In the
early Christian Church it was the doctrine of the Father and the Son which was
at the center of the controversy, and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost played a
secondary role in that debate. In this dispensation it has often been felt that
the doctrinal issues relating to the Father and the Son have been largely
resolved, and most of the controversies concerning the Godhead among Latter-day
Saints have centered on the doctrine of the Holy Ghost. The doctrinal issues
relating to the Holy Ghost in the theology of Latter-day Saints, however, are more complex than it
has hitherto been realized or admitted, and require a separate discussion.1
The
doctrinal complexities of the Godhead in the theology of Latter-day Saints, however, go beyond merely the issues relating to the Holy Ghost, and
encompass the whole of the Trinity. There are a number of passages in modern scripture in which the doctrine of the Godhead is taught in a language that
cannot be adequately explained by the Church’s current theological position alone.
These scriptures, when studied carefully together, reveal a deeper meaning
which has not been sufficiently appreciated or explored by Latter-day Saints,
and which underpins the whole theology of the Godhead in both ancient as well
as modern scripture. Consider the following verses, all taken from modern
revelation:
“And now
Abinadi said unto them, I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
“And because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
“The
Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son—
“And
they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
“And
thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit or [in other words] the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation and yieldeth not to temptation, …” (Mosiah 15:1–5)
“Behold,
I come unto my own to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the
children of men from the foundation of the world; and to do the will, both of
the Father and of the Son: of the Father because of me [in the spirit], and of the Son because of my flesh.” (3 Nephi 1:14)
“And
that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;
“And
that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—
“The
Father because he gave me [in the spirit] of his fulness; and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.
• • •
“And thus
he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the
fulness at the first [i.e. in the flesh].” (D&C 93:2–4, 14)
“Teach
them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the
very Eternal Father.” (Mosiah 16:15)
“Behold,
I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally.” (Ether 3:14)
“And
because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the
Father and the Son.” (Mormon 9:12)
“… And now behold, this is the doctrine of Christ; and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost which is one God, without end. Amen.” (2 Nephi 31:21)
“Which
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.” (D&C 20:28)
“… and
shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the
Father, and the Holy Spirit which is one Eternal God, …” (Alma 11:44)
“… to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above; unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost which are one God; …” (Mormon 7:7)
“… and
he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For
behold, I am the Father. I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.” (Ether 4:12)
“… and
all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father; and the Father and I are one.” (3 Nephi 20:35)
“All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.” (JST Luke 10:23 [c.f. Luke 10:22])2
As one
studies these scriptural passages, a question that invariably comes to one’s
mind is, Why is it that God who “doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
children of men” (2 Nephi 26:33), has decided to confuse the human race
with seeming double-talk? If, however, our faith leads us to believe that God
does not wish to confuse the human race, nor to double-talk, then the burden of
responsibility rests on us to try to find out what else there might be on his
mind. I believe these passages teach what can best be described as the
alternate, spiritual, abstract, or esoteric doctrine of the Trinity or Godhead,
which can be summarized as follows:
There
is a sense in which Jesus Christ is called the Father with respect to his spirit, the Son with respect to his flesh, and the Spirit of truth with respect to the Holy Spirit which proceeds from him, and which constitutes his mind. In other words, his
spirit personage is called the Father, his physical person (or tabernacle) is called the Son, and the divine Spirit which proceeds from him, and which constitutes his mind, and which bears record of them, is called the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.
In the Lectures on Faith the Prophet Joseph Smith gives the most comprehensive exposition of this doctrine that has been revealed so far, as follows:
“There
are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things … they are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, … a personage of tabernacle made or fashioned like unto man, … possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit that bears record of the Father and the Son. And these three are one; … From the forgoing account of the Godhead, which is given in his revelations, the saints have a sure foundation laid for the exercise of faith unto life and salvation, …” (Lecture V.)3
And
from the catechism to lecture V we have the following:
Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son.
Q. What is the Father?
A. He is a personage of [spirit], glory, and of power.
Q. What is the Son?
A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle.
Q. Why was he called the Son?
A. Because of the flesh.
Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?
A. They do.
Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit.
Q. Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead?
A. They do.
Note
especially that Joseph Smith inquires “What” is the Father and “What” is the
Son, rather than “Who” they are, thus indicating that he is discussing them as objects rather than as persons. He is discussing what kinds of beings they are, rather than their personalities. In all of these scriptures by the “Father” is meant simply the spirit personage of the Lord Jesus Christ (as he appeared to the Brother of Jared for example –Ether 3:16), and by the “Son” is meant his natural body, or his “flesh,” as the scriptures tend to refer to it.
The Principle of Dual Significance in Gospel Doctrine and Scripture
It is a
well established principle in modern revelation that God created all things
spiritually before they were naturally created (Moses 3:5–9; D&C 77:2); and that they
continue to exist side by side, each in its own sphere of existence, but joined
together by an invisible bond. The full significance of this principle,
however, has not been sufficiently recognized. All things in fact that come to
man from God contain both these two elements, a spiritual and a temporal, or
natural; and this applies equally to all gospel doctrine and scripture. All
scripture and doctrine that comes to man from God by revelation has this
two-fold nature, and effectively has a double meaning. These two different significations may appear at first sight to be so unrelated to each other as to seem unreasonable, but that is in the nature of the thing. There are rare instances that the scriptures make it reasonably clear that there is a double meaning, and I will make use of these to draw general conclusions. The first is the following quote from Alma. After explaining to his son Corianton what becomes of the spirits of the dead after they are separated from the body (that they are consigned to a state of happiness or misery in the spirit world according to their works), he adds:
“Now
there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state
of misery of the soul [in the spirit world], before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea I admit, it
may be termed a resurrection; the rising of the spirit or the soul [into the spirit world], and their consignation to happiness or misery according to the words which have been spoken.” (Alma 40:15)
Notice
that he says, “I admit,” which means that the doctrine is theologically
correct, otherwise there would be nothing to “admit,” but only to reject out of
hand. Here Alma teaches the alternate, or the spiritual doctrine of the
resurrection. What he is basically saying is that resurrection has a double meaning: one meaning is the raising of the natural body out of the grave; and the other is the rising of the soul or spirit into the spirit world after death. Another example is the following:
“And
that he created man male and female; after his own image and in his own
likeness created he them;
“And
gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only
living and true God; and that he should be the only being whom they should
worship.
“But by
the transgression of these holy laws men became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.
“Wherefore
the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those
scriptures which have been given of him.” (D&C 20:18–21)
This is
a very different interpretation of the doctrine of the Fall, than that of one
man eating an apple. It is the alternate or spiritual meaning; both are equally true.
But perhaps nowhere is this principle more fully manifested than in the writings
of the Old Testament Prophets. This is another complex subject which requires a
separate discussion, and cannot be adequately discussed here.4 Only a few highlights will be shown:
“Go ye
out from among the nations, even from Babylon; from the midst of wickedness which is spiritual
Babylon.” (D&C 133:14)
This
gives the alternate, or spiritual meaning of Babylon as taught in the Old
Testament prophets, notably in Isaiah and Jeremiah.
“And
also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst;
and shall come down in judgement upon Idumea, or the world.” (D&C 1:36)
This
gives the alternate, or spiritual meaning of Edom or Idumea as taught in the
Old Testament prophets.
“And
their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” (Revelation 11:8)
Here
John the Revelator gives us the alternate, or spiritual meaning of Sodom and
Egypt, as taught by the Old Testament prophets.
The
truth is that all the revelations of God to man have this characteristic, and
effectively have a double meaning. In most instances this is not obvious to the reader; but it is always there, hidden beneath the surface. It requires a discerning eye and an inner sight to be able to recognize them.
Fundamental Reasons Underlying Dual Signification—The Union of
the Physical and the Spiritual
Everything
that comes to man from God has a dual significance. To understand the reasons
behind it, it is necessary to understand the nature of man itself as a dual
entity—a spiritual and a natural. The common perception among Latter-day Saints
(and most other people who believe in spirits), is that the intelligent or
thinking part of man consists only of his spirit, and the body does not have the
ability to think and to reason. The attributes of love and hate, the
appreciation of beauty and ugliness, the consciousness of good and evil, the
perception of right and wrong, or the powers of reason and logic are the
exclusive domain of the spirit, and the body is totally bereft of any such
attributes. The human body is considered to be a passive tool of the spirit, an
instrument with which the spirit can express itself. That is not so.
The
human body is made in the image and likeness of his spirit; but that image and
likeness extends beyond merely a likeness of outward form and appearance. It
includes all the inward faculties of the mind and the intellect. The human body
is not just an empty shell, a pretty picture. It is more than just a hollow
tube for the spirit to reside in. It is a complete MAN. It not only has eyes to
see and ears to hear, and arms and legs with which to move and to act etc., but
also a mind with which to think and to reason. The human brain is a complete mind. It is made and fashioned after the image and likeness of the spiritual mind. The human body (or the “natural man,” as the scriptures sometimes refer to it), is such a complete human entity all by itself that he has successfully persuaded the scientific and intellectual community that that is all that there is. The doctors, the surgeons, the neurologists, the psychologists, the biologists, the physiologists can take him apart, and discover that he possesses every element of an independent personality; and because they see no more, they conclude that there is no more. God’s revelations to man also confirm this likeness. The scriptures teach that God made man out of the “dust of the ground,” not merely the “image” or “likeness” of a man (Genesis 2:7). After Adam had transgressed in the garden of Eden, God said to him, “dust thou
art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19). He did not say, “Dust thy body is, and unto dust shall thy body return.” In other words, that which was made out of “dust” was a complete man.
The
human body does not have a life of its own, but derives its life from the
spirit. If the spirit and the body are separated, the body dies; but when they
are joined together, they act in perfect harmonious unison with one another,
while at the same time displaying considerable independence from each other.
The “natural man,” through its own faculties and organs can only see, know,
and comprehend natural things; but through its association with the spirit, and
when empowered by the Spirit of God, can also comprehend spiritual things.
Satan does not have any influence over the spirit of man to tempt him. It is
only the “natural man,” or the human body which is subject to the influence of
the spirit of Satan, which gives him power to tempt man (see 2 Nephi 2:29;
3 Nephi 28:39). If the will of the spirit prevails over the will of the
flesh, good triumphs in man; if the will of the flesh prevails, evil triumphs
in the man. When God communicates with man by revelation, his communication is
designed to appeal to both parts of him, the spiritual as well as the natural. It is designed so as to be comprehensible to, edify, and save both his spirit as well as his body5—hence the reason behind this duality of meaning in gospel doctrine and scripture.
Dual Significance in the Doctrine of the Godhead
As in
all gospel doctrine and scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity or Godhead also
has a dual significance. The natural, physical, literal, or outward meaning is
reflected in D&C 130:22, which is currently the Church’s theological position;
the alternate, spiritual, abstract, or inner meaning is taught in the
scriptures cited, and in the Lectures on Faith. This states that, in the spiritual sense, Jesus Christ is called the Father with respect to his spirit, or his spirit
personage is called the Father; his physical person
(or tabernacle) is called the Son; and the divine
Spirit which proceeds from him, which constitutes his mind, and which bears record of them, is called the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. This Spirit has the attribute of light—spiritual light. Hence Jesus is the “Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9). This Spirit also gives life to all living things (D&C 88:13); hence “In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4).6
As we
have seen, the spirit and the body display considerable independence from one
another, like two separate personages. We have also seen how it is that the
Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Deity, also displays an independent
existence, intelligence, personality, and will of its own7—hence the logic behind the alternate,
spiritual, abstract or esoteric doctrine of the Godhead.8
A more
complete understanding of the doctrine of the Godhead as expressed above also
helps to put in better perspective the early Christian controversies concerning
the Godhead, and their less successful attempts at resolving them. The
decisions they made and the conclusions they reached may not have always been
correct; but they were not as absurd or unreasonable as they sometimes
appeared, or as Latter-day Saints have often understood them to be.
─────────
Notes
1 See the fourth article in this series, “On the Mystery
of the Holy Ghost”.
2 Likewise the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ is more strongly affirmed in modern revelation than it is in the Bible. See Book of Mormon Title Page; 1 Nephi 19:10; 2 Nephi 10:3–4; 11:7; 26:12; Mosiah 3:5; 7:27; 16:15; 27:31; Alma 11:39; 3 Nephi 11:14; Either 3:17–18; D&C 1:24; 19:18; 35:1–2, 8; 38:1–3; 39:1–2; 63:6; 76:1–4; 101:16. In addition to these we may also note the following passages from the first edition of the Book of Mormon:
“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou
seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.” (1 Nephi 11:18)
“And the angel said unto me, Behold the Lamb of God,
yea, even the Eternal Father! …” (1 Nephi 11:21)
“… And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he
was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.” (1 Nephi 11:32)
“And the angel spake unto me, saying, … that the Lamb
of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; …” (1 Nephi 13:40)
All of these passages were edited by Joseph Smith in a
later revision, and the phrase “the Son of” was inserted into them so they read
as they do in subsequent editions. These changes do not necessarily mean that
the original readings were incorrect. I believe they reflect different times
and changed circumstances. The Lord made it clear from the beginning that he
intended to reveal to the Saints far more divine truth than they subsequently
proved able to receive (e.g. 3 Nephi 26:8–11; D&C 6:25–27; 35:20; 42:15);
therefore that outpouring of divine knowledge was temporarily suspended pending
a more appropriate time. These changes I believe reflect those changed
circumstances.
3 For the complete text of Lecture V see Appendix II.
4 This subject has
been discussed at greater length in my book, The Grammar of Isaiah: A Selective Commentary on the
Writings of the Old Testament Prophets (4th ed. ISBN: 978-1-8381250-6-6).
5 “All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has
seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in
regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and
independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our
spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations
which will save our spirits will save our bodies.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 355; see also D&C 29:34-35.)
6 See further D&C 88:6–13; 93:29; Ether 4:12; Moses
6:51.
7 Discussed more fully in my fourth article in this
series, “On the Mystery of the Holy Ghost”.
8 In the March 16, 1898 issue of The Saints’
Herald a short, unsigned article was published in which the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) appeared to be adopting a doctrine of the Godhead derived from the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith, but which appeared to be at variance with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the complete text of this statement see Appendix III. At that time Joseph Smith III, President of RLDS, was also the editor of the journal; and it has always been acknowledged by the RLDS that he was indeed the true author of it; and for most of the following century the RLDS effectively adopted that as their official doctrine of the Godhead, and actively promoted it. However the fact that Joseph Smith III had decided not to make an official statement on the subject, but rather chose to declare it in an obscure article which was not even signed indicates that he himself was not certain of the veracity of the doctrine he was proposing, but was merely floating an idea to see how it would be received. At that time considerable rivalry existed between the two churches, and Joseph Smith III seems to have been exploring the possibility of adopting a doctrine of the Godhead which could prove to be theologically viable, but at the same time be at variance with the beliefs and teachings of Latter-day Saints. In recent decades, however, the RLDS (now called the Community of Christ) has practically abandoned that doctrine, and has sought to distance itself from the doctrine as it was originally proposed by Joseph Smith III, and has been moving further in the direction of the traditional Trinitarian theology of the Godhead. This further supports the claim that the RLDS had never understood the true meaning and mystery of the doctrine of the Godhead as contained in the Lectures on Faith.
The adoption by the RLDS of a doctrine of the Godhead
based on the Lectures on Faith, however, had its serious repercussions within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which resulted eventually in the removal of the Lectures from the standard works, and the publication of the well-known “Doctrinal Exposition” concerning the Father and the Son by the First Presidency and the Twelve in 1916 (reprinted in the April 2002 issue of The Ensign, pp. 13–18; also James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency. Vol. 5, pp. 26–34). Evidence suggests, however, that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time had also not understood the true meaning and significance of the doctrine of the Godhead as contained in the Lectures on Faith, and consequently they had felt that it was not genuinely inspired or scriptural, and that was one factor influencing their decision to remove the Lectures from the standard works at that time. For further discussion see the sixth article in this series, “The Father and the Son: A Personal Note”.
