Mormon Theism by Journal of Evangelical Theology

Francis J. Beckwith*

[* Francis J. Beckwith is associate professor of philosophy, culture, and law at Trinity International University, 2200 N. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92705.]

One of the charges leveled against traditional Christian theology is that its concept of God, otherwise known as the classical Christian concept of God, is the result of Greek philosophical thought significantly shaping, indeed corrupting, the way in which church Fathers, councils, theologians, and philosophers have interpreted the phenomenon of God found in Scripture.36

A number of scholars in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), popularly known as the Mormon church, ¹  believe that the truth of this charge helps ground their unique theology. ²  For the necessity of the founding of the LDS church is contingent upon the truth of the belief that pristine Christianity vanished from the earth. According to LDS theology, the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805–1844) served as God’s instrument to restore the lost Gospel. ³  So, any evidence of corruption makes the Mormon case more plausible, though such evidence would certainly be far from decisive, since the disappearance of true Christian theology is only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for the truth of the LDS claims.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a philosophical reply to the Mormon claim that the classical concept of God is a corruption of the true Christian concept of God. In order to accomplish this, we will cover the following: (1)   the Mormon concept of God; (2) the classical Christian concept of God; and (3) the LDS charge and its problems. My intention is not to give a biblical case for traditional Christian theism. Rather, my intention is to show

that the LDS charge is philosophically problematic and rests on five mistakes. The issue of whether and to what degree Christian theology has been influenced by Greek philosophy is historically important and worth assessing, but it is outside the scope of this paper. Although I will touch on historical sources, my main purpose is philosophical and not historical.

Because of the unjust persecution some Mormons have received at the hands of some self-professing Christians, I am sensitive to the fact that this paper may be interpreted to be within that unfortunate tradition. That would, however, be an inaccurate interpretation. For I am a Christian philosopher who is concerned with both the acquisition of truth as well as sharing the power of Christ’s love. Some of what goes by the name of anti-Mormon literature, though containing some accurate information, may, because of its tone and spirit, fuel intolerance, bigotry, and prejudice. ⁴  This, of course, does not mean that criticizing another’s religion is in principle wrong. As Eleanor Stump and Norman Kretzmann have pointed out, the postmodernist’s absolute prohibition of such activity, though politically correct and theologically fashionable, is self-referentially incoherent. ⁵  Because I am sensitive to complaints by Mormons that their views are misunderstood by traditional Christians, especially Evangelicals, ⁶  I have attempted in this essay to understand and critique the Mormon view fairly and honestly.

I. The Mormon Concept Of God

1. Sources of doctrine. The Mormon doctrine of God is derived primarily from three groups of sources. ⁷  And it is because of these sources that it departs radically from creedal Christianity.

(a) The first group of sources consists of works regarded by the Mormon church as inspired Scripture: The Book of Mormon (BM), the Doctrine and Covenants (DC), and the Pearl of Great Price (PGP).

(b) The Mormon concept of God is also derived from Joseph Smith, Jr.’s other statements and doctrinal commentaries, such as the seven-volume History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (HC), which was compiled and extensively edited by B. H. Roberts (1857–1933). Although not regarded by the LDS church as Scripture per se, Smith’s extracanonical pronouncements on doctrine are accepted by the Mormon laity and leadership as authoritative for Mormon theology.

(c) Authoritative presentations of the Mormon doctrine of God can also be found in the statements and writings of the church’s ecclesiastical leaders, especially its presidents, who are considered divinely inspired prophets. Concerning this group of sources, Bruce McConkie writes, “When the living oracles speak in the name of the Lord or as moved upon by the Holy Spirit, however, their utterances are then binding upon all who hear, and whatever is said will without any exception be found to be in harmony with the standard works.” ⁸  Henry D. Taylor, in the Mormon publication The Ensign Magazine, writes, “As Latter-day Saints we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders.” ⁹  The book Gospel Principles, an official publication of the LDS church, states: “In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.” ¹⁰  Mormon scholar Stephen Robinson seems to be saying that these extracanonical pronouncements are more important than Scripture: the LDS

church’s guarantee of doctrinal correctness lies primarily in the living prophet, and only secondarily in the preservation of the written text…. Just as the apostle or prophet is necessary to receive what becomes the written word of God in the first place, he is necessary to authoritatively interpret it in the second…. As long as “holy men of God” (apostles and prophets) remain in the church to interpret and apply the written revelations that they and their predecessors have received to changing times and new cultures, there is a presumption of doctrinal continuity and correctness. ¹¹

As with any religious tradition, it is also important to consult and consider the writings of believing scholars within the tradition and how they have interpreted and defended the teachings found in their sources of doctrine. ¹²  I will refer to these writings when appropriate, even though they technically fall outside the three groups of authoritative sources.

Because there are so many doctrinal sources, it may appear (with some justification) that it is difficult to determine precisely what is the LDS concept of God. For example, the Book of Mormon (first published in 1830) seems to teach a strongly Judaic monotheism with modalistic overtones (see Alma 11:26–31, 38; Moroni 8:18; Mosiah 3:5–8; 7:27; 15:1–5), while the equally authoritative Pearl of Great Price (first published in 1851) clearly teaches that more than one God exists (see Abraham 4–5) and that these gods are finite. This finite view of God culminated in the theology of Joseph Smith’s successor, Brigham Young (1801–1877), in sermons that were considered authoritative at the time ¹³  but are now disputed by Mormon authorities. ¹⁴  Young taught the doctrine that Adam, the first man, is the God of this world:

Now, hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is michael, the Archangel, the ancient of days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—he is our father and our god and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. ¹⁵

Even though the Adam-God doctrine is rejected by Mormon authorities today, it is clear that the Mormon doctrine of God, as a number of Mormon scholars have argued, evolved from a traditional monotheism to a uniquely American polytheism. ¹⁶  This is why LDS scholar Boyd Kirkland writes that “Mormons who are aware of the various teachings of the LDS scriptures and prophets over the years are faced with a number of doctrinal possibilities.” For example, “they can choose to accept Book of Mormon theology, but this varies from biblical theology as well as from Joseph Smith’s later plurality-of-gods theology…. While most Mormons are unaware of the diversity that abounds in the history of Mormon doctrine, many Latter-day Saints …

have, despite the risk of heresy, continued to believe or promote publicly many of the alternative Godhead theologies from Mormonism’s past.” ¹⁷

2. The Mormon doctrine of God. Although the historical development of Mormon theism is a fascinating subject, I will focus on what appears to be the dominant concept of God currently held by the LDS church. Although there is certainly disagreement among Mormon scholars concerning some precise points of doctrine, ¹⁸  I believe it is safe to say, based on documents the church presently considers authoritative, that current LDS doctrine teaches that God is, in effect, ¹⁹  (1) a contingent being, who was at one time not God; (2) finite in knowledge (not truly omniscient), power (not omnipotent), and being (not omnipresent or immutable); (3) one of many gods;

(4)  a corporeal (bodily) being, who physically dwells at a particular spatio-temporal location and is therefore not omnipresent like the classical God; (5) a being who is subject to the laws and principles of a beginningless universe with an infinite number of entities in it; and (6) not a Trinity, but rather, there exist three separate Gods who are one in purpose but not being. ²⁰

The contemporary Mormon concept of God can best be grasped by understanding the overall Mormon world view and how the deity fits into it. Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected, “exalted” human being named Elohim who was at one time not God. ²¹  He was once a mortal man on another planet who, through obedience to the precepts of his God, eventually attained exaltation, or godhood, himself through “eternal progression.” The Mormon God, located in time and space, has a body of flesh and bone and thus is neither spirit nor omnipresent as understood in their traditional meanings. Joseph Smith, Jr. asserts:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute this idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see…. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible… .

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power …  ²²

The Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s….  ²³

The late Mormon president Lorenzo Snow explains: “As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.” ²⁴  Joseph Fielding Smith writes,

Some people are troubled over the statements of the prophet Joseph Smith…. The matter that seems such a mystery is the statement that our Father in

heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man. This is one of the mysteries…. The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him? ²⁵

A member of the LDS First Council of the Seventy, Milton R. Hunter, writes:

Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God—an exalted being—through obedience to the same eternal Gospel principles that we are given opportunity to obey today. ²⁶

Omniscience, according to Mormon theology, is one of the attributes one attains when reaching godhood. Mormons appear to be divided, however, on the meaning of omniscience. It seems that some Mormons believe omniscience to mean that God knows all true propositions about the past, present, and future. This view is consistent with the classical Christian view: God is all-knowing, and his all-knowing encompasses the past, present, and future. ²⁷

On the other hand, the dominant Mormon tradition teaches that God does not know the future. This tradition affirms that only the present and the past can be known by God, since the former is occurring and the latter has already occurred. Consequently, since the future is not yet a “thing” and has not become actual (and hence cannot possibly be known), God cannot know the future. Therefore, the Mormon God is omniscient in the sense that he knows everything that can possibly be known, but he nevertheless increases in knowledge as the future unfolds and becomes the present. ²⁸  As the late Mormon president and prophet Wilford Woodruff once said: “God himself is increasing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so worlds without end.” ²⁹  This is why Brigham Young and his counselors (both in 1860 and 1865) condemned as false doctrine Orson Pratt’s claim that “God cannot know new truths.” ³⁰

Once Elohim attained godhood he then created this present world by “organizing” both eternally preexistent, inorganic matter and the preexistent primal intelligences from which human spirits are made (PGP, Abraham 3:22). Mormon writer Hyrum L. Andrus explains:

Though man’s spirit is organized from a pure and fine substance which possesses certain properties of life, Joseph Smith seems to have taught that within each individual spirit there is a central primal intelligence (a central directing principle of life), and that man’s central primal intelligence is a personal entity possessing some degree of life and certain rudimentary cognitive powers before the time the human spirit was organized. ³¹

For this reason, Joseph Smith wrote that “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” ³²  In other words, man’s basic essence or primal intelligence is as eternal as God’s.

The Mormon God, by organizing this world out of preexistent matter, has granted these organized spirits the opportunity to receive physical bodies, pass through mortality, and eventually progress to godhood—just as this opportunity was given him by his Father God. Consequently, if human persons on earth faithfully obey the precepts of Mormonism they, too, can attain godhood like Elohim before them. And the purpose of attaining godhood is so that “we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as [Elohim] does.” ³³  Mormon philosopher David Paulsen writes, “He [the Mormon God] is perfectly just, loving, kind, compassionate, veracious, no respecter of persons, etc. But his perfections are not eternal, but were acquired by means of developmental process.” ³⁴

Based on the statements of Mormon authorities, some LDS scholars contend that a premortal spirit is “organized” by God the Father through “spirit birth.” In this process, human spirits are somehow organized through literal sexual relations between Elohim and his wife (or Mother-God), whereby they are conceived and born as spirit children prior to entering the mortal realm (although all human persons prior to spirit birth existed as intelligences in some primal state of cognitive personal existence). ³⁵  Since God the Father of Mormonism was himself organized (or spirit-birthed) by his God, who himself is a “creation” of yet another God, and so on ad infinitum, Mormonism therefore teaches that the God over this world is a contingent being in an infinite lineage of gods. ³⁶  Thus, Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. This is why Joseph Smith asserts that he will “preach the plurality of Gods…. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.” ³⁷

Comparing the Mormon concept with the classical Christian concept of God, Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler writes that in contrast to the self-sufficient God who creates the universe

ex nihilo (out of nothing), the Mormon God did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the cosmos—neither its fundamental matter nor the space/time matrix which defines it. Hence, unlike the Necessary Being of classical theology who alone could not not exist and on which all else is contingent for existence, the personal God of Mormonism confronts uncreated realities which exist of metaphysical necessity. Such realities include inherently self-directing selves (intelligences), primordial elements (mass/energy), the natural laws which structure reality, and moral principles grounded in the intrinsic value of selves and the requirements for growth and happiness.” ³⁸

Concurring, Mormon elder B. H. Roberts, a member of the First Council of Seventy, writes,

[N]ot even God may place himself beyond the boundary of space: nor on the outside of duration. Nor is it conceivable to human thought he can create space, or annihilate matter. These are things that limit even God’s omnipotence. What then, is meant by the ascription of the attribute of Omnipotence to God? Simply that all that may or can be done by power conditioned by other eternal existences—duration, space, matter, truth, justice—God can do. But even he may not act out of harmony with the other eternal existences which condition or limit him. ³⁹

Mormonism therefore teaches that certain basic realities have always existed and are indestructible even by God. For Mormonism, God, like each human being, is merely another creature in the universe. In the Mormon universe, God is not responsible for creating or sustaining matter, energy, natural laws, personhood, moral principles, the process of salvation (or exaltation), or much of anything. Instead of the universe being subject to him (as in the classical view), the Mormon God is subject to the universe. In the words of the late Mormon philosopher Sterling McMurrin, “God is not the totality of original being and he is not the ultimate source or the creator of all being. This is a radical departure from the position of tradition theism, whether Christian, Jewish, or Islamic, and the failure to recognize the far-reaching implications of this idea is a failure to come to grips with the somewhat distinctive quality of Mormon theology, its essentially non-absolutistic character.” ⁴⁰  Some thinkers, including LDS scholars, have noticed strong conceptual similarities between Mormon theism and other finite theisms and philosophical positions, such as nominalism, classical materialism, and process philosophy. ⁴¹

Unlike the God of Christian theism who is omnipresent in being, the God of Mormonism is only omnipresent insofar as he is aware of everything in

the universe. Since the Mormon God has a physical body, and hence is limited by time and space, his being cannot be present everywhere. As Roberts has pointed out, when a Mormon says that God is omnipresent, he is asserting that although God’s influence, power, and knowledge are all-pervasive, the focal point of God’s being (his body) exists at a particular place in time and space. ⁴²  Because Mormon theology does not teach that the universe is contingent upon God to either bring it into being or to sustain its existence, there is no need for Mormon theology to hold to the classical Christian view of omnipresence.

Given Mormon metaphysics and its concept of God, it is no surprise that the LDS church denies the doctrine of the Trinity as found in the catholic creeds. Joseph Smith, Jr. asserts: “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! … He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.” ⁴³  McMurrin writes:

The nominalistic and particularlistic tendency of Mormon thought, which so commonly insists that only the physically concrete is a genuinely real entity, is importantly exhibited in the denial of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth by the Nicene Creed, which is normative for both Catholicism and Protes-tantism…. This anti-trinitarian position is consistent with the nominalistic position that only particular objects and events have reality. It is sometimes found associated with nominalism in the history of Christian philosophy because a nominalistic metaphysics necessarily denies the possibility of a universal substance over and above the particularity of the three members of the Godhead. ⁴⁴

Mormon theology affirms tritheism, the belief that there exists three gods with which this world should be concerned (though Mormon theology teaches that there exist many other gods as well): Elohim (the Father), Jehovah (the Son), and the Holy Ghost. ⁴⁵  Writes Smith: “The Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Spirit could not dwell in us.” ⁴⁶  The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to apostle James Talmage, are “three separate individuals, physically distinct from each other,” forming “the great presiding council of the universe.” ⁴⁷  And even the Holy Ghost is not really a spirit, since, according to Smith, there is no such thing as a non-physical reality: “There is

no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.” ⁴⁸  Mormon writings, including the LDS scriptures, are unclear about the Holy Ghost. This is why Mormon scholar Vern G. Swanson concludes his essay on this subject by saying: “In the end, there are few details from which to construct an adequate theology of God the Third…. But I suspect that we will be left at some point with Brigham Young’s promise that ‘when we go through the veil we shall know much more about these matters than we now do.’” ⁴⁹

It is worth mentioning that the preincarnate Jesus, Jehovah (or Yahweh), does not have a body of flesh and bone in Mormon theology. McConkie writes that “Christ is Jehovah; they are one and the same Person.” ⁵⁰  According to one LDS book, Jehovah “was the birthright son, and he retained his birthright by his strict obedience. Through the aeons and ages of premortality, he advanced and progressed until, as Abraham described it, he stood as one ‘like unto God’ [Abr. 3:24]. ‘Our Savior was a God before he was born into this world.’” ⁵¹

II. The Classical Christian Concept Of God

It is not my purpose in this section either to assess the contemporary debates among Christian philosophers and theologians over contrasting and

competing concepts of God and their numerous variations, or to provide a biblical and/or philosophical defense of classical theism. ⁵²  Rather, my purpose here is to merely offer a presentation of the classical Christian concept of God in a way that represents a consensus of major, influential Christian thinkers across all three major branches of Christianity: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. ⁵³  This view of God is either presupposed or explicitly articulated in the classic ecumenical creeds as well as all the denominational confessions. ⁵⁴  I present this view of God, so that the reader may be able to appreciate the stark contrast between the LDS concept and nearly every version of Christian theism. Although I believe that some views of God embraced by some Christians are flawed, I do not want the reader to suppose that disagreement between creedal Christians about the nature of God means that any alternative offered for consideration, including the Mormon one, therefore ought to be considered a legitimate option under the rubric of Christian theism.

1. God is metaphysically unique. The traditional Christian view of God is that he is “uncreated, underived, one, infinite, eternal, self-sufficient” and “necessary…. ” ⁵⁵  At minimum, this means that God is the sort of being who is metaphysically independent and necessary (he cannot not exist). This

is why God is said to be eternal or everlasting, ⁵⁶  for a being who is metaphysically necessary and uncreated is not the sort of being who can begin to or cease to exist.

When the theist speaks of God as infinite, he is not committed, as B. H. Roberts supposes, to God not really being a person: “if God has personality, he is a person, a some-thing, and hence limited …; if limited, as he must be when conceived of as this or that, as a person, for instance, then of course not infinite being…. ” ⁵⁷  Roberts’s argument rests on a misunderstanding of what the classical theist means when she calls God “infinite.” What she means is that there is no extra-divine limit to God’s virtue, power, knowledge, or wisdom. In fact, one could say that God’s infinite attributes presuppose his personhood, as Thomas Oden points out: “[I]nfinity is a quality that applies to every divine attribute, for God is infinitely merciful, infinitely holy, infinitely just.” ⁵⁸  Because God is metaphysically unique, he is by definition one (or the only being who is God).

2. God is creator and sustainer of all else that exists. In classical theism, all reality is contingent on God—that is, all reality has come into existence and continues to exist because of him. Unlike the Mormon God, who forms the universe out of preexistent matter (ex materia), the God of classical theism created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). ⁵⁹

3. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The classical God is omniscient: he has all propositional knowledge of past, present, and future. ⁶⁰  He is omnipotent as well: he is the sovereign Lord of the universe, is

not by nature limited by anything external to himself, and is limited only by His character and the laws of logic. ⁶¹

God is also omnipresent. Since God is not a physical being who takes up space, it would be wrong to think of him as a sort of gas that fills up the universe. In that sense, he is not everywhere, since God is not a thing, like water or air, that can take up space. Rather, God is everywhere insofar as he is not limited by a spatio-temporal body, knows everything immediately without benefit of sensory organs, and sustains everything that exists. In other words, God’s omnipresence logically follows from his omniscience, incorporeality, omnipotence, metaphysical uniqueness, and role as creator and sustainer of the universe. Although neither identical to creation (as in pantheism) nor limited by it (as in Mormon theism), God is immanent, spiritually and personally present at every point of the universe. ⁶²

4. God is personal and incorporeal. God is a personal being who has all the attributes that we may expect from a perfect person: self-consciousness, the ability to reason, know, love, communicate, and so forth. God is also incorporeal. Unlike humans, God is not uniquely associated with one physical entity such as a body. ⁶³  In addition, if God is creator and sustainer of everything

else that exists as well as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it is difficult to see how such a being could be physical. For a physical being who is limited by time, space, and other forces (which the Mormons believe about God) cannot be the creator and sustainer of everything else that exists (since he did not create everything and does not sustain it), omnipotent (since the universe is something outside of his ultimate sovereignty and control), and omnipresent (since he is in a particular place in space and time).

III. The LDS Charge And Its Problems

Virtually every Mormon scholar who writes on the nature of deity asserts that the classical concept of God is the result of Greek philosophy corrupting the picture of God one would find in both a correct reading of the Bible as well as in the beliefs embraced by the first Christians. ⁶⁴  According to one Mormon scholar, Stephen Robinson, “Much traditional Christian theology has been wedded with Greek philosophical categories and assumptions…. [T]he God of Christian ‘orthodoxy’ is virtually indistinguishable from the God of the Hellenistic philosophers.” ⁶⁵  Ostler writes,

Mormons have rejected the strangle-hold of Hellenistic philosophy on Christian thought embodied in the various creeds. The LDS Church teaches that traditional Christian thought took a wrong turn when it replaced the God of biblical revelation with the metaphysical absolutes derived from Greek philosophy. Anyone familiar with the history and development of traditional Christian thought is aware that Christian theology has imbibed a good deal of Hellenistic philosophy. ⁶⁶

It is, however, difficult to find in LDS literature an identifiable case in defense of this charge that is more than merely an accurate observation that many Christian thinkers in church history cite the works and arguments of pagan philosophers as part of their theological project. ⁶⁷  For this reason, I

will consider this charge a conclusion resulting from the accurate observation that most philosophers and theologians in the history of the Christian church have employed in varying degrees the language, categories, and arguments found in pagan traditions. ⁶⁸

Of course, someone may reply that LDS scholars are not saying that classical Christian theism merely borrowed concepts and terminology from Greek thought. Rather, these scholars seem to be saying that some church Fathers and medieval thinkers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas, for example) unwittingly allowed Greek philosophical concepts and categories to distort the Scripture’s depiction of God. ⁶⁹  This claim, however, cannot be demonstrated by merely citing the influence of Greek thought, whether or not this influence was wittingly or unwittingly allowed. It is an exegetical issue that falls outside the scope of this paper. In other words, as I will argue in my critique below, whether or not the biblical depiction of God has been corrupted by Greek thought or any other philosophical perspective cannot be decided conclusively by looking at the conceptual categories and philosophical tools employed or presupposed by the exegetes, even though such an analysis may be informative in making one’s case against a particular concept of God.

I will argue that the LDS charge is flawed in at least five ways: ⁷⁰  (a) it rests on a vague definition of Greek philosophy; (b) it commits the genetic fallacy; (c) its proponents misunderstand the nature of philosophical reflection; (d) it presents an unclear notion of what constitutes “influence”; and (e) it leaves open the possibility that corruption may occur (or already has occurred) in the restored church.

1. Vague definition of philosophy and Greek philosophy. It is not clear what Mormon critics of the classical concept mean by Greek philosophy. Surely they cannot mean that philosophical reflection has no place in theological reasoning, since their own assessment of traditional Christian theology is based on a philosophical judgment about the nature of knowledge and theology: Greek philosophy is bad for Christian theology. After all, Mormon scholars assume the logical law of non-contradiction when they claim that Mormonism and traditional Christianity cannot both be correct

theological systems in every way. Clearly, even if one believed that Mormonism is more biblical than traditional Christianity or vice versa, it cannot be that they are both correct theological systems in every way. Even though this assessment appeals to a logical principle first formulated by the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, it would be wrong to dismiss it as “good Aristotelian thinking.” It is simply good thinking. This is why it is no refutation when Robinson rejects a philosophical criticism of LDS theology on the grounds that it is merely “good Platonic thinking.” ⁷¹

Perhaps these Mormon scholars are not attacking philosophy, but just Greek philosophy. But it is not clear what they mean by “Greek” philosophy. For example, in one place Robinson calls it “Platonic” ⁷²  and in another place he calls it “Hellenistic.” ⁷³  Ostler seems to employ the terms “Greek” and “Hellenistic” interchangeably. ⁷⁴  But this is very confusing, since these terms can mean so many things. For instance, when Robinson writes of Platonism he may be referring to the thought of the historical Plato, whose philosophy, some scholars argue, had changed in his later dialogues when compared to his earlier ones. It is possible that Robinson may be thinking of the work of the neo-Platonists, including the pantheistic and mystical Plotinus, or he may mean the writings of St. Augustine, who employed Platonic language to explain many biblical ideas. Then again, Robinson may be referring to Philo, the Middle Platonists, or the Gnostics. Hellenistic thinking is even more diverse, since it includes the Platonists as well as numerous other philosophical systems, including the materialism of Democritus, Stoicism, Epicurianism as well as Aristotelianism in all its different versions. ⁷⁵

2. The genetic fallacy. It is not clear why affinities with a pagan tradition would make one’s concept of God necessarily false. After all, Plato wrote about the Demiurge, a godlike being who took pre-existent matter by which he fashioned the world. ⁷⁶  Plato also believed that the soul pre-existed before it was born mortal. ⁷⁷  Democritus held that “everything in the universe (including the human soul) is composed of different combinations of solid, eternal bits of matter called atoms.” ⁷⁸  Aristotle maintained that future tense statements have no truth value, ⁷⁹  which may serve as a philosophical basis for denying that God can have exhaustive knowledge of the future. In addition, Plato seems to have held to some view of deification. ⁸⁰  Yet these beliefs

are more consistent with Mormon theology than with classical Christian theology. John L. Brooke has made a persuasive case that LDS theology contains doctrines from many earlier philosophies and sects, including Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Anabaptism, Masonry, and many others. ⁸¹  Yet, it would seem odd as well as philosophically irresponsible that one would reject Mormon theology on such a basis, since truth is truth regardless of where it is found. ⁸²  To dismiss an idea simply because it has affinities with a pagan system is to commit the genetic fallacy (and/or guilt by association fallacy). Mormon scholar and elder, John Widstoe, recognized this: “A rational theology is founded on truth, on all truth … and ‘A truth has no end.’ In building a philosophy of life, a man, therefore, cannot say that some truth must be considered and other truth rejected. Only on the basis of all truth, that is, all true knowledge can his religion be built… .” ⁸³  So, whether one’s theology is “Platonic” or not is irrelevant; the question is whether or not it is true. ⁸⁴

Mormon scholars may choose to embrace a form of critical realism (or what some non-sympathetic critics call “anti-realism”) ⁸⁵  or epistemological

relativism when it comes to philosophical systems, maintaining that the metaphysical and ontological speculations of philosophers are impositions on reality rather than possible descriptions of it. ⁸⁶  Robinson seems to flirt with this possibility when he makes the following statements:

[I]n LDS orthodoxy, the ontological frame [i.e. the Mormon view of reality or the universe], while a vital part of our theology, is secondary to the truth of the gospel itself, yet Evangelicals and others (including many of our own people) often get it backwards. ⁸⁷

[I]t may seem incorrect by Platonic philosophical standards to believe both in the materiality of God and in the omnipresence of God. Nevertheless, that is what Mormons believe…. If I understand Prof. Blomberg one of his major objections to the LDS view seems to be that finite beings cannot become infinite beings, and that infinite beings cannot ever have been finite—good Platonic thinking. I simply point out that this objection is philosophical rather than biblical. Why can’t the finite become infinite, or vice versa, other than that the idea contradicts Plato’s assumptions about the nature of things. ⁸⁸

Just as it would be wrong for a traditional Christian to dismiss LDS theology because it is “Mormon” rather than because it is false, Robinson cannot dismiss a philosophical argument against Mormonism simply because he thinks the argument is “Platonic.” ⁸⁹  But perhaps Robinson is embracing critical realism and thinks that philosophical systems, whether Platonic or Mormon, are mental constructs that interpret and shape rather than correspond to reality. This move, however, does not seem to help the LDS, since the philosophical foundations of their theological system presuppose epistemological realism. ⁹⁰  After all, if Robinson is claiming that the philosophical foundations of the LDS theological system are not accurate descriptions of reality, then in what sense can he claim that the classical concept of God is a corrupted, that is, inaccurate, description of the true and living God? In addition, if no theological systems in principle describe reality, then precious notions integral to the plausibility of the LDS story, such as apostasy, restoration, and “the truth of the gospel itself,” make little or no sense. So, contrary to Robinson’s philosophical assessment, the truth of the ontological framework, is a necessary condition for the “truth of the gospel itself,” and in that sense is more important than he supposes.

3. The nature of philosophical reflection. There is no doubt that Christian scholars through the centuries have used philosophical terminology and concepts to convey what they believe are certain biblical and theological

truths. And there is no doubt that Mormons have done so as well. ⁹¹  The question, however, is whether these “truths” are being accurately conveyed by the terminology and concepts. For example, the language of “rights” does not appear in the Scriptures, for such language has its origin in the political philosophy of such Enlightenment thinkers as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and John Stuart Mill. Nevertheless, one could say that the Bible teaches that rights exist. ⁹²  For instance, the command not to steal implies a “right to property,” and the command not to murder implies a “right to life.” Thus, it would not be necessarily wrong for a Christian to say that the Bible teaches a “right to property,” even though such a right is not literally spelled out in Scripture. In other words, one could coherently make the argument that the concept of rights is in Scripture, though the language of rights is not.

Many Mormons are quite active in the Right to Life movement. Although “rights” language does not literally appear in the Bible, Mormon scholars surely would not deny that the Bible teaches that the unborn have a right to life on the grounds that the language of rights does not appear in Scripture and is merely the product of Enlightenment philosophy.

It seems that one can make the case that virtually every position one may embrace on whatever topic presupposes or entails certain philosophical concepts and that once one extracts and articulates those concepts, even if they have affinities with, or are communicated with language and ideas found in, traditions that have elements that are contrary or hostile to one’s own tradition, the initial position ought not to be abandoned on that basis, for to do so would be logically fallacious (i.e. at the least such reasoning commits both the genetic fallacy and the guilt by association fallacy).

Consider another example. Because I am a Christian committed to the belief that there exist objective moral laws that apply to all persons in all times and in all places, and I believe that I can find that belief clearly taught in Scripture, I want to develop a convincing case that would persuade my fellow citizens of the truth of this belief. I am convinced that if my fellow citizens embrace this belief, it would further the good of my community and perhaps make the cultural ground more fertile, so that I may be able more easily to share other aspects of my faith. In the process of developing my case I come across the writings of the Greek philosopher, Plato, a non-Christian who shared my belief in objective morality as well as an aversion to relativism in all its forms. Although I recognize that Plato held many views inconsistent with my Christian worldview, his work in the area of ethical reasoning is quite impressive and helpful in supporting my

belief in objective morality. ⁹³  Suppose I develop a sophisticated case against moral relativism, using many of the arguments, rhetorical techniques, and terminology employed by Plato. For example, when confronted with the claim that pleasure is identical to the good, I point out that there are many things, such as murder and robbery, that are not good even though they may bring pleasure to the agents who engage in them. Now suppose that members of an idiosyncratic religious sect of “Christian” moral relativists dismiss my case against relativism by pointing out that because my case apparently relies on Platonic philosophy, I hold to a corrupted view of ethics that is clearly not biblical or Christian. Does such an objection really have any serious bearing on the plausibility of the case I make against relativism and whether or not moral objectivism is biblical and Christian? ⁹⁴

In 1978, the LDS First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney) released a pronouncement that seems to encourage just this sort of philosophical reflection: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” ⁹⁵

It seems to me therefore that if Christians use the language of philosophy to convey what they believe to be the biblical concept of God, they are justified in doing so if they have accurately conveyed what the Bible teaches about the nature of God.

4. The nature of philosophical “influence.” The argument can be made that although Christian thinkers have used and continue to use the language of philosophy, especially Greek philosophy, to convey what they believe are biblical truths, it is the Bible that reshaped Greek thought rather than the other way around. According to the church historian J. N. D. Kelly, “the classical creeds of Christendom opened with a declaration of belief in one God the maker of heaven and earth.” The reason for this is simple: “The monotheistic idea, grounded in the religion of Israel, loomed large in the minds of the earliest fathers; though not reflective theologians, they were fully conscious that it marked the dividing line between the Church and paganism.” Kelly goes on to say that “the doctrine of one god, the Father and creator, formed the background and indisputable premise of the Christian faith. Inherited from Judaism, it was her bulwark against pagan polytheism, Gnostic emanationism and Marcionite dualism.” ⁹⁶  Philosopher Etienne Gilson makes the argument that the Greeks did not think of their

ultimate metaphysical principle as the personal God from whom all contingent existence comes. This is what the Hebrew-Christian tradition taught. Consequently, argues Gilson, Greek metaphysics was transformed by the Hebrew-Christian view of God “whose true name is ‘He who is’ [Ex. 3:14] … ” ⁹⁷

Thus the starting point of the Christian concept of God is God’s metaphysical uniqueness, grounded in both Scripture and the Judaism from which Christianity was born: God is the personal and historically active self-existent Creator of all else that exists. That truth, joined with philosophical reflection and numerous passages of Scripture, have led Christian theologians to conclude that God is also incorporeal, necessary, infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (see Part II for a brief presentation of the divine attributes).

It is interesting to note that Robinson seems to implicitly concede the reasonableness and scriptural fidelity of such theological reflection. For he admits that one aspect of the classical view, God’s immateriality (or incorporeality), is not inconsistent with the biblical portrayal of God. Robinson writes that he does “not expect to find the [Mormon] view of the Godhead or the corporeality of God described clearly in the Old Testament,” nor does he “argue that it was once there and has been removed.” That is to say, “the Bible makes no unambiguous statement about the materiality or immateriality of the Father, and that we may therefore think of him either as having a body or as not having a body without ‘contradicting’ the Bible.” ⁹⁸  This is an interesting concession, for it seems to imply that in respect to God’s immateriality the classical view could be an accurate portrayal of the God of Scripture. But why stop at God’s apparent immateriality? For it seems that there is just as much if not more scriptural support (albeit, in Robinson’s mind, not unambiguous) for God’s eternality, creation of the universe ex nihilo, and metaphysical uniqueness, ⁹⁹  the attributes from which Christian theologians developed the classical view broadly defined. ¹⁰⁰  Given that, Robinson’s concession makes his charge that the classical view is merely Greek philosophy Christianized more difficult to sustain.

It is not surprising, then, that many of the heresies in the early church are the result of trying to remake Christian theology so that it squares with certain Hellenistic philosophies. ¹⁰¹  Ironically, as I pointed out above, some

rejected doctrines, such as the eternality of matter, the pre-existence of the soul, and deification, whose origin can be traced to pagan philosophies, are consistent with certain aspects of the Mormon worldview.

Consider the comments of philosopher Paul Copan concerning some early church Fathers who, like present-day Mormons, believed that matter is eternal:

[I]t seems doubtful that an un-hellenized Jewish student of the [Old Testament] would have formulated something analogous to a Middle Platonist cosmology on his own. What is clear is that these church fathers were strongly influenced by (Middle-) Platonism, which held firmly to belief in eternal formless matter. Their belief in God as an artificer was not due to Scripture’s ambiguity on the topic but because of the strength of the philosophical grid within which they operated. ¹⁰²

LDS scholars argue that they can find in the early church parallels to Mormon beliefs. ¹⁰³  These beliefs were eventually discarded by the Christian church as inconsistent with Christian orthodoxy. Yet, as Carl Mosser and Paul Owen point out, “the very places in which LDS scholars find parallels with Mormonism among certain segments of ancient Christianity are [usually] where some variety of Platonism or some other philosophical school of thought has had the most influence.” To cite an example: “LDS scholars have pointed out many parallels with Clement of Alexandria and Origen—perhaps the two most Platonic of the church fathers.” These scholars “have also pointed out parallels in the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts. Gnosticism could aptly described as Platonism on steroids; it invariably takes Platonic beliefs to the extreme.” Moreover, “what is perhaps the strongest parallel between Latter-day Saint theology and the theology of the early Christians is the doctrine of theosis or divinization. Yet it is this doctrine of the early church that has been described as the prime example of the acute Hellenization of Christianity.” ¹⁰⁴  Thus, one could say that Joseph Smith, Jr. restored, not the true Christian concept of God, but long forgotten aspects of several schools of Greek philosophical thought.

5. Corruption may occur (or has already occurred) again. The LDS charge that the Christian concept of God was corrupted by Greek philosophy, as I noted in the beginning of this essay, is important for the LDS in order to show that pristine Christianity vanished from the face of the earth. For if that had occurred, the LDS claim that Christianity must be restored by a latter-day prophet is buttressed. Although I think the LDS charge is mistaken, let us assume that the LDS view of early church corruption is correct, that the leaders of pristine Christianity, Christ’s apostles and their disciples, failed to protect the church from corruption. Although it is unlikely that the LDS would directly blame the apostles (though they do blame the apostles’ disciples), ¹⁰⁵  it seems reasonable to infer from the LDS interpretation of church history that the apostles inadequately prepared the church, both in teaching and ecclesiastical structure, for possible corruption. ¹⁰⁶  For if their preparation were adequate, corruption would not have occurred. Given that, one would seem justified in believing that such an apostasy could happen again, and may have already happened. After all, the Mormon concept of God, as we have seen, has changed significantly from the time of the church’s founding in 1830 until the presidency of Joseph Smith’s successor Brigham Young. If “change” in a church’s concept of God opens it up to charges of apostasy, one would seem justified in saying that the restoration failed and the “restored” church fell into apostasy like the early church. If not, then which Mormon concept of God is the restored one? Is it the Book of Mormon’s classical view, Joseph Smith’s corporeal God of his early post-Book of Mormon phase, the plurality of finite gods view embraced towards the end of Smith’s life, or Brigham Young’s radically finite Adam-God? Although referring to the early church, Stephen Robinson asserts the epistemological principle that provides a reason for entertaining the possibility of another apostasy: “But there is no guarantee recorded in the Bible that the perfect revelation in Christ would always and forever remain perfectly recorded in Scripture and unaltered by human agency.” ¹⁰⁷

IV. Conclusion

I believe that I have made a convincing case that the LDS charge concerning the classical concept of God does not succeed. Appealing to the

historical influence of Greek philosophical notions on Christian thought (whether or not the influence was witting or unwitting), as many LDS critics do, simply has no relevancy unless the exegetical case against the classical view can be made as well. After all, the classical view of God was developed not merely because its defenders thought it the most accurate picture of the biblical God, but also because they thought it consistent with a divine ontological status that was adequate to capture both God’s actions in history as well as the sort of Being deserving of the name “God” who at the same time is able to perform the actions ascribed to him in Scripture. ^{108 [1]}