Part 19 - Joseph Smith's Doctrinal Development

The contents of this post were suggested by Mormon Stories Episode 498. This is one of a series of episodes where John Dehlin interviews Mormon scholar Brent Metcalfe. In this episode, Metcalfe discusses approaches to the critical study of the Book of Mormon. He points out that the contents of the Book of Mormon make more sense within the context of Joseph Smith's life than as an ancient document.

The Book of Mormon was published in 1830 when Joseph Smith was 24 years old. Doctrinally, it reflects where he was at that time in his life.  The Book of Mormon represents a fairly mainstream Protestant world view that existed at the time and place of its publication. Nothing in the Book of Mormon is revolutionary or unique from a doctrinal point of view. The only ideas that differ somewhat from mainstream Protestantism are continuing revelation and the special role of the American continents and Native Americans in God's plan. The Book of Mormon also attempts to settle doctrinal controversies such as infant baptism and mode of baptism that were of great importance to religious people in the early 19th century. Even though these aspects differ from mainstream Protestantism, they were still very much in the cultural milieu of early 19th-century America, as was speculation about Native Americans' origin as a lost tribe of Israel.

Joseph Smith developed or accepted many new doctrines after the publication of the Book of Mormon such as the three degrees of glory, baptism for the dead, polygamy, the potential Godhood of man, and the temple endowment ceremony. The question is, why does the Book of Mormon represent Joseph Smith's precise state of mind at the time of its publication? If Mormonism is truly a restoration of an ancient religion, and according to Mormon theology the Nephites in the Book of Mormon had the purest form of this religion, where are all those doctrines that Joseph Smith developed later? It should not have mattered that he had not yet worked them out if the Book of Mormon is truly an ancient record of a people who already had a fullness of what Joseph Smith restored. The Nephites had over a thousand years to work these doctrines out. They could have included them all in the record and simply transmitted the entire religion all at once to Joseph Smith via their record.

Nothing in the Book of Mormon is surprising from the point of view of the early 19th Century, nor is it surprising within the context of Joseph Smith's personal biography. Instead of representing precisely where Joseph Smith was doctrinally at the time of its publication, the Book of Mormon should have provided surprising insights that took Joseph Smith time and effort to understand, accept, and incorporate into his world view. It should have presented him the pure, ancient religion all at once instead of merely being the starting point of a long doctrinal evolution.

The following quotes, presented in chronological order of publication, illustrate Joseph Smith's evolving concept of God.

For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time. (2 Nephi 11:7, 1830)

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, 1830)

While in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a pillar of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of God and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me. (First Vision account, 1832)

When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (JS-H 1:17, 1838)

The Father has a body of flesh and bones 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 Ghost could not dwell in us. (D&C 130:22, 1843)

The first principle of truth and of the Gospel is to know for certain the character of God, and that we may converse with him the same as one man with another, and that He once was a man like one of us and that God Himself, the Father of us all, once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself in the flesh and like us. (King Follett Discourse, 1844)

Another example of doctrinal evolution can be seen in Joseph Smith's changing conception of Heaven and Hell. The Book of Mormon presents a view fairly typical of contemporary Protestantism.

And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow. And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful, looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection. (Alma 20:12-14, 1830)

Joseph Smith later greatly elaborated on the afterlife, presenting a view that radically differed from mainstream Christianity.

They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace; And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion. And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one. And the glory of the terrestrial is one, even as the glory of the moon is one. And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world; (D&C 76:94-98, 1832)

Later, Joseph Smith further elaborated on details of the celestial glory.

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; If he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase. (D&C 131:1-4, 1843) 

Many other doctrinal developments follow a similar evolution through Joseph Smith's life.  If we assume that Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon with the knowledge and ideas that he had at that point in his life, this progression of doctrine makes perfect sense. The Book of Mormon represents his early ideas that he later elaborated and developed. However, if we accept the Book of Mormon as an actual ancient record, this continuity with Joseph Smith's thought makes no sense at all.

Apologetic explanations of this phenomenon usually resort to hand-waving God magic. God unfolded his doctrine gradually to Joseph Smith, with the Book of Mormon being one of his early lessons. In other words, God manipulated everything the Nephites wrote about over a period of more than a thousand years so it precisely matched where a single man would be in his intellectual development more than 2000 years into the future. They carefully excluded anything this one particular man would not be ready for and only included that which closely matched this one man's development within his cultural environment. That is an amazing amount of micromanagement and specificity for a God who can usually manage only the vaguest generalities hidden in obscure symbolism in other cases. These types of arguments only serve to prop up the faithful who already believe. They make no sense to anyone approaching the Book of Mormon from a critical point of view. Furthermore, the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was a product of the early 19th century is remarkably consistent no matter what approach one takes, while answering each of the critics' points one by one cannot even be consistent itself.