Savior take an active role in the salvation of mankind, Heavenly Mother–though still obviously very interested in the eternal welfare of Her children–likely takes a more active role in the animal and plant kingdom. I’ve never really been sure what to think of that, but find I no longer automatically cringe the way I used to when I hear someone praise Mother Earth.
I am in my mid 50’s. I have seen several changes in the church and I do realize that the church my kids experienced growing up in the church has some real differences from what I had.
When I was the age of my kids I thought that psychiatry was evil, evolution was just plain wrong, the changes that would occur if the ERA passed would quickly bring down society, and Paul H. Dunn was the most inspiring GA. Now my kids feel therapists are more effective than going to talk to their bishop for certain issues, they go to BYU and are taught evolution, the vast majority of what the ERA stood for has come in smaller steps and my kids support the ERA itself and are even pushing for it to become the law, and laugh at me that I “felt the spirit” listening to Elder Dunn.
Eli, When you say you “think that for the most part, the doctrine doesn’t change”, what do you mean by “doctrine”? Is there any part of Church teaching beyond JS’ “fundamental principles” that has not changed with various leaders or over time?
JS: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Maybe you have simply defined the word “doctrine” to mean “unchanging, unchangeable truth” whether taught or understood or not. If so, it would seem you’re not speaking English any more, but instead a variety of Mormon-speak. You wouldn’t be unique in that.
BTW, and just for fun, if BKP’s comment on the hymns being a “course in doctrine” were to be generalized back in time, I would be amused at the contrast between current teaching about the Godhead — the identity of Jehovah — and this verse from Hymn 56 of the 1835 hymnal:
Down in old Jordan’s rolling stream;
The prophet led the holy Lamb,
And there did him baptize:
Jehovah saw his darling Son,
And was well pleas’d in what he’d done,
And own’d him from the skies.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
tomirvine, yes now that you mention it Elder McConkie’s attempt to cut Jesus out of the Godhead (if we don’t worship him, he’s not God, same thing) is problematic from this perspective.
Eric, just to clarify: The original article in Sunstone is authored by Tom Alexander. A shorter version of the article by Alexander was published in the collection of essays titled Line Upon Line edited by Bergera. Lots of other good essays in that book. I linked to both versions in the post. I agree the changes made to the 1837 Book of Mormon make a lot more sense in light of Harrell’s discussion.
Taiwan Missionary, that’s funny — I, too, have sometimes compared trying to figure out what the current LDS view is by looking at who is cited or not cited to Sovietologists trying to figure out who in Soviet leadership was in favor versus in the doghouse based on who showed up to watch a parade and where they were standing. It’s because current leaders will never explicitly (at least in public) reject an earlier teaching from a prophet or apostle, but will do so implicitly by teaching contrary views and excising the earlier view from new manuals and talks.
Happy Hubby, so true. It is hard for those of us who grew up in the Church of McConkie and passed through the Era of Hinckley to appreciate how different the Church is now for youth and young adults. Two or three generations ago, going to a therapist meant seeing a Freudian psychiatrist. For kids now, they often visit with counselors and therapists in connection with school or because a parent thinks they need someone to talk to or because there was a family separation and counseling is ordered by the Court. Many kids now have a fair amount of hands-on experience with a therapist. They are smart enough to figure out in short order that a therapist is there to listen to them and to help them, while a bishop is there to judge them and make them feel guilty. I know bishops don’t think of it this way, but they almost certainly have less experience with real counseling than the kids they are talking to!
Wondering,
You are correct. I used “doctrine” more in the sense of “eternal truth,” which is indeed how many members use it. Looking at actual and various definitions of the the word, it would appear to border on what many members would call “policy.” As members, perhaps we should do a better job staying consistent with definitions. At the same time, I do feel like I’ve seen the words “doctrine” used less and less and “eternal truths” used more and more as time has gone by.
I hope Bruce R. McConkie’s teachings are never forgotten. I do not want them to hold sway. But burying them would be as unethical as suppressing conflicting First Vision accounts and Joseph Smith’s forays into polygamy and Freemasonry.
Re. 1: I think Sunstone is doing some great podcasting of late, with multiple voices and viewpoints on offer. If you’re looking for a warm-hearted approach to spiritual development, regardless of denomination, Dan Wotherspoon is doing meaningful work with his Latter-day Faith podcast.
Re. 2: I remember the maddening time I spent on my mission trying to reconcile the current god(s) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the Trinitarian god depicted in the Book of Mormon. Nice to see scholarship like the above coming out.
Re. 3: Heavenly Mother gets a lot of interesting discussion and expression in intellectual/progressive Mormonism. Has she made it into the LDS godhead in an official capacity? I assume not. And who really wants that to be the literal case? If she has had any real authority in the kingdom thus far, then she is as culpable as Elohim and Jehovah for allowing/commanding all of the controversies: priesthood ban, marginalization of women/LGBTQ members, etc.
You’ll have already seen gospel tangents recent posts about the Adam God doctrine. It was really great to see the remnants of this teaching in modern teaching and practise. Another podcast I’ve been enjoying lately is Closer to Truth, in which science and philosophy and theology are used to discuss existence and religion etc. I have particularly enjoyed the recent episodes exploring Jesus as God, the trinity, and the atonement.
@ Eric Facer-You forget that in the 1832 account Joseph wrote in the introduction,” History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience1 and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record”
Jesus is mentioned as the son of the Living God, which implies the Living God is a father to Jesus
I think the real difference between talking to a bishop and talking to a counselor/therapist is the specific, deep, and broad education that qualifies therapists. Counseling requires an advanced degree, with classes that help them understand people, their culture, how their experiences influence their understanding of the world, etc.
A counselor is unlikely to tell a person to stay with an abusive spouse. I believe (but could be wrong) they are also unlikely to tell someone to leave an abusive spouse, but they may help them recognize abuse, and find inner strength to move forward in a healthy way. Counselors are professionals.
While I have spoken with various therapists, and found some are more effective than others, it’s much less of a lottery than counseling with a bishops is. Agree that passing judgement is deliberately left out of a therapist’s response. I’ll add that one of their strong points is that they don’t send everything through the church filter.
Feedback welcome.
In 1978, Professor George W. Pace gave a brief, rousing talk on Christ at the BYU freshman orientation. His classes were so popular that they were held in the DeJong Concert Hall and were very much focused on a relationship with Christ – using much the same kind of language we hear in recent general conferences. BRM’s 1982 comments on Christ were accompanied with pointed, public chastisement of George Pace. One of his children told me that his class sizes plummeted as students no longer wanted to be associated with him. He became a pariah and “was never the same after the public humiliation”.
I love the idea of a divine feminine – but have no idea what that actually looks like. Personally, I think the concept of “exalted men and women” who procreate to produce billions of spirit children (hopefully with a “polaroid gestation”) developed purely to support polygamy. Otherwise, how could a level-three celestial priesthood holder populate his creations? God created in our own image.
From what I’ve read, Mormons seem to talk about the Father and Mother as part of an equal partnership (a lot different from the heavenly Mother in Catholicism that I’m used to). Still, as far as I know, they still say they believe in a trinity.